HN user
I see. I use the bcc trick as well - it's not ideal but it works.
As for keeping on the server, it's a setting in the client. In K9, for example, Settings > Account Settings > Fetching Mail > When I delete a message.
K9 only provides "delete" or "don't delete" options. Outlook has "delete after X days", but I assume others must as well.
I like this setup. I've done something similar with POP3 on both PC and mobile: PC downloads and archives mail, but is configured not to delete it from the server for a month. Phone never deletes from the server, and at least has access to the most recent month of email, which is usually enough while mobile.
I'm intrigued by the idea of IMAP on the phone though. Are you able to sync sent mail this way? If you send mail from mobile, will the PC client get a copy of it?
I don't think we disagree here, unless you are proposing to build a separate road system for use by military/police/fire.
The article may imply that, but it doesn't make the case with the numbers it presents. To avoid distortion, you'd like the tax base that pays for the roads to match the usage of the roads. Because non-drivers also benefit from the roads, that means use fees alone is NOT the right tax system. Use fees may well be too low, but nothing in the article gives you any confidence to say that.
It's not as easy as you might think to determine what benefits everyone, though. Even if you live in the city near your employer and avoid using the roads, it's still to your benefit to build roads to the suburbs where the local shops and restaurants you patronize can hire cheaper labor.
Right, it's obvious that non-drivers benefit from the roads too. You could still argue for higher gas taxes or other use fees if you wanted, for example to better align incentives (extra road usage leads to directly higher costs for the user). But this article certainly doesn't make that case.
The argument in the article is misleading given the data it presents. What it should have said is that drivers pay for roads both via the gas tax AND by other forms of tax. The portion paid by the gas tax is itself not enough to cover road maintenance.
Of course, this means that some non-drivers and non-car-owners also pay taxes used for road maintenance. It would have been worthwhile for the author to look up those numbers and tell how much non-drivers pay. Given that most Americans drive, this argument probably wouldn't have the same impact as the one presented in the article.
I also notice that the size of the eye changes depending on your zoom level. There are a number of ways you could explain that, but it's not clear what's actually going on.
The article makes it sound like this is primarily for the drone delivery segment. That makes some sense, because it's at least easy to define the end goal. Do you also have plans for applications where the goal isn't as easy to define? That is, what can you automate beyond obstacle detection/avoidance?
Well that's true to some extent, although it remains to be seen how the motors they're using compare in reliability to an engine and conventional rotor system. Engines and rotors are pretty reliable when operated within specs.
In any case, the controller is probably going to be the bigger reliability factor here, and having more rotors doesn't help with that.
Right, this doesn't make much sense. You can add fly-by-wire and autonomy to a helicopter as well (it's been done). The two come from different backgrounds, though: people are familiar with "drones" being relatively cheap and easy to fly. So scale it up and add a person, and now it's both easy-to-fly and accessible to your average commuter.
Of course, this reasoning doesn't usually account for the cost of implementing all that safety and redundancy stuff that was previously just understood to be possible. Not to mention the cost of getting it FAA-certified when you're done.