10 interesting stories served every morning and every evening.




1 608 shares, 24 trendiness

Seven countries now generate 100% of their electricity from renewable energy

Seven coun­tries now gen­er­ate nearly all of their elec­tric­ity from re­new­able en­ergy sources, ac­cord­ing to newly com­piled fig­ures.

Albania, Bhutan, Nepal, Paraguay, Iceland, Ethiopia and the Democratic Republic of Congo pro­duced more than 99.7 per cent of the elec­tric­ity they con­sumed us­ing ge­ot­her­mal, hy­dro, so­lar or wind power.

Data from the International Energy Agency (IEA) and International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) also re­vealed that a fur­ther 40 coun­tries gen­er­ated at least 50 per cent of the elec­tric­ity they con­sumed from re­new­able en­ergy tech­nolo­gies in 2021 and 2022 — in­clud­ing 11 European coun­tries.

We don’t need mir­a­cle tech­nolo­gies,” said Stanford University Professor Mark Jacobson, who pub­lished the data.

We need to stop emis­sions by elec­tri­fy­ing every­thing and pro­vid­ing the elec­tric­ity with Wind, Water and Solar (WWS), which in­cludes on­shore wind, so­lar pho­to­voltaics, con­cen­trated so­lar power, ge­ot­her­mal elec­tric­ity, small hy­dro­elec­tric­ity, and large hy­dro­elec­tric­ity.”

Professor Jacobson also noted that other coun­tries like Germany were also ca­pa­ble of run­ning off 100 per cent re­new­able-gen­er­ated elec­tric­ity for short pe­ri­ods of time.

Figures re­leased by the IEA in January show that the UK gen­er­ated 41.5 per cent of its elec­tric­ity from re­new­able sources in 2022 — up 10.5 per cent from the year be­fore.

In Scotland, re­new­able en­ergy tech­nolo­gies gen­er­ated the equiv­a­lent of 113 per cent of the coun­try’s over­all elec­tric­ity con­sump­tion in 2022.

These record-break­ing fig­ures are a ma­jor mile­stone on Scotland’s jour­ney to net-zero, clearly demon­strat­ing the enor­mous po­ten­tial of our world-class re­new­able en­ergy re­sources,” Claire Mack, chief ex­ec­u­tive of Scottish Renewables, said at the time.

While Scotland’s elec­tric­ity gen­er­a­tion was dom­i­nated by wind power, re­searchers pre­dict that so­lar will come to dom­i­nate global elec­tric­ity sup­plies over the com­ing decades.

There has been sig­nif­i­cant progress in re­cent years with im­prov­ing ef­fi­ciency rates for so­lar cells, pri­mar­ily boosted by the so-called miracle ma­te­ri­al’ per­ovskite.

Commercial costs have also fallen, which led sci­en­tists at the University of Exeter and University College London to claim last year that so­lar en­ergy has reached an irreversible tip­ping point” that will see it be­come the world’s main source of en­ergy by 2050.

Their 2023 pa­per, pub­lished in the jour­nal Nature Communications, found that tech­no­log­i­cal and eco­nomic ad­vances meant the tran­si­tion to clean en­ergy is not just reach­able, but in­evitable.

Due to tech­no­log­i­cal tra­jec­to­ries set in mo­tion by past pol­icy, a global ir­re­versible so­lar tip­ping point may have passed where so­lar en­ergy grad­u­ally comes to dom­i­nate global elec­tric­ity mar­kets, with­out any fur­ther cli­mate poli­cies,” the re­searchers wrote in the study.

Solar en­ergy is the most widely avail­able en­ergy re­source on Earth, and its eco­nomic at­trac­tive­ness is im­prov­ing fast in a cy­cle of in­creas­ing in­vest­ments.”

...

Read the original on www.independent.co.uk »

2 576 shares, 55 trendiness

All elementary functions from a single binary operator

...

