I think that kind of thing is more cultural than anything. Probably she doesn’t care very much whether it’s actually true or not, and feels she’d be losing face by being anything but confident about it.

Imo it’s more important that people learn that being wrong can be empowering, and how to have conversations where someone is wrong but not being put down for it, than just learning that they can be wrong.

How are being smart and being intelligent not synonyms?

Well why not just have recording off by default, and let people decide for themselves whether to break the law?

If it’s your phone it makes sense you should be able to record calls on it.

I played the first one but after that the formula felt pretty samey and I was bored of it. Would a fourth Borderlands game even be good if it wasn’t laggy?

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?

I don’t think this is true, but a lot of this impression is probably because much of the growth in actual use of cryptocurrency for everyday finance is happening outside of places like the US or Europe:

In the 12 months ending June 2025, APAC [Asia-Pacific] emerged as the fastest-growing region for on-chain crypto activity, with a 69% year-over-year increase in value received. Total crypto transaction volume in APAC grew from $1.4 trillion to $2.36 trillion, driven by robust engagement across major markets like India, Vietnam, and Pakistan.

Close behind, Latin America’s crypto adoption grew by 63%, reflecting rising adoption across both retail and institutional segments. In comparison, Sub-Saharan Africa’s adoption grew by 52%, indicating the region’s continued reliance on crypto for remittances and everyday payments. These figures underscore a broad shift in crypto momentum toward the Global South, where on-the-ground utility is increasingly fueling adoption.

There is also the way stablecoins are now a growing top 20 holder of US debt, and major financial institutions moving to have infrastructure on crypto networks. Change is happening even if it isn’t immediate or directly visible to everyone.

Don’t count out gambling. NFTs are a gambling game, where you win if you aren’t the last one holding the bag. There’s no hard guarantee that the traffic for a given NFT is real or not, but if its origin is something scarce and noteworthy (like being minted by the subject of a popular meme) then that can be a Schelling point for gamblers to converge on and reasonably conclude that other gamblers will be trying for the same NFT.

At some point the game ends when sources of new players are exhausted and everyone stops playing, but at one point I believe people were playing. Of course at the time people tried to describe why someone might buy a NFT as being some vague other buzzword laden reason, probably because the game ends sooner if everyone knows everyone else is also just hoping to flip it for a profit.

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

I see the main issue as, some people who might be considering taking psychedelics end up thinking the visual hallucinations are the main thing that will happen, when the internal stuff is way more intense even if you only took enough for very mild visuals. Since these drugs have a profound and potentially lasting effect on your mind and perspective, even though it’s generally positive, people should have a better idea than that what they’re getting into, in the interest of informed consent.

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.