We were engaged on New Year’s Day at Theodore Roosevelt Island, on the third anniversary of when and where we first met.
“Until the End of the World”, 1991
“I can’t see the point of all this strutting and fretting. We’re all as good as dead.”
“Not in my book, we’re not. I’m not dead in here, and neither are you. I’m saving your ass, Winter.”
“Writing won’t help. Your stories won’t help me.”
“Winter, the future is always a fiction.”
“I’m more worried about reality than fiction. I’m worried about the present, Mr. Fitzpatrick.”
“The present will look after itself. But it’s our duty to realize the future with our imagination.”
An Editorial
It wasn’t always this way — in the 1990s we achieved 80 percent household penetration in the D.C. metro area.
There also used to be a more robust local Metro section.
While I do not and will not push my personal interest, I will also not allow this paper to stay on autopilot and fade into irrelevance — overtaken by unresearched podcasts and social media barbs — not without a fight.
So the Post will avoid staying on autopilot by… not making endorsements? How lazy. Sounds a lot like switching on the autopilot to me.
A paper with guts would take a principled stand via an endorsement… which the editorial staff was already prepared to do. Instead, in the absence of an endorsement, you hoped us readers would make up our own minds, and when we made up our minds that we couldn’t trust the Post and our collective reaction was to cancel our subscriptions, we get remarks about how important this paper is to the world. But it doesn’t matter how credible, trusted, or independent the paper’s voice might be if it’s not used.
Americans don’t trust the news media because of this precise example. We want news that gives us the facts and truth. The fact is, an endorsement was forthcoming, and if it’s true there was no quid pro quo, then there shouldn’t be any issues with it being published now. Doing so would go a long way to restoring lost credibility.
Obvious Endorsement
I cancelled my WaPo subscription and made a donation to Harris, if it wasn’t obvious who The Glenn Fitzpatrick Times would endorse for President
Spamalamadingdong
Did I just spend an inordinate amount of time tonight making sure my email has its SPF, DKIM, and DMARC configurations are set up properly, even for addresses that only ever send mail to me? Yes, yes I did. While mine had been set up correctly already, I read the other day about upcoming / already implemented email provider changes and figured why not make my settings stricter now too? All it took was changing “?all” to “-all” in my SPF configuration. The part that confused me the most after that was that even though I’m sending emails through Fastmail, if I sent mail directly through their webmail or via my desktop mail client everything would pass all checks fine, but when I’d send emails from my applications or other systems they’d fail with error messages like:
(glennfitzpatrick.com: Sender is not authorized by default to use 'foo@glennfitzpatrick.com' in 'mfrom' identity (mechanism '-all' matched))
I was really scratching my head since they were all using the same credentials, and I couldn’t figure out a way to adjust the SPF DNS setting to permit specific email addresses.
After some research, it turns out that if you don’t have the email address you’re sending as added to your account (even just as an alias is fine), then when it’s sent it goes through their forwarding server which causes SPF to fail. Once I made sure all my application-specific emails were added to my account as aliases my SPF checks were passing once again but now in strict mode.
In other news, today’s weather was nice, and the Capitals are going to the playoffs!