Read the original on arxiv.org »

3 545 shares, 29 trendiness

DIY soft drinks

In 2020, I started mak­ing my own soft drinks, in­clud­ing a sugar-free, caf­feine-free cola! If you’re just look­ing for the cur­rent recipes, you can find them on GitHub. They were in­spired by recipes like Open Cola and Cube Cola.

Otherwise, read on for log book”-style in­struc­tions and pic­tures of my first at­tempts, which have been adapted from this Mastodon thread.

We start by mak­ing a fla­vor emul­sion from es­sen­tial oils! These oils are ex­tremely strong, and can cause skin ir­ri­ta­tions, so if you want to be safe, wear la­tex gloves for this step!

We also need su­per small quan­ti­ties. In this at­tempt, I’m aim­ing for:

There! In to­tal, we have about 2 ml of es­sen­tial oil. This will lend fla­vor to about 9 L of cola!

But oils don’t dis­solve in wa­ter, right? They would just float on the sur­face!

So what we’ll add next is gum ara­bic, a nat­ural emul­si­fier, that will help the oil form tiny, tiny droplets that stay dis­persed in wa­ter!

Combine 2 g of gum ara­bic, 4 ml wa­ter, and our oil mix­ture with a hand mixer. Keep mix­ing un­til it emul­si­fies, it will take on a milky brown color and the oily phase will dis­ap­pear. This took me about 5 min­utes.

Next, we add: 40 ml of caramel color, which will give the cola its dark ap­pear­ance.

As well as 5 g cit­ric acid, and an ad­di­tional 10 ml of wa­ter. You can also add caf­feine at this point, but one of the main mo­ti­va­tions for me to make my own cola is to have cola with­out caf­feine (it gives me headaches).

Stop mix­ing when it starts smil­ing at you! :D This is our fin­ished cola con­cen­trate. It smells de­li­cious!

Other recipes would now in­te­grate this into sugar syrup made from 1 kg of sugar, but I want to try a vari­a­tion us­ing ar­ti­fi­cial sweet­en­ers, for di­et­ing rea­sons. This is a com­bi­na­tion of sodium cy­cla­mate and sac­cha­rin, which is pretty com­mon in Germany. I’ll use 70 ml.

This gives us about 120 ml of the fin­ished cola syrup! \o/ I’ve been fol­low­ing the Cube-Cola recipe.

Because this is still a very con­cen­trated so­lu­tion and hard to han­dle, I’m di­lut­ing it down to 1 L. In the­ory, this should give a nice cola when di­luted fur­ther in a ra­tio of 1:8. First taste test com­ing up!

It’s good! It’s re­ally good! The sweet­ness is just right for me, and the oil blend tastes nice and cola-y! :)

I like my drinks re­ally sour, so I might add an­other… 10 g of cit­ric acid to this batch. There is a slightly bit­ter af­ter­taste, which I at­tribute to the ar­ti­fi­cial sweet­ener I’m us­ing.

I might also tweak the oil ra­tios to ac­cen­tu­ate the cit­rus fla­vors a bit more in the next batch. And I thought this would be too much food col­or­ing, but it seems pretty per­fect!

What I’d be re­ally ex­cited to try is mak­ing other fla­vors: Orange soda! Cherry soda! Almond & apri­cot soda!

Open Soda (Note: site is no longer on­line as of 2026…) has two pretty weird ones (including a bub­ble gum soda?!), but that’s pretty much all I found. There still seems to be po­ten­tial for re­verse en­gi­neer­ing! :)

And here are two more re­sources I found while prepar­ing my in­gre­di­ents to­day: Jan Krüger’s blog post about tweak­ing cola recipes and Richard Grove’s Notes on Making Cola, which go deeper into food chem­istry!

Made a sec­ond batch of cola syrup with­out caramel color. It’s much weirder to drink than I ex­pected.

