It's not "allowing the protests" when you remove the moderators engaging in the protests and replace them with people more amenable to doing what they're told.

Well, it's no longer just hearsay. I went through a couple days ago and deleted all my posts. (I did not delete my account, though.) I checked that they were gone.

Today I checked again, and ... all my posts that I deleted are resurrected.

I do go through and delete my older posts about once every six months. Ones that I had deleted previously are still gone. So it looks like they are restoring old posts from a backup before this whole thing blew up, probably to try to limit the damage from so many people mass-deleting their content.

There's been at least a few reports from people claiming that they recently (in response to the changes) deleted their accounts and posts, and reddit reinstated them. It's hard to be sure that's true, though.

Except switching phone providers might take a total of an hour, if you spend a lot of time researching your options. The difficulty involved is nothing like the difficulty involved in moving to a new home.

Prime is $140 a year, not $200. $180 if you insist on paying monthly (but then why are you quoting a yearly price?)

Probably it wouldn't. I'm not very interested in it either.

They're pretty obviously not examining a subset of drives that are representative of all hard drives. They're only looking at drives that failed (so leaving out all drives that are retired without failing) and also only examining ones that are sent to this company for data recovery.

There might be some useful data to gather from this, but the conclusion from the Ars Technica headline "HDD average life span misses 3-year mark" is obvious nonsense.

Wrong! Biden voter here.

Idiot.

So, if Biden is going to take the credit if a recession is avoided, will he step up and take the blame if there is a recession after all?

This scenario that you keep imagining (you seem to be very proud of coming up with this possibility since you keep reposting it) requires the owner of the original car to come up to the car and not be able to figure out that it's not the one he's looking for.

Why would the thief even bother looking for a matching model car to stash the airtag on? One it's out of the car you stole, who the hell cares who finds it?

Hardly the "most likely" scenario. The "most likely" one is the one involving a "really dumb car thief", since most car thieves are, in fact, really dumb.

You don't have to make it hard enough that the bad actors can't abuse it profitably -- you just have to make it hard enough that it's easier for the bad actors to just go somewhere else. Sort of like "I don't have to outrun the bear -- I just have to outrun you."

Was the video produced by Duncan Hines or Betty Crocker?

Today's boxed cake mixes are reasonably good (I use them more often than not when I want to make a cake), but all you have to do is eat a cake made by a professional baker vs. one from a boxed mix to realize that the boxed mix certainly doesn't have the advantage.

Just take a look below at all the people commenting who support Apple forbidding use of particular software on devices that they've purchased.

Tribalism leads to some really weird results sometimes.

I never said that non-government censorship was illegal. And I don't support attempts to make private party censorship illegal. Even rsilvergun got the reasons pretty much correct, that to do so you are infringing on the rights of those who own the platforms being used. (Stopped clock being right twice a day, I suppose.)

Now, the implications of censorship are bad. Of course they are, since censorship is an attempt to control how people communicate, and it pretty much never has positive results. Which is why rsilvergun and his gaggle of nitwit followers are so dead set on trying to redefine the word, because they know censorship is bad, and they want to censor speech anyway.

Uh ... no, I'm not. You seem to have lost the thread of the conversation.

You made a claim that it's only "censorship" if the government does it, which is completely false -- you're trying to redefine the word censorship to mean what you want it to mean (since you don't want to admit that you are pro-censorship). That's all I pointed out.

https://www.merriam-webster.co...">Wrong. It might be legal censorship, but it's still censorship if a private party does it.

Why do you need to have an opinion for or against it? Formation of a union should be the business of the employees involved, and nobody else.