For work, Outlook. For personal mail, Spark

I use Thunderbird on Mac too. Pretty much the only thing I’ve been using since a decade now due to proper cross platform support and much more features than anything else I’ve seen. @U66G3SGP5 the cpu use seems quite weird, you could reach out to them @mozthunderbird on twitter. They are quite responsive there!

and if I leave it up a few hours while not at computer I get this:

my fan is permanently running

unusable

One thing I can think of is if you have a lot of mail in your account, by default it tries to sync it all locally when you add an account. You could try putting the setting at sync last 30 days or something. This could be something that could be causing the cpu hog from the indexing it does for search etc.

This is different from other email clients as they use some sort of middle server to do all this, thunderbird is fully local, tries to be privacy friendly

Again this is just off the top of my head, could be various other reasons too 😅 if this doesn’t solve it, twitter definitely is a better bet!

I tried a lot of different macOS clients and finally just gave up and used a web browser to access my email (since all my accounts have web UIs available). Same now I've switched to Windows, TBH, I just can't find a mail client that I like that isn't buggy as hell. I do keep coming back to Mailbird tho' but I pay $60/year for it (and it's still annoyingly buggy/quirky so I still use a web browser sometimes).

Unironically emacs

Why?

it is increasingly hard to get your mail accepted by those two, and everyone else is on one of those two

i.e. if you self-host your mail, and you can't send mail to google or MS, you don't really have a mail setup

> it is increasingly hard to get your mail accepted by those two Is there an article about it?

There are many, many email providers, and I have read a plenty of materials on them when deciding on a GMail alternative for a corporate mail. I don't remember stumbling upon any reasonable account about not being able to send an email, except for maybe one case where the person was trying to set up their own server and they've failed to do some required steps.

I've had issues with mail to MS recently on a http://posteo.de account

With self-hosted, I've experienced endless troubles with delivery to gmail users

Here's one article https://cfenollosa.com/blog/after-self-hosting-my-email-for-twenty-three-years-i-have-thrown-in-the-towel-the-oligopoly-has-won.html

> go to spam Ah, that's not what I thought. I thought you meant that the email literally doesn't get delivered.

But I doubt it will result in a true oligopoly. There'll be some kind of balance - when it tips one way, it results in court cases, when it tips the other, in lost revenue. It's a perpetual process, for as long as the judicial system is not a part of any giant corporation, and for as long as giant corporations can exist.

I'm kinda done with mail honestly

The amount of crap you need to pile onto mail to make it barely tolerable but still less functional and more insecure than anything designed in the last 20 years is just too much

> less functional Well, it has its use cases. If something fits better, then yeah, makes sense to go for that something. > more insecure Do you mean that one needs an extra mechanism to guarantee legitimacy of outgoing mail, like digital signatures? Or is it something else?

This summarizes it pretty well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16088386 (yeah yeah, orange site, sue me)

The "subject is plaintext" one is really the nail in the coffin for me.

And even ignoring that, well, by and large mail encryption has not panned out. Most mail is just plain-text. Transport-layer encryption at least is widely deployed now, and that would maybe be considered acceptable in a world where most people are on small or self-hosted mail servers, but it's a joke if all mail goes either from or to Google or MS anyways.

The way I read it (and I'm no security expert by any means), the main gripe is the absence of end-to-end encryption. And yeah, that's fair - if you need it. Hmm, and I guess that's no way to guarantee that the other person uses a secure transport layer. Although exactly because of your argument about oligopolies, most people probably do. But personally I wouldn't say that those things are a reason to "be done with email". After all, Slack is not secure - and it's perfectly usable. Or WhatsApp, or Telegram, or whatever else. It all depends on your needs. Thomas also says: > We have secure messaging systems today, systems billions of people already use, they're designed from the ground up to handle these problems And I'm curious as to what those systems are... The scope of billions makes it sound as if I ought to know it, but as I said - WhatsApp or Telegram are not secure (or Slack, or Discord), Signal is not used by that many people. So I'm baffled.

Not only is there no way to guarantee that the other person uses a secure transport layer, even if they do, your mail is readable in plain text by the oligopolist.

WhatsApp is a ton more secure FWIW.

It uses the same cryptosystem as Signal, and has done so for years.

> WhatsApp is a ton more secure FWIW Right, but that service specifically IMO does not deserve to be put near the word "secure". Just take the most recent thing that Wiki mentions: > In May 2022, the FBI stated that an ISIS sympathizer, who was plotting to assassinate George W. Bush, was arrested based on his WhatsApp data. According to the arrest warrant for the suspect, his WhatsApp account was placed under surveillance. Putting an account under surveillance. How would something like that be possible if there was a true e2e encryption? And it's just the most recent thing. WhatsApp has been plagued with all sorts of holes from the get go, including 0 click "all your data are belong to us" kinds of things.

