I always heard yarrel. Or yarrey, but I don’t hear l sound at the start or n sound in the middle. So neither?

I think they explained it, the reason they could afford it was because Monica’s grandmother lived there, and they’ve been paying 1980s rent because of rent control or something. Something similar for phoebe as well. Anyway show never explains how joey/chandler/Ross can afford those big houses.

I am fairly sure it’s GitS, but I could be wrong

I’m sure, I was pointing out why even as a customer you should be mad

The reason so many people are mad is sometimes the suit guy even comes back saying, sorry man didn’t find a discount, but here is your slip. Meanwhile he has changed the slip and added his name and would get the commission without doing anything.

Missing article was here It didn’t contain much other than dates it was filed and plaintiffs information. Which is a standard practice anywhere.

In July 2024, ANI filed a lawsuit against Wikimedia Foundation in the Delhi High Court — claiming to have been defamed in its article on Wikipedia — and sought ₹2 crore (US$240,000) in damages.[14][15][16] At the time of the suit’s filing, the Wikipedia article about ANI said the news agency had, “been accused of having served as a propaganda tool for the incumbent central government, distributing materials from a vast network of fake news websites, and misreporting events on multiple occasions”. The filing accused Wikipedia of publishing, “false and defamatory content with the malicious intent of tarnishing the news agency’s reputation, and aimed to discredit its goodwill”.[17][14][18][19]

The article is still up, Wikipedia calling ANI biased, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_News_International

So not really sure, why the massive outrage. Removing intricate details from ongoing lawsuits is standard practice.

While the lawsuit by ANI demands that editors who made the edit claiming ANI as govt mouth piece be identified, Wikipedia hasn’t done it yet and the article is right about setting a dangerous precedent if high court forces Wikipedia to reveal the names. But at the same time article is biased and has misleading information such as > In an unprecedented move, Wikipedia removed the page from its platform on October 21.>

You can see some well noted examples of articles being removed before from Wikipedia here . So there is clearly precedent for removal of articles. I used love vox a decade ago, but now I see these half truths/partial stories are a commonplace and I’m happy to have ditched vox now.

I think that’s brilliant

How do you think they’re detecting what to sensor, how are they censoring it?