Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if screenshots are disabled in that app considering the rest, to "stop leaking sensitive information".

Not only is that headline's grammar exceptional(ly bad), for a moment I thought the developer of Control was named Alan Wake. Like, how did they manage to butcher that so badly?

There are pros to this:

If the person you blocked can't see your posts, they can intuit that you've blocked them. Then, they might try and find you on other social media to harass you even further, or shift targets to someone else.

If they can see your posts, they have no idea they've been blocked, similar to Reddit's shadow bans. This might make them think you're just annoyed or rarely look at your DMs, making them invest even more time to uselessly try to contact you.

Of course, I can see the other side too, that you don't want them to know about any (new) posts you've made; but it isn't as one-sided as you seem to think it is.

Because you don't need to have significant experience or rent a VPS in order to do that, and I can respect that. We don't need to force FOSS developers to become proficient in everything.

What needs to happen is some kind of tool (ideally FOSS) that lets you spin up an actual forum with the same difficulty to set it up as Discord.

Huh, TIL.

Regarding your edit, that amount wasn't the cumulated cost of whatever Limewire were distributing, that would be idiotic indeed; rather the RIAA tried to call for a ruling that somehow those guys were causing $150,000 in damages - per instance. Now the article unfortunately doesn't state how they possibly tried to justify that number, and I can't be bothered to research that myself. Another thing that would interest me is how the plaintiff expected them to pay with almost every dollar on Earth.

So while I don't think this had anything to do with "lost sales", I do agree with the possible fines and damage calculations not being fit for any sort of realistic purpose at all.

Depending on the stuffing, I might actually rather take the seat, just because it's got armrests.

Possible formula: Tax for n-th house = n-th Fibonacci number + 5 * max(0, n - 2). So low numbers like three get penalized by that linear part, and high numbers grow exponentially due to the Fibonacci number.

Wow, writing the same paragraphs three times... What an abomination of an article.

On a serious note, they shouldn't have been so greedy then and waited until prices had fallen again... This looks exactly like the dotcom bubble crashing because investors just couldn't hold their horses.

I don't really like including pedestrians in there. Like sure, you can fit a bunch of people in a small area, but another point you shouldn't ignore is the throughput over time, and pedestrians are by their nature rather slow. Obviously if you're looking at shopping in a street lined by shops left and right, then that street becomes tailor-made for pedestrian traffic (and nothing else except perhaps bicycles). But public transport is much better suited for travelling any further distances, and that should be the main focus when deciding to ditch cars.

Funnily enough, in D&D 5E that wizard explicitly can cast that spell (if you're equating Power Word Kill to Avada Kedavra)

That's something I would disagree with though. "Sticking with plain HTML and CSS" is way more work, and often has significantly less functionality, than building a website with a framework.