Each email has an unsubscribe link, but my problem is that I don't know if these separate senders represent different email lists. In the past, some companies who've used this pattern have accepted my unsubscribe request on one list, but kept emailing me from another, as if I'm supposed to work out their marketing email list hierarchy in order to stop them spamming me. So these days I don't bother, I just select all and mark as spam when I see it.
I think most of them are spamming you and you’re being nice to attribute to mistakes.
Also, a lot of companies nowadays keep adding weird email topics that you need to constantly unsubscribe from.
If I signed up and turned off all subscriptions, then anything they send is marked as spam immediately. The lack of cost in sending email makes it easy for them to keep abusing all the time.
I basically give companies 0 strikes anymore, and assume the "unsubscribe" link is at best, a dark pattern that only unsubscribes me from that 1 out of their 100 "channels," and at worst, confirms my E-mail address. "Report Spam" immediately.
I unsubscribe, and immediately set up a filter to mark any email from their (sub)domain as spam. Too many sites keep spamming for a week or two after unsubscribing, that behavior deserves a reputation drop.
I'm well aware that some spam also use unsubscribe links as a signal to spam more. I use my gut to decide if I mark as spam and/or block or try the unsubscribe link if it exists.
My gut says unsolicited marketing emails, from popular sites I've never used before, like Brooks Brothers or Robinhood (especially after a "Welcome to ${site}!") or US public school event notification emails are all probably legit mistakes.
I could see even a public school system having issues with getting flagged as spam if they don't include an easy method to unsubscribe because then marking as spam+blocking becomes the best option in response to wrong address.
Yeah, the spin on that used to be "that's because we plan our campaigns in advance and use partners to handle them and we have to submit a final list and..." (insert several different types of horseshit here that might survive a passing glance but little more than that).
The public information sheet implies that in poor weather/rough seas they would do crew recovery in the well deck, sort of like how Dragon works. [1]
From the broadcast, they made it sound like a big factor is the 2 hour program requirement to get the crew out of the capsule. Maybe they can't reliably hit that mark with a well deck recovery?
The other reason is that the capsule can splashdown far away from the ship. In this case it was close (3km or so). It can possibly fall much farther away. In which case boats would be much slower. Add in the possibility of rough seas & bad weather the helos make sense. And just to keep things simple I think they just use them no matter what. Prevent errors. Also gives a chance to rehearse and debug the full recovery process in case it’s actually really needed the next time.
Isn't the American complaint that China did exactly that by subsidizing its solar industry and flooding the global market with panels cheaper than Americans could make?
"Give me a napkin quick. There's a turd floating through the air" - Tom Stafford, Apollo 10 Commander (1969) [1]
"I used to want to be the first man to Mars. This has convinced me that, if we got to go on Apollo, I ain't interested" - Ken Mattingly, Apollo 16 Pilot (1972) [2]
> Free-ranging cats on islands have caused or contributed to 33 (14%) of the modern bird, mammal and reptile extinctions recorded by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List [1]
Cats are probably a leading cause of mortality in birds. [2] Domestic cats are not native to North America. The birds here would not have evolved to avoid them (and beyond that, domestic cat numbers are not limited by prey availability because they're pets bred and fed by humans).
You'll find plenty of studies with evidence that domestic cats are probably bad for bird populations. [3][4]
But to be fair, buildings/glass windows kill a lot of birds too. [5]
Suppose it's true that cats are bad for bird populations. The implication is that just because birds are dying, it's okay to snatch a cat. More than that, that cats should be imprisoned for their entire lives, when they naturally want to roam.
Someone can take one side of this ethical debate or the other, and both sides probably won't agree. I personally find it sad that people would place the well-being of birds above that of a wonderful, furry companion that clearly belongs to someone.
The logic also doesn't quite line up: I was hoping someone would try to justify why it's okay to kill flies but not birds, since that's the real counterargument to this one. Especially when they kill flies with their own hands.
So much of life boils down to "we're the apex species and we do what we want." But such is life. I find it difficult not to call out the absurdities when they appear, though.
To the topic at hand, how exactly is this quantified? I suspect that word "contributed" is doing a lot of work here. [2] seems to admit as much:
> True estimates of mortality are difficult to determine. However, recent studies have synthesized the best available data to estimated ranges of mortality to bird populations in North America from some of the most common, human-caused sources of bird mortality.
The numbers in [2] are admittedly pretty startling. But it looks like they come from one report labeled "2013a". Any info on where to find it, or what it even is? Otherwise it's easy to call [2] a citation when in fact no evidence whatsoever is being presente.
[4] is much better. https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.737 But cats are still only a contributory factor, not the main cause; the report says they're the second leading cause of admissions, not the first. So, high, and worth thinking about.
But again, the cost here is "removing, by force, someone's beloved pet." I'm not above saying that we should probably care about cats more than birds, because of the emotional bonds they form with humans. After all, that's why we're fine with flies being killed, right? No emotional bonds.
> The implication is that just because birds are dying, it's okay to snatch a cat.
I don't think anyone's implying that? It just seems foolish to let your cat roam about. Not only are they at risk of getting stolen, but the risks of getting injured/killed or sick (or poisoned) are so much higher than if you keep them at home.
Whenever I hear about someone who's distraught about an outdoor cat of theirs that died while outside, I feel super bad for the cat, and not quite so much for the owner. That death could have been prevented, trivially.
I believe the Loss et al. 2013a numbers from [2] come from [1] Scott R. Loss (2013).
