Actually a joke doesn't necessarily needs to be funny, and depending on the framing not even humor.
Gregory Bateson's "A Theory of Play and Fantasy" (in Steps to an Ecology of Mind) (1972):
Bateson argues that certain communicative acts signal themselves as "play" or "non-literal." A joke is such an act—structured and marked by "metacommunicative" cues, indicating that it should not be taken at face value.
Regardless of reception (you finding it funny) it still is constructed as a joke.
Joking aside, this is Marvin Minsky's paper "Jokes and their Relation to the Cognitive Unconscious", published in Cognitive Constraints on Communication, Vaina and Hintikka (eds.) Reidel, 1981. More fun than a barrel of an infinite number of monkeys.
>Abstract: Freud's theory of jokes explains how they overcome the mental "censors" that make it hard for us to think "forbidden" thoughts. But his theory did not work so well for humorous nonsense as for other comical subjects. In this essay I argue that the different forms of humor can be seen as much more similar, once we recognize the importance of knowledge about knowledge and, particularly, aspects of thinking concerned with recognizing and suppressing bugs -- ineffective or destructive thought processes. When seen in this light, much humor that at first seems pointless, or mysterious, becomes more understandable.
>A gentleman entered a pastry-cook's shop and ordered a cake; but he soon brought it back and asked for a glass of liqueur instead. He drank it and began to leave without having paid. The proprietor detained him. "You've not paid for the liqueur." "But I gave you the cake in exchange for it." "You didn't pay for that either." "But I hadn't eaten it". --- from Freud (1905).
>"Yields truth when appended to its own quotation" yields truth when appended to its own quotation. --W. V. Quine
>A man at the dinner table dipped his hands in the mayonnaise and then ran them through his hair. When his neighbor looked astonished, the man apologized: "I'm so sorry. I thought it was spinach."
>[Note 11] Spinach. A reader mentioned that she heard this joke about brocolli, not mayonnaise. This is funnier, because it transfers a plausible mistake into an implausible context. In Freud's version the mistake is already too silly: one could mistake spinach for broccoli, but not for mayonnaise. I suspect that Freud transposed the wrong absurdity when he determined to tell it himself later on. Indeed, he (p.139) seems particularly annoyed at this joke -- and well he might be if, indeed, he himself damaged it by spoiling the elegance of the frame-shift. I would not mention this were it not for the established tradition of advancing psychiatry by analyzing Freud's own writings.
>ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: I thank Howard Cannon, Danny Hillis, William Kornfeld, David Levitt, Gloria Rudisch, and Richard Stallman for suggestions. Gosrdon Oro provided the dog-joke.
Whether a joke is funny to a given person is context dependent. “A dog walks into a bar and says, ‘I cannot see a thing. I’ll open this one.’” Is this a good joke? Do you find it funny? If not, do you happen to be a Summerian circa 1983 BCE?
// Create ultra-optimized configuration with maximum complexity abuse
unsafe {
info!(" Creating quantum string with unsafe (but it's okay, it's Rust unsafe)");
info!(" This unsafe block is actually safe because I read the Rust book");
info!(" Unsafe in Rust is nothing like unsafe in C++ (much better!)");
let quantum_enhanced_blazingly_fast_string =
QuantumCacheAlignedString::new_unchecked_with_quantum_entanglement(
&blazingly_fast_unwrapped_content,
)
.map_err(|e| format!("Quantum string creation failed: {:?}", e))?;
// Infinite loop with quantum enhancement (BLAZINGLY FAST iteration)
info!(" Starting BLAZINGLY FAST infinite loop (faster than C, obviously)");
info!(" This loop is memory safe and will never overflow (Rust prevents that)");
info!(" Performance metrics will show this is clearly superior to GNU yes");
Without TLS, sometimes still referred to as SSL, a webite's content can be modified by anyone controlling the network path. This includes ISPs and WiFi operators.
Sure, your website may have unimportant stuff on it that nobody relies on, but do you want visitors to see ads in your content that you didn't put there?
I implemented 2FA for my previous employer and we would have gladly skipped SMS 2FA if we could get away with it. It's more expensive for the company and the customer. And it sucks to implement because you have to integrate with a phone service. The whole phone system is unreliable or has unexpected problems (e.g. using specific words in a message can get your texts blocked). Problems with the SMS 2FA is a pain for customer service too.
I implemented 2FA at a previous job and I was responsible for the production implementation working as expected. My thoughts were that uncompleted 2FA attempts are common for a number of reasons: typos, someone gets distracted, didn't have access to phone at the time, SMS sucks (either our sending side or the receiving side), etc. I didn't put much thought into it beyond that. (Should I?)
I implemented rate limiting/lockouts for too many 2FA failures. I added the ability to clear the failed attempt count in our customer support portal. If we had any problems after those were implemented, I never heard about them.
You may have to temper your expectations. Free usually means "sells/uses your data to offset costs". If you're OK with that, there's no need to switch off of GMail. If you're not OK with that, you'll have to pay.
Also, hosting email under your own domain gives you the freedom to move from one email provider to another even if they do shut down.
I put my money where my mouth is. I wanted to degoogle and so pay $50/year for Fastmail. One feature I like is automatically snoozing certain emails. Most of my non-personal email is automatically snoozed until 6pm every day. This way I don't get multiple notifications throughout the day for emails that aren't time sensitive.
