"Impersonal" was only ever a label applied to email by people who didn't yet have access to the Internet, jealous they were being excluded. It's the same people who decried smartphones.
In all areas that matter, email is superior to paper letters. And in all areas that matter, no one has proposed an alternative to email that is superior in a way that cannot be applied to email.
In other words, whatever is wrong about email, can be fixed from within the system. Paper letters had to become email to fix what was wrong with paper letters.
> "Impersonal" was only ever a label applied to email by people who didn't yet have access to the Internet, jealous they were being excluded.
This is factually incorrect. Everone I've ever heard use the term to describe email had internet access and was a regular email user at the time they used the term. I'm sure some people who didn't have email have used the term, and I'm sure some of those people had the motivation you describe, but it is simply not true that it was "only ever" used by people without access to the internet (or, more relevantly, email -- whether on the internet or otherwise, as electronic mail existed on networks besides the internet.)
> In all areas that matter, email is superior to paper letters.
"areas that matter" is a subjective category (and, further, superiority in each of those areas is, generally, subjective as well), it may well be superior to you in each of the areas that matter to you, but those subjective judgements may not hold more generally.
> You say something is factually incorrect based on your own experiences
Well, yes, a categorical claim that something was "only ever" used by people with certain objective features and for a particular reason is factually incorrect if it was ever used by people without those features or for a different reason, so personal experience, while inadequate to establish that it is factually correct, can be quite sufficient to establish that it is factually incorrect.
(You'll note that while I state that the categorical claim is clearly factually incorrect, that it is also quite likely that, while not a categorical truth, there have been at least some dismissals that fit the pattern that it falsely claims is the exclusive pattern for all dismissals of email as "impersonal" -- the error isn't in saying that some people describe email as impersonal for the particular reason described, but in claiming that that is the only reason email has ever been described as "impersonal" by anyone.)
> then comment on subjectivity
The comment on subjectivity was on a different statement (a claim of what is superior and what matters, both of which are inherently subjective) not the categorical fact claim. Recognizing the difference between subjective statements and fact claims is pretty important to being able to participate in a productive discussion of pretty much any topic, IMO.
They countered an assertion that people that a particular statement about the impersonality of email was "only ever" made by people without access to email by asserting the existence of multiple people they had known to make that particular statement about the impersonality about email whilst possessing an email address. Which would make the former statement factually incorrect even if the second poster's experiences were atypical.
There's nothing "subjective" about logically refuting one sweeping general claim with a counterexample from ones own experience, unless we're getting really postmodern about whether people actually recall others referring to email as impersonal whilst possessing email addresses or just perceive that to be the case...
Are you kidding me? In my lifetime, letter mail has had a longer run than email. And you presume from our brief couple years with it that email is never going to be different?
Well, I for one can't see any issues with an entire country of poorly educated people being given a card that with a flip of a switch, introduce them to the crippling force of 25.5% compound interest.
I wish I had no morals, making money would be so easy.
"He said the broader economic impact of the card will be felt as the previously unbanked and under-banked are able to gain access to the mainstream economy, and the visibility of their assets allows them to build a financial history and establish credit-worthiness with financial institutions."
Not sure how one builds credit worthiness without credit being granted.
until some point at which the auto-enrollment and e-ads with "Enroll Now" and "Ask Me Later" buttons only begin rolling out, like most credit institutions tend to do.
So, this is this a means to bridge the gap between Hyper-V, Hyper-V app streaming and Docker on the windows side? I'm kinda confused what the use case is compared to other existing product offerings.
Sure. We'll convert each province to a state, take our 20 Senators, and get you real socialized medicine ASAP.
(OK, to be fair, the Maritimes can be one state, so 16 Senators - but Quebec will likely want more in respect of its distinctiveness, so make it 24 Senators. And we'll need at least 2 bilingual justices on SCOTUS, and at least 4 SCOTUS justices will need to have been trained in civil law. Oh, and we repeal the second amendment, of course, then put in place our amendment process. You're just going to love it. But you'll gain from better copyright and patent laws. Not to mention all the comedians who cannot get Green Cards for various reasons. Then again, if it means you keep Celine, we'll stay the way we are, thanks.)
Given that the thread you're responding to leads in with the suggestion to contribute code to improve the application, your point is both factual and totally tangental to the conversation.
If the project is hostile to merging patches (which Calibre's developer had demonstrated), that is relevant when discussing the possibility of a user providing contributions for improving the UI.
