> Should the general public be more diligent in checking the sender domain of the emails they read?

yes

I think the main motivator is that most people/businesses would not want their transactional emails to include political at all.

What's the purpose of a primary election? It's to select a party's candidate for a general election. It's not very obvious that this should even be a democratic process, but if it is, why shouldn't party members be the ones selecting their own candidates?

This is a bad idea. But in the same spirit, a bad but less bad idea: require the user to actively enable the deprecated feature via config or something, but have a known schedule to eventually expire it (with a hard error, not randomly incorrect data) and force the user to re-enable it. Causes some pain but not random, hard to track down bug. More like dealing with expiring certs - eventually, the user will want a permanent fix.

how do de-aggregation attacks or whatever you'd call this work?

One of the easiest methods is to find a different data source with overlap and use that to map real people to anonymized lists. Big tech companies find this super easy to do because of all the internal data they already have on everyone

That's not really a rip off, it caters to people who can't afford to buy in larger quantities.

That makes it sound even more like a rip off tbh.

Would you quote the same hourly rate to someone who wanted one hour of time versus a six month contract?

This is how it was with cable, and it was actually better for the content providers. They made shows and got fat checks from the cable companies every year.

Then they all copied Netflix, because the stockmarket was rewarding it, and had to start dealing with billing, customer retention, technology platforms, advertising platforms. And they all lost a ton of money a doing it.

Not quite the same. Cable had regional monopolies due to the high barrier of entry and economies of scale (building cable infrastructure). There is still some economy of scale for streaming platforms, but if you get rid of exclusive content and the difficulty of making license deals (especially for a small player), then it is a lot easier for a new startup to compete in the area then it ever was to compete with a cable company.

It still works this way.

Why is it a poor proxy? Someone who really understands the concepts and has the aptitude for it will get answers more quickly than someone who is shakier on it. The person who groks it less may be able to get to the answer, but needs to spend more time working through the problem. They're less good at calculus and should get a lower grade! Maybe they shouldn't fail Calc 101, but may deserve a B or (the horror) a C. Maybe that person will never get an A is calculus and that should be ok.

Joel Spolsky explained this well about what makes a good programmer[1]. "If the basic concepts aren’t so easy that you don’t even have to think about them, you’re not going to get the big concepts."

[1] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/10/25/the-guerrilla-guid...

My middle school aged child was recently diagnosed with learning disorders around processing, specifically with written language and math, which means even though he might know the material well it will take him a long time to do things we take for granted like reading and writing. But, he does much much better with recall and speed when transmitting and testing his knowledge orally. He's awful with spelling and phonemes, but his vocabulary is above grade level. For kids like him, the time aspect is not necessarily correlated to subject mastery.

Can he build more advanced concepts on top of the ones he supposedly masters?

Can he do that well?

Is he likely to continue to be able to do that as he progresses to the stuff that is actually hard?

(My guess is that the answers are yes (so far), no, and definitely not.)

Take slow processing is a really good symptom of something that needs more practice time.

> Someone who really understands the concepts and has the aptitude for it will get answers more quickly than someone who is shakier on it

That seems like a big assumption that i don't believe is true in general.

I think its true at an individual level, as you learn more about a subject you will become faster at it. I don't think its true when comparing between different people. Especially if you throw learning disabilities into the mix which is often just code for strong in one area and weak in another, e.g. smart but slow.

If you think they nickel and dime customers, you should see what they do to TV and streaming device makers. They can make basically any demand they want because you can't ship with Netflix.