This is a proposal. Why does the article write as if it’s a fact?

Old knowledge disclaimer, but if they didn’t change it then:

Because Apple literally tells people that they’re not allowed to charge less somewhere else - at least that was the case several years ago…

It’s cheap and uninteresting clickbait.

Why do you assume that the downvotes are “I don’t understand this” instead of “this is spammy bullshit”?

I assume we’re in a similar boat so let me assure you: no, you won’t - because we wouldn’t even realize it happened.

Only after s few months one of us will recall this thread and be like “oh, yeah. Twitter. Seems really dead finally. Good.”

And to be clear I expect they person to be you because my memory is awful.

Me when I develop something or test something with another ones tool or want a quick comparison: I don’t want to use something in production for a while just to see if the basics are met.

Those sites give me the opportunity to bomb me with all kinds of scenarios and I check what’s working for me and where not.

It’s not about a few sites that I could quickly check but about patterns.

Does that mean that an “all” view is "onl"y all of the subscriptions/places people from my server have?

That’s quite interesting.

And thanks!

That would always by definition block all third parties.

Think of the reddit example from the person you replied to: there was a huge outcry when reddit announced shutting down their lower API tiers.

Either information is free to flow or not at all, there is no middle ground.

With that in mind: I’m sure they thought about it and decided to prioritize transparency she flexibility over security. Personally I support that decision.

At least in Germany it’s the same. It gets ignored in the discussions concerning nuclear exit but it’s actually the main reason why I’m not aggressively against it: we have save areas for nuclear storage but those fight bitterly to not have it. The areas which are currently used are… Not good. Paying someone else (such as Finland) is out of budget for both state and energy companies. The latter anyway want to do the running but not the maintenance and the building, state should pay for that.

It’s really white sad for me. The (true) statement that the dangerous waste needs to be stored carefully got corrupted to “it can’t be stored”.