Watched muted. Message still received.

Machoke Meowth

I’m sitting at around half that.

Lots and lots of disabled people, even with disability income. The affordable housing wait list in some major cities is several years.

It’s complicated, but no, I don’t.

The nearest bus stop is an hour away, and it’s for interstate transit. 🤷

The place I’m planning to buy a home is so remote that I’m considering a backup car.

I learned how to repair my own vehicles after I was quoted $2,600 to install a $40 part. I could’ve also had an entire rebuilt engine shipped and swapped it in myself for about half that, but I ultimately decided to go with the $40 + basic tools.

Alpha mind virus.

Bots don’t upvote. There’s so much voting activity here as a ratio to actual contributions that my first impression was that the votes might be faked.

It was starting at $10k with an undisclosed reserve price.

Cobwebs/Penlink seemed much more tailored to that, but these companies also have an incentive to exaggerate their products’ capabilities as much as they can get away with.

I did some digging and it seems like the family’s suit should actually be against the pub that was renting the in-park space from Disney. It’s just unfortunate that the prevalence of corporate propaganda in news media, especially in what would be a critical period for Disney to invest in damage control for their public image, makes it difficult to confidently believe one thing or the other in light of that finding.

I never cared much for Disney to begin with, so I won’t waste any more time with verification. Regardless, the suit definitely shouldn’t be dismissed on their argument of the arbitration agreement alone because it would set an awful precedent, even if the suit itself happens to be toothless. I wouldn’t put it past Disney to try to take advantage of the situation to that end (They may be hoping the suit will be dismissed for arbitration because the judge already knows the suit is pointless so that future legitimate lawsuits against them for wrongful deaths in their park can be more easily dismissed on the same grounds).

It’s not always the case, but I’ve found that some outlets like to write their first article title completely false so that a more alarming headline is distributed that way to subscriber notifications and RSS, then they update it on their own a few hours later after the false headline has already been shared and posted across the web so they can plead an honest mistake if necessary.

I appreciate that The Guardian is mentioned here because they’re one of the worst offenders I’ve noticed.

Reddit getting rid of paid rewards pre-IPO only to reintroduce the feature later on and boast it as a major QOQ increase in non-ad revenue while artificially inflating their on-paper growth was slick.

A straw man won’t be of much use to you, either. I didn’t have ‘Bingo’ on the list of things I expected to do today.

Mockery aside, I hope you’ll come to reflect on my critique and improve your argument-waging skills. Given how it was handled up front, I don’t expect anything constructive to result from deeper engagement.

I am, but again, what about it? Now that I’ve pointed out your original fallacy, your continued attempt to stick to TikTok’s impending ban as the focus of our conversation might just constitute a red herring. It was never pertinent to the point regarding TikTok being sued for privacy violations that you were originally trying to make, which is what I was addressing.

Tiktok is facing a nationwide ban.

Nobody said anything about a ban. Just earlier you were implying that being fined for privacy violations constitutes discrimination against TikTok. You’re shifting the goalposts, evidently because you weren’t aware that other similar companies had already faced such fines as well.

What about them?

Google already got fined $170M for COPPA violations in 2019. Twitter was fined $150M in 2022 for disregard of privacy laws. Meta settled for $1.4B in a privacy suit just last week. TikTok isn’t being singled out here.