I also switched to su­cralose as a sweet­ener, hop­ing that it would have less af­ter­taste. Instead of 1000 g sugar in the orig­i­nal recipe, I used 1.6 g su­cralose, which is ridicu­lous, but it’s still too sweet for my taste. :O

And I made a tool up­grade! It’s im­por­tant to get these small quan­ti­ties right…

This week’s batch: blood or­ange + al­mond + lime (in a 2:1:1 ra­tio), plus as much or­ange food col­or­ing as I dared to put in! :D

I cut the amount of su­cralose in half — still a bit too sweet for my taste. Had to com­pletely guess the oil ra­tios, but I’m happy with how it turned out! My whole apart­ment smells like marzi­pan now.

This time, when I did the mix­ing in a big plas­tic bowl, I no­ticed some float­ing stuff on the con­cen­trate, which I as­sume are tiny plas­tic shav­ings pro­duced by the hand mixer? I fil­tered them out, and might switch to glass or metal con­tain­ers.

In to­day’s cola batch, I re­duced the amount of su­cralose fur­ther to 0.4 g, added 0.07 g vanillin, as well as a bit more cas­sia oil. Good stuff! I call it Syntez-Cola”, be­cause I com­bined ideas from Cube-Cola and Jan Krüger’s recipe! :)

… this is the point where I should start a blog post, and a Git repo with ver­sion num­bers and a changelog, I guess. :P (Edit 2026: Here you go!)

I found de­caf Coca-Cola in a su­per­mar­ket last week, and could do a di­rect taste com­par­i­son. At this point, I pre­fer my cola by a large mar­gin! Coca-Cola tasted bland, like molten cola pop­si­cles. It had an in­ter­est­ing dry­ness to it, though, which I’m not sure how to repli­cate.

Made a sim­ple or­ange soda to­day, re­ally happy with how it turned out! I put the recipe here, along with my mod­i­fied cola recipe, and the al­mond + blood or­ange drink I in­vented!

blinry al­mond 0.1.1 con­tains less al­mond oil, to high­lights the cit­rus fla­vors a bit more. Find the up­dated recipe here.

One of these two bot­tles is a ver­sion with sugar in­stead of su­cralose. 400 g of sugar seem to be a good re­place­ment for 0.6 g su­cralose. Curious to see whether peo­ple will be able to taste the dif­fer­ence! :) (Edit 2026: They to­tally could!)

blinry or­ange 0.1.1, now with 14% more or­ange! :D Recipe here.

Since these early ex­per­i­ments, I made a hand­ful batches of these recipes with­out mod­i­fi­ca­tion. I still think they’re re­ally nice! Especially blinry or­ange is rather unique.

If you try them for your­self, I’d be happy about feed­back!

And I’m still think­ing what in­gre­di­ents might go into a DIY Mountain Dew, or a DIY Fassbrause…

You can add your com­ment to this post in the Fediverse! Alternatively, drop me a mail at mil@blinry.org.

...

Read the original on blinry.org »

4 482 shares, 26 trendiness

Serenity Forge (@serenityforge.com)

This is a heav­ily in­ter­ac­tive web ap­pli­ca­tion, and JavaScript is re­quired. Simple HTML in­ter­faces are pos­si­ble, but that is not what this is.

Learn more about Bluesky at bsky.so­cial and at­proto.com. A state­ment re­gard­ing the re­moval of DDLC from the Google Play Store:

...

Read the original on bsky.app »

5 428 shares, 21 trendiness

The peril of laziness lost

In his clas­sic

Programming Perl — affectionately known to a gen­er­a­tion of tech­nol­o­gists as the Camel Book” — Larry Wall fa­mously wrote of the three virtues of a pro­gram­mer as lazi­ness, im­pa­tience, and hubris:

If we’re go­ing to talk about good soft­ware de­sign, we have to talk about Laziness, Impatience, and Hubris, the ba­sis of good soft­ware de­sign. We’ve all fallen into the trap of us­ing cut-and-paste when we should have de­fined a higher-level ab­strac­tion, if only just a loop or sub­rou­tine. To be sure, some folks have gone to the op­po­site ex­treme of defin­ing ever-grow­ing mounds of higher level ab­strac­tions when they should have used cut-and-paste. Generally, though, most of us need to think about us­ing more ab­strac­tion rather than less.

