- Feb 2023
- Title: Faster than expected
subtitle: why most climate scientists can’t tell the truth (in public) Author: Jackson Damien
This is a good article written from a psychotherapist's perspective,
- examining the psychology behind why published, mainstream, peer reviewed climate change research is always dangerously lagging behind current research,
- and recommending what interventions could be be taken to remedy this
- This your of scientific misinformation coming from scientists themselves
- gives minimizers and denialists the very ammunition they need to legitimise delay of the urgently needed system change.
- What climate scientists say In public is far from what they believe in private.
- For instance, many climate scientists don't believe 1.5 Deg. C target is plausible anymore, but don't say so in public.
- That reticence is due to fear of violating accepted scientific social norms,
- being labeled alarmist and risk losing their job.
- That creates a collective cognitive dissonance that acts as a feedback signal
- for society to implement change at a dangerously slow pace
- and to not spend the necessary resources to prepare for the harm already baked in.
- The result of this choice dissonance is that
- there is no collective sense of an emergency or a global wartime mobilisation scale of collective behaviour.
- Our actions are not commensurate to the permanent emergency state we are now in.
- The appropriate response that is suggested is for the entire climate science community to form a coalition that creates a new kind of peer reviewed publishing and reporting
- that publicly responds to the current and live knowledge that is being discovered every day.
- This is done from a planetary and permanent emergency perspective in order to eliminate the dangerous delays that create the wrong human collective behavioural responses.
- Climate change is worse than reported
- Climate change underestimated
- climate change psychology
- permanent emergency
- 1.5 Deg C o longer plausible
- climate change alarmist
- Current climate research outdated
- eco anxiety
- climate alarmist
- climate psychology
- climate change misinformation
- Dec 2022
Can't annotate on https://feedback.mailgun.com/forums/156243-feature-requests/suggestions/39905227-provide-meaningful-delivery-status-description-rat so posting here instead.
Anonymous commented · May 26, 2021 4:36 AM
Without your comment I'd never find the real issue, because I was only look at permanent failures. That error message is really misleading, hope they can fix this.
Kelly commented · December 30, 2020 2:35 AM
Yes we desperately need this too. Half of our recipients were soft bounced due to "Too old" but we could still send to them previously on other ESPs.
Certain email servers, Yahoo especially, throttle deliveries when multiple inbound is detected from the same IP. When this happens, Mailgun sends a "temporary" severity bounce. Mailgun will continue to retry over a period of time. If it can't deliver after 8 hours. The email will permanently fail with severity: permanent and reason: old.
Just to add that there is also reason: old. This happens when email cannot be delivered after 8 hours. It should still be treated as a non permanent bounce though.
I did some further digging and found that there is a reason property that can be used to determine whether Mailgun added an email address to its bounce suppression list:
...but even repeated soft bounces is a message level event, not one that means there will never be an opportunity to deliver to this address again. Hence Mailgun itself not adding this to their permanent uppression list..but that implies, right, that they will send to the permanent failure hook in this case?
That could be a problem, if it actually send to the permanent failure hook in this case. Then you would have to hit their bounces API to check whether it's actually a permanent failure / hard bounce for the recipient as opposed to just for this message.
From that quote above, it is clear Mailgun recognise this issue themselves (the possibility of one-off soft bounces for a variety of reasons) and therefore do not add these contacts to their permanent bounce list - unless its a true hard bounce. But they are rightly still alerting that the message in question has permanently failed to be delivered on this occasion.
Mailgun, with its permanent failure webhook, is sending a message about a permanent failure of that specific message - it is Campaign that is then making a decision to translate this message, about just that one message, into a permanently bounced (suppressed) contact, and blocking all future emails to that contact - based on, what is clearly quite possibly just a temporary failure. It's really the distinction between a single message level (temporary) problem and a (permanent) contact level problem that is being lost with Campaign's current approach.
but that before marking the contact as a bounced, Campaign should double check it was really a hard bounce that would affect future deliverability.
some are legit bounces (people who typed emails wrongly etc) - but some are 'too old' which is a generic deliverability type message (according to Mailgun)
too old error
This becomes, then, a thorny problem - these perfectly valid emails, that are affected by this temporary issue - are marked as permanently bounced in Campaign...when they really shouldn't be given this bigger picture.
But these are not permanent failures - they ARE permanent for that message of course
Exactly. I arrived at the same conclusion.
his is not wonderfully clear/great form Mailgun's end (as they are effectively translating a temporary delivery issues into a message about a permanent contact failure) - but the net effect is pretty broken handling of temporary bounces against contacts, which just creates inaccuracies and a bit of a mess.
- I agree
- Mailgun: problem: repeated temporary delivery failure reported as permanent failure
- subtle distinction
- Jan 2022
Just An Ordinary Bloke. (2022, January 6). But But But Sweden......... @afneil maybe Tegnall was wrong eh mate https://t.co/1S4SMWaqlU [Tweet]. @Unusual_Times. https://twitter.com/Unusual_Times/status/1479033464678723585
- Aug 2020
Nguyen, L. H., Drew, D. A., Graham, M. S., Joshi, A. D., Guo, C.-G., Ma, W., Mehta, R. S., Warner, E. T., Sikavi, D. R., Lo, C.-H., Kwon, S., Song, M., Mucci, L. A., Stampfer, M. J., Willett, W. C., Eliassen, A. H., Hart, J. E., Chavarro, J. E., Rich-Edwards, J. W., … Zhang, F. (2020). Risk of COVID-19 among front-line health-care workers and the general community: A prospective cohort study. The Lancet Public Health, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30164-X
- cellphone data
- healthcare worker
- self-reported health
- case number
- cohort study
- protective equipment
Socioeconomic Determinants of COVID-19 Infections and Mortality: Evidence from England and Wales. COVID-19 and the Labor Market. (n.d.). IZA – Institute of Labor Economics. Retrieved July 30, 2020, from https://covid-19.iza.org/publications/pp159/
- Jun 2020
Global public health data on COVID-19. (n.d.). Coronavirus (COVID-19): The Latest Science & Expert Commentary | Frontiers. Retrieved June 4, 2020, from https://coronavirus.frontiersin.org/covid-19-data-resources