And, sure, you can look up some other studies [6] that will make you question the accuracy of the numbers but, even if you decrease the estimate by 70%, cats are still killing a lot of birds. Instead of #1 on the [2] list maybe they're #2 (behind buildings).
It's very easy to give a cursory search and see overall North American bird populations are decreasing. Heck, even flying insect biomass is significantly down.
We don't care about people killing flies in their house. We do care about flies dying on a mass scale. Flies are important pollinators! Ecosystems need them.
A few cats killing a few birds is no big deal. Millions of cats killing hundreds of millions of birds, in an ecosystem that shouldn't have cats, is a big deal.
If we armed every American human with flyswatters and sent them outside every day with orders to kill every flying insect they saw then it would probably be very bad (though I think this imagery is also hilarious).
I don't really want to get into my full opinion on the ethics and morality of pet ownership. Stealing other people's pets is wrong. I think if one lives in North America and feels their cat needs outdoor time then it should be supervised on their own property or train it and walk it with a harness and leash. Catios are neat too.
Once again: You kill flies. Sometimes dozens of them. Your conscience is clear. That's wildly selfish of you, yet you don't seem to care about the flies. Why not? They're just as much a part of the ecosystem as the birds.
Also, this entire discussion is off-topic. The point was for vets to verify microchips, something directly related to the article.
you literally just quoted something about "respond to the central argument" to me. instead of following your own advice, you are closing your eyes, saying "off-topic" and yelling "what about!". all the while, ignoring the entire argument being put forth (alongside the dozens of citations that back the argument up).
> I'm looking after for my cat's wellbeing, not some bird's
What a selfish way to look at things. So you think it's fine to bring invasive species into a new environment and let them damage the local ecosystem? Cool cool cool.
If you were truly looking after your cat's well-being, you'd keep them inside in the first place. Their attachment to roaming about is not as strong or essential as you seem to think it is.
Suppose someone were arguing that you should imprison your own child for their entire life, because every time they go outside, they kill ants. Would you still consider it selfish to disagree?
Except "the birds" aren't your animals. I don't know why there are so many low-quality comments tonight. It's as if people will address everything except my central point, which is: you routinely kill a bunch of stuff without batting an eye. Yet in this case, we're supposed to feel sorry for the birds, even though you don't feel sorry for flies or ants.
It's my legal right to let my animal roam. You can have a problem with it as much as you'd like. Just don't put your hands on my cat, and we're fine.
As far as I can tell, we seem to be living in an age where the entire world is a bit crazy on a certain topic. Slavery used to be legal, and normal. This to me is no different. You justify keeping them indoors for their entire lives on the basis that birds might die. That's asinine, especially from hypocrites that are happy to kill flies when it suits them. Cats don't harm you, and they don't harm your animals.
I didn’t say anything about birds or flies or ants.
I have pets. They are allowed into my yard. They don’t leave my yard. If your cat enters my yard because you don’t want to crimp their free spirited wanderlust, it’s going to end up in an altercation with my pets.
>Slavery used to be legal, and normal. This to me is no different.
people pointing out how damaging your cat is and saying you should keep it inside is the same as fucking slavery?
fuck me, that is one the most out-to-lunch things i have heard someone say in a long time. slavery! jesus christ.
go up to someone who has a family that suffered as slaves. tell them that keeping a cat indoors is the same as what their family suffered. please. i will watch it when it shows up in a worldstar video.
>Cats don't harm you, and they don't harm your animals.
there are probably ~50 citations in this thread about how they do, about how they have caused the extinction of multiple species, etc. but yeah, whatever.
> the cost of interceptors is greatly more expensive than the cost of building the conventional missiles
And the same thing is true with this comparison. The cost comparison is not interceptor vs conventional missile.
It's interceptor vs conventional missile + the damage the missile would have done.
Yes, you don't want to use Patriots to intercept Shaheds but that's an argument for using the right tool for the job. It's not an argument that the economics of interception are completely broken.
Ukraine has interceptors that are cheaper than Shaheds.
Nearly every time I add the free EGS games to my cart the checkout fails. I frequently have to restart the EGS client for checkout to work (and even then it fails often).
I launched EGS just now to time some comparisons and it's a black rectangle on my screen with no GUI (probably self-updating). I had to kill the process and restart it.
The Look and Feel for the EGS client just feels slow. Not that Steam is always amazing in this regard either but it's way better than EGS. Go to your EGS library and click between "favorites" and "all games". Switching from favorites to all games takes me ~4 seconds, every time (if you have any meaningful number of games).
The search/sort is slow. Steam's feels instant.
The library list has a ton of wasted space. In terms of vertical space, the Steam library lists three games for every game EGS lists.
The EGS social features compared to Steam are downright anemic (and Steam is pretty bad compared to something like Discord). You can't even set an avatar in EGS. Even EA's Store app (whatever they call Origin now) lets you do that.
Steam game releases seem to be up maybe a bit more than expected. [1]
And you can even see the number of new games that disclosed using generative AI (~21% in 2025). [2]
And that's probably significantly undercounting because I doubt everyone voluntarily discloses when they use tools like Claude Code (and it's not clear how much Valve cares about code-assistance). [3]
Also no one is buying or playing a lot of these games.
I have a generic name gmail account and people with my name frequently accidentally use my email address when signing up for stuff.
When I get unsolicited mail which doesn't include a simple unsubscribe link then I just report as spam instead.
reply