Does using an smtp relay such as google's smtp-relay.gmail.com prevent (or at least help) your emails not going into the spam folder on the recipient?
This is a  about avoiding outgoing mail being classified as spam.   Also related:                    I'm wondering how to prevent my emails from my site being marked as spam? I'm using sendmail.  I'm trying to send emails through my ruby-on-rails application. The mails are all written in swedish (if that does make a difference?). I don't know why they keep getting marked as spam.  Are there any things that I can do to minimize the risk?
Someone has asked for answer to these topics. However, I still want someone to provide me with simple and universal answers. I recently read a sentence from the English-speaking person. It is in an article. It is, ' The available options for mitigating pad cratering are not universally effective (see link below), but they may be helpful on a case by case basis until more crack resistant laminates are developed and become available.  '  If I am to write this, I will use 'a case-by-case basis until more crack-resistant laminates'   Can anyone tell me when to use a hyphen to coin a new word? Java Interface Usage Guidelines -- Are getters and setters in an interface bad? I recently got a Windows 10 laptop. Opposite to my Macbook, I must swipe right-to-left to go to the right virtual desktop. Is there a way to reverse this, so I swipe left-to-right to go to the right virtual desktop? Does anyone know the name of travel posters from the 1930s? Is there a name for this design style - use of flat colours for dimension and shading - that was so prevalent in UK travel posters of the 1930s? Can I use the Adwaita theme in Unity without installing GNOME shell? I recently installed Ubuntu 11.10 (new install). I would like to use the Adwaita theme with Unity, but it seems that it is not available in the theme selection dialog. I know I get it there after installing gnome-shell, but is there a way to use Adwaita theme for Unity without installing gnome-shell? NMI watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#2 stuck for 23s! [plymouthd:305] I get this error message   NMI watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#2 stuck for 23s! [plymouthd:305]    on the startup of my system (even with live-cd).  My PC is a dell inspiron 7559 with intel graphic and nvidia.  UPDATE - this issue also happens when attempting to install ubuntu 18.10 using LiveUSB Given a real, skew-symmetric matrix $\mathbf{A}\in\mathbb{R}^{m\times m}$, and a nonzero vector $X\in\mathbb{R}^{m}$, classify the scalar $\lambda$ (real, complex, imaginary, etc.) in the eigenvalue equation $$ \mathbf{A}X = \lambda X $$  The matrix $\mathbf{A}$ is skew symmetric if $\mathbf{A}^{T}=-\mathbf{A}$.  My try : I am new to matrices , so can not get a idea how to deal with it , Any hint will help Ought we only form beliefs based on sufficient empirical evidence? In , John Loftus often makes statements like:  Faith, as I argue, is an irrational leap over the probabilities. Probabilities about such a matter are all that matter. We should think exclusively in terms of them. (19) If God created us as reasonable people, then the correct religious faith should have sufficient evidence for it, since that’s what reasonable people require. (22) Because science is the only game in town. It works. It produces the goods. There isn’t a better alternative. (119)  Loftus' attitude seems representative among many atheists; while I'm aware that there are other views, it is this kind of view which leads to the title of this question: Ought we only form beliefs based on sufficient empirical evidence? Here are some sub-questions which may help guide answers:  How can we get an ought from an is, given that evidence only describes what is? Reformulating the title as a hypothetical imperative doesn't seem to help, because the scientific method doesn't seem to ever make a hypothetical imperative binding. And yet, surely those who would agree with the quoted text would find certain hypothetical imperatives binding?  Given that the scientific method includes &quot;basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability&quot;,  seems to apply: a given axiomatic formulation of the scientific method will be unable to imply certain (virtually all, it turns out) truths. To say that science is complete—there are no other methods of knowing things—seems to imply that science is inconsistent. Is this 'seems' an illusion?  Does the scientific method require that we make observations prior to forming hypotheses? It could be argued that probabilistically, trying to come up with hypotheses before making a 'sufficient' number of observations will result in a failed hypothesis too much of the time. Is there evidence to support this which can probabilistically rule out all other kinds of hypothesis-forming?  