Not universally true but in the context of soup yeah fair point

I eat beans basically as my main diet and don’t really soak or rinse them or anything, have no digestive issues from it.

There is no way these beans all have the same cooking time

I’m not assuming that, I just don’t see why would it even matter if it’s from another instance.

Is it a mistake? Wouldn’t federated content still count the same way legally, since an instance is also a website?

What does that enable? Could people in states blocked by the main network use it through these?

Relevant username

Shadowremoval or shadowdeletion would make sense

Kind of but no one really uses those words and you’d have to explain what you mean by them. Also, the distinction isn’t very important; the main thing is that this particular style of web moderation abuse was inflicted on someone, and using different terms for minor variations in the practice gives the people using it too much credit, especially when they aren’t above using all of them anyway.

You’re right that the part of the word that says ‘ban’ is potentially misleading if it’s used this way, but it still seems like the best option. To me the ideal term here would be something that clearly conveys a more expansive definition, but that also still conveys that it is something being inflicted on a person, as opposed to a more conciliatory verb that describes an action towards a piece of content.

It’s still visible to you, it shows up as [Removed] to others

I still call this shadowbanning if it’s just the comment and not the whole account, because intentionally hiding from someone that nobody is seeing what they write is what shadowbanning is all about.

Seems like a stretch to call it an RTS

This is good logic but I think what you are missing is that the factor behind investment demand driving up price is volume of capital rather than number of landlords. One company can buy any number of living spaces if it has a way to profit on them, cancelling out the effects of any number of principled refusals by individuals to buy property in pursuit of that profit.

That said, one thing that is weighted to individuals is lobbying local government to protect their investments, so more people becoming landlords isn’t necessarily good, because your finances being tied to something is a powerful source of bias, for instance towards opposing new housing developments that could increase housing supply and reduce price of your properties, or opposing higher property taxes for non-primary-residences. But if someone supports effective policies towards affordable housing, even knowing it will harm their investments, I think they get credit for that.

Well like I said that’s kind of the sentiment I expect because people like to make this about individual morality, but care to elaborate at all? Do you disagree with any particular part of what I’m saying?

This will probably be an unpopular opinion but I think the reality is that the choice whether to be a landlord has no effect on the supply of housing and so is almost totally irrelevant to this essentially systemic issue. The only kind of stuff that matters here:

• Supply of housing influencing its cost
• Relative wealth of the poorest influencing their ability to pay for housing
• Other factors (the credit system etc) limiting people’s access to housing
• Legal ability to use housing as a speculative investment and store of wealth (ie. low property taxes even if you own multiple properties)

The idea that people would buy property and then provide housing on a charitable basis in defiance of the market isn’t realistic and isn’t a viable solution to the problem. The only solution is to build the right incentives into the system. Someone can support the latter without trying to do the former.

Since the topic of the movie seems to be the acceptability of someone actually abusing a minor, doesn’t seem like it should really matter the specifics of their pathology or internal feelings. The word ‘molester’ would be a more relevant catch-all term here.

I often do the opposite, pick a bright color that is not the color of the base material, to make the repair stand out more.

It would maybe be safer on a custom OS because less malware would target it, but exploits can still exist, at this point I’d say you also should really be using a dedicated device for crypto wallet stuff if you have more than small amounts, whether that’s a purpose built hardware wallet, an old phone you reset and have only the wallet app on, etc.

That’s just the remote control part.

promises of a free TradingView Premium app for Android. Instead of delivering legitimate software, the ads drop a highly advanced crypto-stealing trojan — an evolved version of the Brokewell malware.

From another source, that works in part by exploiting “accessibility service permissions”:

Like other recent Android malware families of its kind, Brokewell is capable of getting around restrictions imposed by Google that prevent sideloaded apps from requesting accessibility service permissions.

…

This includes displaying overlay screens on top of targeted apps to pilfer user credentials. It can also steal cookies by launching a WebView and loading the legitimate website, after which the session cookies are intercepted and transmitted to an actor-controlled server.

Didn’t they ban Huawei phones in the US

Oh, I see, didn’t read the second image at first

Pull an eyelash or similar, keep it between a specific page and check every time that it’s still there. If someone tampers with the journal it will fall out and they won’t realize it matters.