Spit out a random e-mail address and record which e-mail address was given to each IP.

The author mentions it’s a violation of GDPR to record visitors’ IP addresses. I’m not sure that’s correct, but even so, it could be possible to make a custom encoding of literally every ipv4 address through some kind of lookup table with 256 entries, and just string together 4 of those random words to represent the entire 32-bit address space, such that “correct horse battery staple” corresponds to 192.168.1.100 or whatever.

Base64 encoding of a text representation of an IP address and date seems inefficient.

There are 4 octets in a ipv4 address, where each octet is one of 2^8 possible integers. The entire 32-bit ipv4 address space should therefore be possible to encode in 6 characters in base64.

Similarly, a timestamp with a precision/resolution in seconds can generally be represented by a 32-bit integer, at least up through 2038. So that can be represented by another 6 characters.

Or, if you know you’re always going to be encoding these two numbers together, you can put together a 64-bit number and encode that in base64, in just 11 characters. Maybe even use some kind of custom timestamp format that uses fewer bits and counts from a more recent epoch, as an unsigned integer (since you’re not going to have site visitors from the past), and get that down to even fewer characters.

That seems to run less risk of the email address getting cut off at some arbitrary length as it gets passed around.

The use of a “+” convention is just a convention popularized by Gmail and the other major providers. If you have your own domain, you should be able to do this with any arbitrary text schema, and encode some information in the address itself, especially if you don’t care about sending email from those aliases: set up your email service to have a catchall inbox that can further be filtered/forwarded based on other rules.

It can be cumbersome but I could see it working at getting the information you’re looking for.

When I got married, sitting down with the caterer and choosing between dozens of flatware types, I realized that I personally like three dimensional smoothness, with round, cylindrical handles that have some heft but not too much width. I also like cylindrical tines that don’t look like it was made from a flat sheet of metal cut and bent into shape (I prefer tines that are cylindrical, not rectangular prisms).

I also like curves along where the head meets the handle, and along the head itself. No sharp corners or edges.

I dislike ornamentation on the handle itself. I like plain, smooth handles.

I chose the forks for my wedding, and then later on in life, based on what I learned about my own preferences, I bought some flatware that fits those general principles (looks like the Sambonet Hannahs, but cheaper than that very expensive line), and replaced the ones in my house. Now I basically don’t have any forks that I don’t like.

Thompson’s Teeth: The only teeth strong enough to eat other teeth!

Dental printers are a pretty standard way to make these things. There’s a whole regulatory process for testing and certifying the printers and their resins for continued contact with gums/skin/teeth for toxicity, infection, irritation, etc.

But there are still significant drawbacks to using dead synthetic stuff as a replacement for living tissue.

John Mulaney has a joke about how his parents knew Bill Clinton that way, from all going to undergrad together at Georgetown. Apparently all the women loved being escorted by Bill Clinton, and the men were all jealous.

Some infinities are bigger than others, though.

Even if you have countably infinite monkeys typing countably infinite strings for an infinite period of time, there will be an infinite number of strings that the monkeys haven’t typed, that will never be in the set of completed typed strings.

Cantor’s diagonalization proves it.

Two new monkeys show up, and even though the infinite rooms and infinite typewriters are already occupied, you can make room for them by making all of the monkeys move over one room, and putting the new monkeys in that newly vacant room with the newly available typewriters.

If you don’t have the time for homemade, store bought is fine.

Slang term for ejaculating, usually with some projectile distance implied. Very popular term in the mid-2000’s, see Get Low by Lil Jon.

Taco Bell was a cynical invention by Alexander Graham Bell to sell more Bell peppers.

Code switching is a thing.

I have my professional voice for work emails and meetings and stuff like that. I still joke, but usually it’s the kind of mild humor that can be broadcast on TV no problem. I also avoid self deprecating humor on anything actually related to the job (I can still joke about being a bad dancer or singer or athlete or whatever).

I have my parent voice when dealing with my kids’ schools, doctors, friends’ parents, etc. Most of my jokes here are relatable parent humor.

I have my casual voice when dealing with strangers outside of work: friends of friends, neighbors, etc. I joke but don’t really do anything with politics, religion, sex, profanity, etc.

And as I get to know friends, I have several distinct voices that I use, depending on our connection and their own style. I know whether they’re on my wavelength for political humor, crass/sexual humor, etc. And perhaps most importantly, the style of humor: I’ll make references to specific TV shows I know the other person loved (Simpsons, The Office, Tim Robinson, etc.), other specific interests (sports, programming, food), which style of online meme is popular with the other person, etc.

My wife has seen all of these parts of me. We still exchange funny stuff we find on the internet on our shared interests and style of humor, even if it’s only a subset of all the things we find funny.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, do these sound like the actions of a man who had all he could eat?

I wonder how much of it is horny old dudes and how much is actually lonely old dudes. These types of arrangements, somewhere in the gray area between transactional paid sex work and companionship between equal partners might not satisfy the loneliness part of the equation.

(I must say I disagree completely with that guy sharing messages from his girlfriend- that piece is very weird and a total breach of trust)

My impression from the original post was that kind of stuff was what drove most of the fallout. Leaked off color memes aren’t going to ruin people’s relationships, but leaked shit talk or breaches of someone else’s privacy will.

You’re thinking of bacillus cereus, which grows on cooked rice or pasta stored at room temperature.

Evolution didn’t make your teeth to grow like this.

Modern diets are just selection pressure. Evolution marches on.

where saddam

Nobel Laureates Daniel Kahneman and Angus Deaton at Princeton University published a study in 2010 showing that money buys happiness only up to about $75k per year (in 2010 dollars, for Americans), at which point happiness plateaus and more money doesn’t meaningfully buy more happiness.

Years later, Matthew Killingsworth at the University of Pennsylvania published a study showing that happiness didn’t really plateau with money, but kept increasing at $75k and beyond.

They got together to see if they could reconcile their different findings from pretty similar methodologies.

As it turns out, Killingsworth’s data did show the same plateau, at pretty much the same place, if you focus only on the least happy 20%. In a sense, the Kahneman data was focused on only measuring unhappiness, and didn’t properly distinguish between people who were kinda happy, people who were moderately happy, and people who were really happy.

So now the most widely accepted analysis is that there are people who are deeply unhappy, for whom giving them more money might not make them emotionally better off, at least past $75k in 2010 dollars. But for the rest of us, the majority of people will continue getting happier with more money, well up to the $500k income.

Here’s a write up of the collaboration