There is a slight tiny problem with WhatsApp: They say it's encrypted and secure but they let you do a backup and you can only do this backup onto Google Drive (at least this is the case on android). And that means that now your messages get stored onto Google's servers where previously you were just using the app. On top of that if you don't download WhatsApp's message history from Facebook's servers and you're kind of... let's say "forced" to put it onto Google Drive. That's not a very good idea IMO. For emails you can at least set up your own domain and email server if you want. But you can't do your own WhatsApp server... that's not apples to apples anymore, is it?

I'm with @U033F53LU0M on all points raised. (We probably have similar filter bubbles. 😝) My self-hosted server has never been on a spam blacklist, but, (allegedly) due to running on infra of a provider that has had blacklisted servers before, my mail goes directly to spam in 90+% of GMail accounts. It hasn't required lots of maintenance in the last few years, but I probably won't self-host again. The lack of a simple, well supported SMTP server on Linux (like OpenBSD's wonderful https://www.opensmtpd.org/) doesn't help the case for self-hosting either. I've completely given up on encrypted email, rather keeping it plain text and treating it as such. While WhatsApp may be a lot more secure (though I'm not so sure about private), it would be awfully disappointing if we replace a practical duopoly with a definite monopoly like WhatsApp, Telegram, even Signal. An email killer must, for the sake of an open internet, be an open, federated protocol (like email), but with better security and privacy, and preferably simpler than email. https://matrix.org/ checks all those boxes. I hope it wins over time. Though I'm not going to hold my breath.

there is definitely room around google and MS. can you not self-host and then have your mail delivered by someone else? right now my MS account is in some state where i can't log in, or reset the password, and i get weird errors whenever i interact with MS servers. with google, it's easy to get your account banned from youtube or whatever and then you don't have your gmail working anymore. i can't rely on those platforms for the businesses i'm in and we are moving everything off of both of those companies.

For the sake of posterity: I'm not a fan of WhatsApp at all, it is riddled with issues. It gets E2E crypto right, by virtue of doing exactly what Signal does, but is terrible in almost every other respect.

As for Matrix: We (the Nix community) have been using it for quite a while now for pretty much the same purpose that this Slack exists for, and for that it works great. I'm not sure it can be a mail killer though, that would require much broader general adoption.

Freelancers can have many contracts and they're short-lived. And IMO prior to corona it was harder to do the remote-only things :thinking_face: Also do you think about working 20h/week in two jobs for 40h total or 40h/week in two jobs for 80h total? How does this math add up?

> won't be rewarded for it That is the key. I know that from a book and I also know that from my own experience. Even if you negotiate that your salary will be reviewed.

I don't remember the arguments but from employer's perspective the employee is always greedy and doesn't bring much value. Employees don't have imagination therefore they work in your job. They can't quit because they don't really know anything more than the job itself. So the only thing they can ask for is more pay which is actually controlled by the amount of newbs in the space. And for IT the amount of new people is (as Uncle Bob would tell) "doubling every five years". So I completely agree that there is some bad stuff going on here if you want to scale vertically.

I know. But I'm not talking about employer being guilty. I'm talking about a non-guilty-feeling-employer managing an employee :thinking_face:

Even though you'd think you're guilty in that situation doesn't mean that they think about it this way.

But yeah, the tips on that website are pretty evil. I think that if anybody needs to resort to these tricks then it's already getting out of hand and there is no way to last long in both jobs by juggling it this way :thinking_face:

> would it matter if someone is accomplishing their tasks Ah, you're right :thinking_face:

> Why is it okay for someone to take on multiple jobs in retail or food service, for example, but it's not okay for someone to have 2+ remote jobs? I think it is worth acknowledging that this is hardly a privilege on behalf of the working poor. Nobody in retail is working two jobs because they want to, but because they need to in order to survive. I don't think it behooves us to value overwork as aspirational, and it makes competition for our fellow workers that much harder in a space where employers seem determined to make it as hard as humanly possible to get hired (and then complain that they "can't find talent"...) If 40 hours a week is not enough for your living, then the problem is not on us.

well said

My company exhausted every angle to avoid having layoffs, and has never done layoffs in its history. I don't see myself being happy moonlighting at another job against the policy of my first job because it would feel greedy, deceptive, and because going the extra mile makes me feel like I'm thriving. Also, I've had 2 jobs before and while it may work OK when you're young, full of energy, and have no committments, I couldn't do it today.

I have a side gig as an online adjunct teacher at a university, and this is above-board with my primary employer... Feels good, I get to teach the rising generation Clojure which fills my heart, and it pays a little extra for my hobbies/expenses

It can be greedy to financially secure yourself if you do it in a greedy way

There are many 50+ developers at my company

And many others that have moved into management

Mine did; they fought like heck to prevent layoffs

business is built on trust... "Just business" is a misnomer

at strange loop this year there was this wild idea i heard about from some folks at the new york times, something about organizing and collective bargaining, started with a "U", can't quite put my finger on it ...

Because capitalism. An employer's job is to extract the maximum possible labor, for the least amount of capital, in order to maximize profit. That priority is always what you are competing with, and because they hold all the capital, and your livelihood as a result, they will have a decidedly strong competitive advantage in that negotiation every time.