Of these virtues, I have al­ways found lazi­ness to be the most pro­found: packed within its tongue-in-cheek self-dep­re­ca­tion is a com­men­tary on not just the need for ab­strac­tion, but the aes­thet­ics of it. Laziness dri­ves us to make the sys­tem as sim­ple as pos­si­ble (but no sim­pler!) — to de­velop the pow­er­ful ab­strac­tions that then al­low us to do much more, much more eas­ily.

Of course, the im­plicit wink here is that it takes a lot of work to be lazy: when pro­gram­mers are en­gaged in the seem­ing lazi­ness of

ham­mock-dri­ven de­vel­op­ment, we are in fact turn­ing the prob­lem over and over in our heads. We un­der­take the hard in­tel­lec­tual work of de­vel­op­ing these ab­strac­tions in part be­cause we are op­ti­miz­ing the hy­po­thet­i­cal time of our fu­ture selves, even if at the ex­pense of our cur­rent one. When we get this cal­cu­lus right, it is glo­ri­ous, as the ab­strac­tion serves not just our­selves, but all who come af­ter us. That is, our lazi­ness serves to make soft­ware eas­ier to write, and sys­tems eas­ier to com­pose — to al­low more peo­ple to write more of it.

Ideally, you would want those that ben­e­fit from ab­strac­tions to pay the virtue of lazi­ness for­ward — to use their new-found power to them­selves la­bor on the ab­strac­tions they make. But a con­se­quence of the broad­en­ing of soft­ware cre­ation over the past two decades is it in­cludes more and more peo­ple who are un­likely to call them­selves pro­gram­mers — and for whom the virtue of lazi­ness would lose its in­tended mean­ing.

Worse, the ex­tra­or­di­nary pro­duc­tiv­ity al­lowed by mod­ern ab­strac­tions has given rise to an em­pha­sis on a kind of false in­dus­tri­ous­ness. Pejoratively, this was the

rise of the bro­gram­mer, with the virtue of ironic lazi­ness and ham­mock-dri­ven de­vel­op­ment dis­placed by

hus­tle porn about crush­ing code.

Onto this dry tin­der has struck the light­ning bolt of LLMs. Whatever one’s dis­po­si­tion is to soft­ware cre­ation, LLMs al­low that to be ap­plied with (much) greater force, so it should be of lit­tle sur­prise that LLMs have served as an­a­bolic steroids for the bro­gram­mer set.

Elated with their new-found bulk, they can’t seem to shut up about it. Take, for ex­am­ple, bro­gram­mer-of-note

Garry Tan, who has been par­tic­u­larly in­suf­fer­able about his LLM use, brag­ging about his rate of thirty-seven thou­sand

lines of code per day (and still speed­ing up”):

If lazi­ness is a virtue of a pro­gram­mer, think­ing about soft­ware this way is clearly a vice. And like as­sess­ing lit­er­a­ture by the pound, its fal­lacy is clear even to novice pro­gram­mers.

As for the ar­ti­fact that Tan was build­ing with such fre­netic en­ergy, I was broadly ig­nor­ing it. Polish soft­ware en­gi­neer Gregorein, how­ever,

took it apart, and the re­sults are at once pre­dictable, hi­lar­i­ous and in­struc­tive: A sin­gle load of Tan’s newsletter-blog-thingy” in­cluded mul­ti­ple test har­nesses (!), the Hello World Rails app (?!), a stow­away text ed­i­tor, and then eight dif­fer­ent vari­ants of the same logo — one of which with zero bytes.

The prob­lem here is­n’t these is­sues per se (which are all fix­able!), and it is­n’t even the be­lief that the method­ol­ogy that cre­ated them rep­re­sents the fu­ture of soft­ware en­gi­neer­ing (though that is cer­tainly an­noy­ing!).