Must we accept any unfalsifiable claims? The answer seems to be 'yes', given e.g. the example of crystal structure discussed by Michael Polanyi in  (43-48, 1984 paperback). A set of geometries seemed to well-describe many crystals found in nature, and even if some crystals aren't well-described, that doesn't falsify the instances in which it does. This opens up the question of which unfalsifiable claims we ought to accept.  If we model human reasoning as , we can ask what is meant by 'sufficient' by what the 'probabilities' are, prior to any observations: what  ought we start with? I am tempted to say &quot;the most effective one&quot;, but that presupposes a purpose; are we given an objective purpose?   I am left with the suspicion that one ought to only follow the scientific method to the extent that one only wants to predict one's future observations—this smells like a tautology. It seems to beg the question to say that the most important area of 'truth' is objective reality, a question which cannot be answered with the scientific method. A 'yes' answer to the main question would seem to fall prey to something like  of .  I was tempted to phrase my question as:  Is science the only source of truth?  I believe this is a bad question, for a few reasons:  We care about whether a method can reliably arrive at truth/knowledge. The terms 'truth' and 'knowledge' would possibly stir a debate about , which may not be a prerequisite for the answer to my question. My question makes explicit that we are talking about what one ought to do, which is not explicit in the above formulation. Why do we notate the greatest common divisor of $a$ and $b$ as $(a,b)$? In my textbook on elementary number theory from a class last year, as well as elsewhere through my academic experience and even posts here, I often see the greatest common divisor notated as $(a,b)$ (where this represents the greatest common divisor of $a,b$).  My question is, why is such an unusual notation used? I say it's unusual (if not a bit absurd), for a couple of reasons:   It is unintuitive. It does not grant the reader an immediate knowledge of what it means. In particular, I can easily see it being misinterpreted as an ordered pair of points, and not as a function (which it basically is and I touch on in a second) or representing a single value. Good notation would be immediately understood, no? One should not struggle with parsing through the context or meaning. A clearer notation is often used, and just three letters away. You could certainly think of $(a,b)$ as an ordered pair, if we consider it a function. I often see the alternate $gcd(a,b)$: a function, which takes in two inputs ($a$ and $b$), and outputs their greatest common divisor (or factor, if you prefer). Merely adding the three letters makes the notation clearer by clarifying it is  a function, and using a relatively well-accepted acronym. (Or, at least, I often hear it abbreviated "g.c.d." in school.)   I've mulled this over for a while and I can't think of much without borrowing inspiration from other "unusual" notations. For example:   Common understanding in context: consider the $\log(x)$ function. Depending on context, without a base stated as seen here, it can be presumed to mean whatever is most "appropriate." It could be base $e$ (common in mathematics), base $10$ (common in engineering), or base $2$ (common in computer science). The ambiguity is essentially resolved by context in other words - personally, not a fan of that (I like the explicit stating of bases for full clarity), but if such a motivation holds elsewhere, it might stand to reason that $(a,b)$ could just be taken as a shorthand and "understood" in the context of number theory to simply be the greatest common divisor. That it is in fact used despite $gcd(a,b)$ being clearer and somewhat common also does seem to suggest this playing a role. Perhaps it just started that way and it kept being used. For example,  (based on a ) regarding how logarithms, roots, and exponentiation can be unintuitive from a notation perspective, and proposes an alternative, easier to understand notation. I haven't been in middle school in nearly a decade, but guessing from discussions online, that obviously hasn't really picked up too much. In that sense, perhaps it's like that for $(a,b)$: like we still notate exponentiation, etc., the same way today despite how counterintuitive it is (at least for students), perhaps it just "stuck" and proliferated?   I wasn't able to easily find any reason why online, and it bugs me a bit, so I ask:     Why do we so unintuitively notate the greatest common divisor of two numbers $a,b$ as $(a,b)$?   