I feel like I'm treated fairly by my company and I have enough compensation to be content. And with the extra energy I have, I'm able to help students. No cynicism here. I acknowledge that I'm quite privileged to be able to say this.

Most FT professional employment contracts have a "5% clause" or something similar that prevents you from taking on any significant employment outside the scope of your primary contract. Failure to abide by those provisions can seriously jeopardize your future employment opportunities if word gets around - IMO it's not at all worth it. I once had a colleague who got caught double-dipping and lost both jobs as a result. He got away with it for a while because that place was a total mess, but it also turned out he was offloading the work he was supposed to be doing on to his other team members (who were both women) by asking them for "help." Real slimeball behavior. That always makes me wonder how many stories of people double-dipping or "overemployment" exist because there's something similar going on.

overemployment makes sense if you exclude everyone in the situation other than you and your employer. it is a very individualistic and atomized way of reacting to the very real conditions that many workplaces impose on people. I think what Annaia is saying matches my thoughts. The overworking/overemployment thing feels like crabs in a bucket trying to climb over each other to try and get out, ultimately trapping themselves and everyone else. Rather, if people worked together to negotiate better conditions, we wouldn't need to take 3 jobs to make a decent living or speedrun to retirement.

>> Failure to abide by those provisions can seriously jeopardize your future employment opportunities if word gets around > How can it jeopardize your future employment opportunities? I think that is the key part of how it could. At least for me, all of my jobs (past my first) have been due to relationships and connections with former colleagues. Doing something to damage my reputation would hurt. I'd imagine working two jobs concurrently might damage it (unless I continued to perform well at both and I don't think I'd be able to do that at the level I expect of myself). Yes, I could go find opportunities not through my network if that started being a problem but I'm doubtful I'd find as good, enjoyable, or as profitable of opportunities. 🤷

> I don't think this is a fair comparison. Life is a bucket and society are crabs trying to climb over each other to try and get out. What's unfair about it? I think you're asserting that it's not only a fair comparison but the way things actually have to be with your next sentence. I vehemently disagree with that.

"the game" is something that we made up, and we can change the game. it is nothing intrinsic about the world. IME most people act with regard to their fellow humans despite systems that dehumanize us and push us to be in conflict. the change needed is harnessing that tendency for respect and cooperation with organization. if you really internalize the world view that it's every person for themselves, then the only potential solution in that framework is to climb over everyone and ignore everyone else. but even that fails for most people, because the systems that keep us in conflict with each other are built to handle any one person trying to escape. hence the analogy: crabs in a bucket don't get out of the bucket. they get cooked. it's not a framework that leads one to any actual solutions. it just feels smart because in the face of a system that controls most of our waking lives, it's easier to agree with it. but our day to day working lives don't need to be a bucket that we're trying to escape.

You seem pretty persuaded to get a second job... not much else to talk about in that case

Are you planning to delete all your comments again?

The entire thread is already archived and publicly searchable so it doesn't matter if he does @USDPTD3FY -- it's all on the public record at this point.

On the subject at hand, I have no idea how I'd have time for a second job. My current job fills my working day, 9-5, most of the time so where would I even fit in an extra 40 hours a week, even if I wanted to? As for salaries, I've been approached several times with offers that are 1.5x to 2x my current salary but those offers come with a lot of tradeoffs I don't want to make (mostly commute time/flexibility of hours issues). I've also worked as a freelance/consultant and when I did so, I typically limited my hours to about 30 per week because my tradeoff there for the increased overhead of managing my own (small) business and cultivating more clients was having, essentially, 3-day weekends every week.

I think, ultimately, everyone makes their own choice. If folks want to try to work two or three or more jobs in IT and believe they can satisfy every employer, fine, go for it! It's a set of tradeoffs that work for them.

As for developers 50+, well, I turned 60 in July and I'm still happy being a hands-on software architect and plan to keep doing so for another five years at least, and I expect I'll continue to maintain OSS projects even after I fully retire from "work". As long as I stay sharp enough and continue to enjoy it, I want to keep doing it. I started programming for fun as a young teenager in the '70s and I've been a professional developer full-time for over 40 years at this point.

I think it's quite toxic to talk about this in small communities as this one. Yes, Clojure can be done remotely. But if people will start cheating it will eat-up the reputation of Clojure. That's not good for those employees that don't cheat. And then if people cheat then end up with the prisoner's dilemma type of games: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma I'm not going to point fingers who betrays who first (or who has the upper-hand in negotiations) but I think that in every conflict we always have two parties that enable and push each other over the limit. The reputation effect should probably be smaller in Java or other larger communities where there are literally tons of jobs and employees (i.e. if you cheat then do Java).

Wikipedia nailing it with a graphic (employee gives diamonds, receives cash):

I couple of mates have 2 full time cpntrscting jobs, one is a dev, one is BA. They seem to hsve enough rime in the day to do both without getting stressed. You make a lot of money! One is on close to £200k combined.