The prob­lem is that LLMs in­her­ently lack the virtue of lazi­ness. Work costs noth­ing to an LLM. LLMs do not feel a need to op­ti­mize for their own (or any­one’s) fu­ture time, and will hap­pily dump more and more onto a lay­er­cake of garbage. Left unchecked, LLMs will make sys­tems larger, not bet­ter — ap­peal­ing to per­verse van­ity met­rics, per­haps, but at the cost of every­thing that mat­ters. As such, LLMs high­light how es­sen­tial our hu­man lazi­ness is: our fi­nite time forces us to de­velop crisp ab­strac­tions in part be­cause we don’t want to waste our (human!) time on the con­se­quences of clunky ones. The best en­gi­neer­ing is al­ways borne of con­straints, and the con­straint of our time places lim­its on the cog­ni­tive load of the sys­tem that we’re will­ing to ac­cept. This is what dri­ves us to make the sys­tem sim­pler, de­spite its es­sen­tial com­plex­ity. As I ex­panded on in my talk

The Complexity of Simplicity, this is a sig­nif­i­cant un­der­tak­ing — and we can­not ex­pect LLMs that do not op­er­ate un­der con­straints of time or load to un­der­take it of their own vo­li­tion.

This is not to say, of course, that LLMs won’t play an im­por­tant role in our fu­ture: they are an ex­tra­or­di­nary tool for soft­ware en­gi­neer­ing, but — as out­lined in our

guide­lines for LLM use at Oxide — they are but a tool. We can put them to use tack­ling the non-ironic (and non-vir­tu­ous!) as­pects of pro­gram­mer lazi­ness — help­ing us take on thorny prob­lems like tech­ni­cal debt —  or

use them to pro­mote our en­gi­neer­ing rigor, but it must be in ser­vice of our own vir­tu­ous lazi­ness: to yield a sim­pler, more pow­er­ful sys­tem that serves not just our­selves, but the gen­er­a­tions of soft­ware en­gi­neers to come af­ter us.

...

Read the original on bcantrill.dtrace.org »

6 416 shares, 18 trendiness

A taskbar-style Dock replacement for macOS

The ma­cOS Dock is built around apps, not win­dows. Multiple dis­plays and desk­tops make it hard to track what’s open where. bor­ing­Bar keeps win­dows or­ga­nized by desk­top, with in­stant pre­views, one-click desk­top switch­ing, and pinned apps within reach.

bor­ing­Bar also gives you a search­able app launcher, scroll-to-switch desk­tops, full win­dow ti­tles on chips, and a cleaner work­space when you hide the Dock. As a bonus, it makes ma­cOS feel more fa­mil­iar if you’ve just switched from Windows or Linux.

Shows only the win­dows on the ac­tive desk­top for that dis­play, so you stay fo­cused on what is in front of you.

Jump to any desk­top on the cur­rent dis­play with one click, and see how many win­dows are open on each one.

Search and launch apps from a sin­gle list, then open it in­stantly with a con­fig­urable global short­cut.

Hover a chip to pre­view win­dows be­fore switch­ing, so you can pick the right one faster.

Unread badges from ma­cOS ap­pear di­rectly on chips, so im­por­tant up­dates stay vis­i­ble.

When an app needs your at­ten­tion, its chip gives a sub­tle pulse so you no­tice it right away.

Scroll up or down on the bar to move be­tween desk­tops. Direction is con­fig­urable.

Choose small, medium, or large. Pick the size that suits you best.

Collapses mul­ti­ple win­dows into one chip, with a count badge.

Hide app name text on chips while keep­ing icons and win­dow count badges.

Show full win­dow ti­tles in chips, or just the app name for a cleaner look.

Keeps the Dock out of the way while you use bor­ing­Bar, then brings it back when you turn the fea­ture off.

Mirror bars across mul­ti­ple mon­i­tors, in­clud­ing se­tups where the sys­tem set­ting Displays have sep­a­rate Spaces” is off.

