Saik0

Well… No offense… but duh? It’s not like OP can migrate his spouses “Spouse@gmail.com” address to his mail server.

I was under the assumption (and I could be wrong) that OP owns the domain… And wants to run their mailboxes. If she wants to keep her own mailbox and use it, just forward it to her gmail if that’s what she wants. I’m also not insinuating forcing someone into something.

I own my domain(you guessed correctly) and host my own emails. My spouse does use an inbox on my server(actually a few)… If she didn’t want to anymore she can open a mailbox where-ever she wants… and I’ll even forward whatever I get to her. That’s it. Wouldn’t stop me from running my own inbox on my own server. And I’m not forcing her to do anything at all. She can use it or not.

This is the mentality I have when I made the previous comments. Just forward her stuff off, she can go wherever she wants.

Until the basement floods and the server goes offline for a few days

That’s what backups are for.

or botched upgrade that’s failing quietly;

See above

over zealous spam assassin configuration;

That’s an assumption that you’re using this specific product.

What’s funny is you think that all of this can’t happen to your stuff on Google’s servers either for some reason… Say the wrong thing in a Youtube comment? Boom whole google profile banned. All your emails are gone too.

Or random software that interfaces poorly with each other (https://support.google.com/mail/thread/142335843/all-of-my-emails-have-disappeared-how-can-i-recover-them?hl=en)

SMTP is stupidly forgiving. You’re not going to magically lose singular emails.

This article is referencing new bills that will disenfranchise legitimately registered voters

No. This is what you stated. Instead of showing where any disenfranchisement would happen you quoted

Some Democrats contend the measures could create hurdles for legal voters

This is not evidence of any disenfranchisement is occurring Instead you’re just wildly speculating that there’s some random clear pattern of some sort that simply doesn’t exist.

But one thing is for sure, my wife won’t have any of it. She’s a total backwards thinking give me windows or I’ll jump kind of Gal.

So… forward her inbox to her personal gmail account? Keep your mail server as it was for you?

Some people believe the world is flat. That doesn’t make the statement true. They provided no clear example of how any of it could be doing what they claim it would do. So that random statement starting with “some democrats”… is meaningless.

By changing the language from “all citizens”, it sets up opportunities to selectively disenfranchise those citizens who are able and registered to vote.

No it doesn’t because the verbiage is “ONLY citizens” as the replacement. It’s still VERY clear that citizens are to vote. What it clears up is any argument that non-citizens should also be allowed to vote.

All of the legislation and proposals in this area come from Republicans trying to make it harder for non-citizens to vote.

Yes… Which they can’t do anyway.

https://lemmy.saik0.com/comment/3543053

The ballot initiatives only clarifies and fixes verbiage to make it more clean. Nothing about this is actually making it any harder for legitimate citizens to vote.

I might even go another step and say that it’s an effort to delegitimize our elections by claiming fraud to pave the way for illegitimate power grabs (like Jan 6).

If you say so.

This article is referencing new bills that will disenfranchise legitimately registered voters

Please quote where it says that. I see no such statement.

What’s on the ballot?

Republican-led legislatures in eight states have proposed constitutional amendments on their November ballots declaring that only citizens can vote.

Proposals in Iowa, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Wisconsin would replace existing constitutional provisions stating that “every” citizen or “all” citizens can vote with new wording saying “only” citizens can vote. Supporters contend the current wording does not necessarily bar noncitizens from voting.

In Idaho and Kentucky, the proposed amendments would explicitly state: “No person who is not a citizen of the United States” can vote. Similar wording won approval from Louisiana voters two years ago.

Voters in North Dakota, Colorado, Alabama, Florida and Ohio passed amendments between 2018 and 2022 restricting voting to “only” citizens.

What about changing verbiage to be clear is “Disenfranchise”?

Nothing disenfranchising about unlinking 2 completely different systems that really shouldn’t have been linked to begin with. Licensing drivers and voting together automatically doesn’t make sense if you’re granting licenses to those who aren’t eligible to vote…

If it happens so little that it doesn’t matter, then why relax the standard? It’s clearly working then. You spook people who think it could happen when you do that. There’s no positive to doing that. So why do it?

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

You have a better chance of getting a clear picture of Bigfoot than you do of having a voter fraud incident in your jurisdiction.

Just because you don’t see it. doesn’t mean it’s not there. It would be entirely possible that there is no enforcement… and thus no records of those events happening.

Just like “illegal” border crossings. Current numbers state “Nationwide Encounters” is the number that CBP publishes. That’s not the number of border crossings. That’s the number of people that law enforcement has encountered and handled. This clearly ignores those who weren’t “encountered” but still made it over. Part of that “encountered” number would be things like, “how many border guards do we have to actually ‘encounter’ these people?” If you fired 100% of the border guard force. Well your “Nationwide Encounters” stats would also drop to near 0. That doesn’t mean that there are no longer any border crossings.

Poll workers collecting votes on voting day have no way to validate if your voter registration is not valid. It’s either you’re on the list or not. And in a lot of jurisdictions, simply getting a driver’s license is enough to get your name on that list, even if you aren’t allowed to vote otherwise.

Let’s make some safe presumptions. There are at least some non-zero amount of people who vote illegally (ignore if they’re “illegal immigrants” or not, just in general). How is discarding their votes and pursuing those felony charges enforced? Is that effective? If the answer is “poll workers”, how are they supposed to know who on their registers are not supposed to be there in states that do auto-registration? There is discussion to have here without even bringing up a singular specific source of fraud like this article does.

SteamDeck (and other handhelds like that) are super convenient to demo things out on. Don’t have to lug entire systems to trade shows. Just load up a dozen decks in a bag preloaded with whatever the most stable or latest build of your game is.

It makes sense for these trade shows. More of your game gets into people hands for that crucial demo. Less time wasted waiting in queue at the 2 PCs you brought instead.

It’s a laziness thing. Easier to just cut around “problems” then to actually get a good take in.

So it isn’t whether you’re using Azure, it’s whether you’re using CrowdStrike (Azure related or not)

No. Azure platform is using Crowdstrike on their hypervisors. So simply using Azure could be sufficient to hurt you in this case even if your Azure host isn’t using Crowdstrike itself. But yes, otherwise it’s a mix of Windows+Crowdstrike.

Yes, but Azure platform itself was using it. So many of those systems were down overnight (and there’s probably still stragglers). The guy you responded to specifically called out Azure-based services.

Oh god this make so much more sense…

I had read a comment from OP talking about random shit, then ran into this thread… I thought they just lost their shit. I still wonder… but a lot less now.

If it’s a raidz, you can.

Yes, but at the very least they have to do queries to build that profile out across dozens or hundreds of recipients… And they only get what I explicitly sent to them/their users.

Google collects 100% of the emails you’re getting on gmail and it’s already sent directly to you… so they see it completely… including emails being sent to other sources since it originates from their server (so collecting information that would be going to an MS Exchange server as well…).

Self hosting this means that you’re collecting your own shit… And companies can only get the outgoing side to their users. And never the full picture of your systems/emails.

This matters a lot more than you think. Lots of systems for automation sends through systems like Mailchimp, PHPmailer, etc… So those emails from your doctor likely never originated from MS or Google to begin with. When it hits your inbox on Gmail or Outlook… Well now it’s on their system. Now they can analyze it.