[cctalk] Re: AI? Really?

On 27/01/2025 21:37, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: Is there any way to temporarily suspend delivery from the list without unsubscribing? Most full email clients (e.g. Thunderbird, which I think you're using) have ignore thread and ignore branch (subthread) - right click and prune away.

[cctalk] Re: How enough is Enough? Was Re: Re: AI? Really?

On 1/27/25 13:41, Doc Shipley via cctalk wrote: > On 1/27/25 15:37, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: >> Is there any way to temporarily suspend delivery from the list without >> unsubscribing? > > I have procmail sort CC into its own folder, and when it gets like this > I just hit "Mark All Read".  T

[cctalk] How enough is Enough? Was Re: Re: AI? Really?

On 1/27/25 15:37, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: Is there any way to temporarily suspend delivery from the list without unsubscribing? I have procmail sort CC into its own folder, and when it gets like this I just hit "Mark All Read". That way I can still cherry-pick what I want to read, most

[cctalk] Re: AI? Really?

Is there any way to temporarily suspend delivery from the list without unsubscribing?

[cctalk] Re: AI? Really?

Fuck this shit. I'm out. On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 10:33 AM Peter Corlett via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 06:37:46AM -0800, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: > [...] > > Perhaps, instead of gravity being .5 G back then, it was merely only on > > half the time? Perha

[cctalk] Re: AI? Really?

One factor, gravity may have been .5 G back then. On Mon, 27 Jan 2025, Adrian Godwin wrote: It may have been only 4.9 m/s^2 but it would still be 1.0 x the acceleration due to gravity, wouldn't it ? And, THAT is why nobody noticed any change, the Gravitometer continued to show "1.0"

[cctalk] Re: AI? Really?

Fred Cisin via cctalk [2025-01-27 15:37:46]: Whereas, the catflap may simply be product development/evolution from gates that were sufficiently porous that cats could squeezze through? Cats don't really need catflags: -- Hilsen Ha

[cctalk] Re: AI? Really?

On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 06:37:46AM -0800, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: [...] > Perhaps, instead of gravity being .5 G back then, it was merely only on > half the time? Perhaps being done at a high enough frequency to not be > noticed, similarly to SCR "phase control lamp dimming"? Yoy may jest, bu

[cctalk] Re: AI? Really?

On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 2:47 PM Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: > On Tue, 21 Jan 2025, ben via cctalk wrote: > >> One factor, gravity may have been .5 G back then. It may have been only 4.9 m/s^2 but it would still be 1.0 x the acceleration due to gravity, wouldn't it ? >

[cctalk] Re: AI? Really?

On Tue, 21 Jan 2025, ben via cctalk wrote: One factor, gravity may have been .5 G back then. On Sun, 26 Jan 2025 at 14:54, Alexander Schreiber via cctalk wrote: And isn't it reassuring to notice that nobody has turned off the gravity by accident? On Mon, 27 Jan 2025, Liam Proven via cctal

[cctalk] Re: AI? Really?

On Sun, 26 Jan 2025 at 14:54, Alexander Schreiber via cctalk wrote: > > And isn't it reassuring to notice that nobody has turned off the gravity > by accident? "Gravity," said Dirk with a slightly dismissed shrug, "yes, there was that as well, I suppose. Though that, of course, was merely a disco