Right-click the bar and choose Show Desktop, or click the rib­bon at the far right edge to re­veal the desk­top.

Right click on any app in the bar to pin them to the bar it­self or to the top of the ap­pli­ca­tion menu.

bor­ing­Bar re­quires two ma­cOS per­mis­sions. Accessibility is used to ob­serve and in­ter­act with win­dows, desk­tops, and apps on your be­half. Screen Recording is used solely to fetch win­dow thumb­nail pre­views and is not used for any­thing else. You can ver­ify this your­self: the pur­ple dot in Control Center only ap­pears when thumb­nails are be­ing fetched, and you will not see it from bor­ing­Bar at any other time.

Yes. You can down­load and try bor­ing­Bar free for 14 days with all fea­tures un­locked. A li­cense is re­quired to con­tinue us­ing it af­ter the trial.

Personal li­censes come in two fla­vors:

Perpetual — a one-time $40 pur­chase cov­er­ing 2 de­vices, with 2 years of sup­port and up­dates in­cluded. The soft­ware keeps work­ing af­ter that; you just won’t re­ceive fur­ther up­dates.

Yearly — a sub­scrip­tion start­ing at $7.99/year for 1 de­vice, with ad­di­tional de­vices at $2/year each, up to 5.

Business li­censes are billed an­nu­ally, start at 6 users, and use vol­ume pric­ing, so the per-user cost drops as your team grows:

For ex­am­ple, a 6-user busi­ness li­cense is $20.99/year, a 20-user li­cense is $69.99/year, and a 50-user li­cense is $144.99/year.

What is the dif­fer­ence be­tween a per­sonal and busi­ness li­cense?

Both li­censes give you ac­cess to the same fea­tures. A per­sonal li­cense is for in­di­vid­ual use and comes in two fla­vors: a one-time per­pet­ual pur­chase cov­er­ing 2 de­vices, or a yearly sub­scrip­tion cov­er­ing up to 5 de­vices. A busi­ness li­cense is an an­nual sub­scrip­tion in­tended for use within a com­pany or or­ga­ni­za­tion and in­cludes vol­ume pric­ing.

Can I use my li­cense on mul­ti­ple Macs?

Each li­cense seat is linked to one de­vice. A per­pet­ual per­sonal li­cense in­cludes 2 seats; a yearly per­sonal li­cense cov­ers 1 to 5 de­vices. For yearly per­sonal and busi­ness li­censes, make sure to pur­chase the ap­pro­pri­ate num­ber of seats up­front, as seats can­not be added to an ex­ist­ing li­cense. If you need more later, you can pur­chase a sep­a­rate li­cense. Multiple users on the same ma­chine share a sin­gle seat.

Personal li­cense hold­ers re­ceive an ac­ti­va­tion key by email af­ter pur­chase. Business li­cense hold­ers need to add each team mem­ber from the Business License Management page first. In the bor­ing­Bar app, that team mem­ber then en­ters their email ad­dress and re­ceives a one-time code to con­firm and ac­ti­vate their li­cense.

bor­ing­Bar can hide the Dock for you while it is run­ning, but it will still be vis­i­ble in Mission Control. When you turn the fea­ture off or quit the app, the Dock comes right back.

Enter the email ad­dress as­so­ci­ated with your busi­ness li­cense to sign in.

We sent a 6-digit code to

Enter the email ad­dress as­so­ci­ated with your per­sonal li­cense.

...

Read the original on boringbar.app »

7 408 shares, 19 trendiness

Most people can't juggle one ball — LessWrong

This web­site re­quires javascript to prop­erly func­tion. Consider ac­ti­vat­ing javascript to get ac­cess to all site func­tion­al­ity.

...

Read the original on www.lesswrong.com »

8 339 shares, 8 trendiness

Mount Lebanon

...

Read the original on maps.apple.com »

9 319 shares, 13 trendiness

Every train, a note.

...

Read the original on www.trainjazz.com »

10 291 shares, 10 trendiness

We have a 99% email reputation. Gmail disagrees.