I of course recognize that this is somewhat moot in light of how easily it's made clear - as established above, all I have to do is append the front of the parenthetical by $gcd$ or $gcf$ to make it way better. And of course, people do that. But I'm more curious in where this ambiguous former notation arose and, in light of a better notation, why it is still used today. When it comes to getting a tenure-track position where one has both a lot of resources and academic freedom to do what one wants to do (so having a tenure-track position in a top university might be more useful because one may get more resources at a top university).   Or in short, when one wants to maximize one's chances of becoming a "top scientist".  There are obviously numerous factors, and "rank/prestige" should not be considered as a factor in itself. That said, the period after one gets a PhD is an extremely important time for building up connections, and those are easier to get at a top university. Create a tar archive split into blocks of a maximum size Can space expand with unlimited speed? just after the Big Bang and before inflation the currently observable universe was the size of a coin. One millionth of a second later the universe was the size of the Solar System, which is an expansion much much faster than speed of light. Can space expand with unlimited speed? SFDX Pull error: Entity of type 'ListView' named XXX cannot be found While trying to pull changes from a scratch org (sfdx force:source:pull, tried with and without -f), I'm getting this error:     Entity of type 'ListView' named 'Note_Relation__c.My_Notes' cannot be found.   I do have a custom object Note_Relation__c, and it exists both locally and in the scratch org.  However, it's not an object that is normally accessed directly.  It has no tab, and should have no list views.  Nonetheless, I've checked the object's list view (via prefix, e.g., /a0D in both Classic and LEX view), and I can find no list views at all.  I've also tried adding an entry to .forceignore:  force-app/main/default/objects/Note_Relation__c/listViews/My_Notes.listView   This has no effect either.  At this point, I'm stuck with a bunch of config changes in a scratch org that I cannot pull.  I can find no references to this error message with scratch orgs.  Has anyone seen this issue?  Edit to clarify: I tried the .forceignore line based on what I think the file name should be; I have no force-app/main/default/objects/Note_Relation__c/listViews directory locally.  Edit 2: Workaround:  I found a workaround that doesn't make sense to me, but it works.  I'm not adding it as an answer yet because I'm not sure what's happening.  The workaround is to add the following line to .forceignore  Note_Relation__c.My_Notes   Even though this isn't a DX filepath, it's the name from the error message, and it seems to work. Long transit in Cairo (Egypt) Proof of $A\cap(B\cup C) = (A\cap B)\cup(A\cap C)$ Why does Google Analytics report 100% bounce rate when the page has lots of page views? Google Analytics reports 100% bounce rate for a page which has lots of page views and an Avg Time on Page of 32 seconds. Shouldn't one of the following be true?  Either the bounce rate is less than 100% when the Avg Time on Page is greater than 0 or the Avg Time on Page is 0 when the bounce rate is 100%.  I fail to see how or why the report does not conform the above two conditions. How can I find my Bug-report that I submitted from the Desktop on launchpad?  I have found a partial solution to my own question:  The program that sends the Bug-reports from the desktop is called apport. It doesn't requires a launchpad account. The service whoopsie submits the Bug-Report directly to the server daisy.ubuntu.com (I'm not sure if those bugs actually appear on launchpad publicly.)  But I found my Bug-Report on my Harddisk in /var/crash/ .  From there I can copy and paste parts of the file to my opened bug on launchpad. Thanks for your tips.  Original question:  I had a severe bug, and I found someone with the same problem in launchpad. After I found a temporary fix I was able to submit the bug with the ubuntu-bug-reporter.  How can I find this ubuntu-bug-reporter generated bug-report in launchpad? I would like to combine those two bug-reports (mark as duplicate). Because the generated one has all the debug information and the other one has the description of this bug. Pass a PHP string to a JavaScript variable (and escape newlines) Integral solutions of hyperboloid $x^2+y^2-z^2=1$ Are there integral solutions to the equation $x^2+y^2-z^2=1$? I have some text in a table and I want to add a forced line break. I want to insert a forced line break without having to specify the column width, i.e. something like the following: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|} \hline Foo bar &amp; Foo &lt;forced line break here&gt; bar &amp; Foo bar \\ \hline \end{tabular}  I know that \\ inserts a line break in most cases, but here it starts a new table row instead.  A similar question was asked before: