Ava

Back pocket trick?

I'm not sure what EXACTLY you'd be looking for from a search feature as I'm mostly a light user myself, but there's a search option which will search the contents of all your notes. I can't tell you how robust it is, but it does have exclusion (desiredTerm -excludeTerm) search at least, and there's standard Find/Replace functionality once you're in the specific note.

The claim in this article seems to me to be flawed. The core claim seems to be that the landlord cannot pass on the costs to the tenant because the market is at capacity. But what this really means is, the tax WILL be passed through to the tenants until maximum exploitation of the tenants (as a resource) has been reached. Which would include the UBI safety net as well, since the system demands (intentionally) maximum exploitation of this limited resource, no?

At this point, the landlord can continue to reduce their OWN share of the profits, sure. But the LVT will continue to increase over time, so eventually the landlord is priced out of the area, the building closes, and all tenants are evicted. MAYBE this particular landlord has enough capital to re-invest into the land that it may again become profitable with additional investment, but EVENTUALLY this will not be the case, and the property must be sold. This centralizes all land assets over time into the control of whichever conglomerate has enough resources to maximally develop the area.

And what of the tenants? Rent prices are deemed to have been at their maximum for the region. Tenants in this case are displaced, at least for the amount of time that redevelopment will take. And, because the value of a particular parcel of land seems likely to be similar to a neighboring one of identical size, this increase is likely to affect ALL housing providers in a particular area with similar circumstances, since we have to assume that development doesn't happen in massively disproportionate jumps.

It doesn't seem clear to me at all why landlords wouldn't be able to pass the value on to tenants.

The minors were charged with 20 counts of creating child sex abuse images and 20 counts of offenses against their victims’ moral integrity.

The article doesn't make the claim that the AI is what makes it illegal, simply that AI was used. It's literally the second sentence. Indeed, it goes on to highlight that there are legal novelties prosecuting the use of AI.

That 2600 pages of Trans hate collection is 60MB.

The article referenced is about their Desktop application

To delve into a slight tangent on your final point about the grammatical quirk of writing in all-lowercase, I'm curious as to your thoughts on a related question. What of an individual who prefers their name be written with lowercase letters? To use my own handle as an example, imagine that I requested that others refer to me as "ava" rather than "Ava", and had styled my display name accordingly. Does your opinion vary depending on whether it's a chosen name as opposed to a handle?

I have someone in my circles who prefers her name be written thusly, and while I occasionally find her somewhat inappropriately (unfairly? rashly? my vocabulary fails me at present...) militant about the topic when strangers err, I have no opposition to using the name for her as she requests, whereas I comparatively share your reservations about the use of capitalized pronouns and their associations with dynamics of power/relationship between parties.

I wonder too how I might feel should a requested name require other deviations from standard grammar, such as unusual punctuation. Were I to identify myself as "Ava!" it would certainly cause some occasionally grammatical frustrations, but I wonder if a reason given might affect the perception either in favor or against adoption. For example, the Sharks! installation rather literally evokes exclamation through its name.

I feel like it would be more efficient to simply give her the same discount (without the middleman's fee) on her actual rent, given that this is a state-sponsored program and she already lives in subsidized housing.

Last year, the popular right-wing podcaster Steven Crowder announced his own unwilling split. “My then-wife decided that she didn’t want to be married anymore,” he complained, “and in the state of Texas, that is completely permitted.”

I mean, women only exist to be owned by their husbands, after all.

The admin has been away, and so it was basically just an error page for an extended period. Now, it seems to not be federating properly (either due to defederation, or some issue on the server side, but I honestly haven't bothered looking into it) and bots/spam have overrun a lot of the site. The admin is apparently planning to hand over the instance which could help recover it, but it's pretty much unusable right now.

That's not an excellent example. If they refuse to collaborate with them, and also don't make any claims about the quality of code, then the claim that their objectivity in reviewing code is tainted doesn't hold.