Oooooh boy. Let’s get this out of the way first. Email sucks.

Now to the how and the why. We’re builders. We love mak­ing tools to help de­sign­ers and de­vel­op­ers live a lit­tle bit eas­ier. We’re pretty good at it. Marketing, though? We do our best, but the truth is, we don’t like to bother peo­ple.

Like a lot of small soft­ware com­pa­nies, we use SendGrid to de­liver our emails. We try our best to fol­low email best prac­tices. We even have a 99% rep­u­ta­tion score in SendGrid. Gold star. A+ stu­dent.

Gmail, how­ever, did not get the memo.

Right be­fore we hit send on our an­nounce­ment emails for our new Build Awesome Kickstarter cam­paign, we took a deeper look at some of our re­cent email sends. Things had gone quiet. Not bounc­ing. Not throw­ing er­rors. Just… dis­ap­pear­ing into Gmail’s spam folder like a possum slip­ping into a vent.

In our re­cent crash course, here’s what we’ve learned about Gmail de­liv­er­abil­ity: it runs its own rep­u­ta­tion sys­tem that has ab­solutely noth­ing to do with any­one else’s opin­ion of you. If you don’t do cer­tain things correctly” (meaning Gmail’s own de­f­i­n­i­tion), you get marked as spam.

Now, there are def­i­nitely folks who will choose to mark some of what we send as spam. And for them, rightly so. We get that. But this is not that. We’ve en­tered a black hole for Gmail de­liv­er­abil­ity. And since 90% (literally) of our email list goes to Gmail ad­dresses… the re­sults aren’t pretty. It looks like this has been hap­pen­ing to us for a while. We’re a small com­pany of just over 20 peo­ple, and can’t watch every­thing all the time. We’d rather be mak­ing you new icons. So some of you may have missed things we were gen­uinely ex­cited to share. That’s a big bum­mer.

But here’s the part that re­ally gets us. At our CORE, our in­stinct is to only email folks when we ac­tu­ally have some­thing fun to share. A big re­lease, some­thing we’re ex­cited about, news worth your time. That’d prob­a­bly be every cou­ple of months, if that. Respectful. Low noise. How we want to be treated. Like, gen­uinely, if we could, we would only very oc­ca­sion­ally send a big email blast to our cus­tomers.

Turns out, the email gods hate that. To keep a send­ing IP warm” and main­tain de­liv­er­abil­ity, you’re ex­pected to send con­stantly. Like… all the time. Which means the sys­tem ac­tively pun­ishes com­pa­nies for re­spect­ing their cus­tomers’ in­boxes. It’s a gen­uine catch-22: send too many emails and your rep­u­ta­tion drops from com­plaints. Send too few and it drops from in­ac­tiv­ity. Try to do the right thing and you get pe­nal­ized ei­ther way. And. It. Is. Frustrating.

We’re work­ing to fix our is­sues by culling old ad­dresses, slow­ing our sends down, and mak­ing sure all of our i’s are dot­ted and t’s are crossed. It’s not a fast fix.

So if you haven’t heard from us re­cently… or if you’ve heard TOO MUCH from us re­cently, that’s why. We’re work­ing on it. And we’ve got a lot of good stuff to catch you up on. In the mean­time, please help spread the word about Build Awesome. It’s a gen­uinely cool prod­uct, and we hope you’ll like it. At the very least, watch the video.

See the Build Awesome Kickstarter

P. S. If you sus­pect you might’ve missed some emails from us, mind do­ing a quick fa­vor? In your email client, search for from:hello@m.fontawes­ome.com in:spam and click the lit­tle Report Not Spam” but­ton. You’re awe­some.

...

Read the original on blogfontawesome.wpcomstaging.com »

To add this web app to your iOS home screen tap the share button and select "Add to the Home Screen".

10HN is also available as an iOS App

If you visit 10HN only rarely, check out the the best articles from the past week.

If you like 10HN please leave feedback and share

Visit pancik.com for more.