While I agree some of my comments as of late would be considered "breaking guidelines", most of my comments are conversation provoking, and often include sources.

And FYI in this particular situation, it's pretty frustrating to see people not only make numerical claims without providing sources, but then confidently respond to being called out with an anecdotal "well my 1 doctor friend told me...." response. Only for them to be provided further false-confidence by you swooping in with the ban-hammer based on some arbitrary "site guideline".

Yes. If the currently available options intended to fix a particular problem don't actually fix the problem while at the same time make the offending business more powerful while making the little guy less powerful...then yes, doing nothing is clearly a better option in the short term.

If so, your statement is simply absurd. That's like saying the term "female cheaters" equally insinuates men and women as the cheating-gender being discussed.

#2 You missed the point. Twitter is trying to tweak their algorithm not to fix the actual problem, but to reduce the Twitter-perceived downside of not aligning with in-vogue leftist politics (i.e. in this instance: "despise anything to do with white-males but scream racism/sexism as it suits them").

The parent comment is essentially saying this whole bounty exists because Twitter is afraid of the social-politics associated with being considered a "male-gaze" facilitator (while mentioning they're already aware that the known technical cause has nothing to do with that, but it's essentially too hard to explain to the general public).

So mentioning you get eyefucked in the bread aisle by more men than lesbians not only misses the point, it shows how quick you are to position yourself as a victim (whether you intended to or not) as it suits you...only to admit you enjoy the eyefucks. Making ppl like you happy is the actual goal of this.

This is how the upper classes gentrify the middle classes. They know most <$46k people already can't afford cars in a major city, so this isn't geared towards them at all. Simply slap a forced tax that's meaningless to the rich, and all of a sudden they get to drive around in a traffic-free city.

And they shouldn't be allowed to take jobs/money (including "speaking fees", a.k.a. bribes) from publicly owned corporations for 15 years after leaving public office.

I would argue this is an even bigger red flag. Professional traders are much more aware of subtle cause & effects within the markets.

i.e. Not-yet public info about reducing tariffs on imported wheat would lower raw-material cost for bread companies, then would lower the cost for McDonald's hamburger buns, then McDonalds makes more profit this quarter...and Pelosi's husband buys a bunch of options on McDonalds, then dumps the options immediately after the info goes public.

So insider information that seems innocuous to the average person could be used and abused like crazy by professionals like Pelosi's husband.

[1] https://lidblog.com/national-park-service-glaciers/

I predicted this would have happened slowly over the next 15 years, but covid and inner-city violence triggered a flight to the suburbs....hence increases in real estate.