Not sure if this hack has a name, but usually once someone in a comment tree makes a joke about downvotes — e.g., clowning on an edit complaining about a downvote — rules are suspended for all comments that follow, and you can accrue lots of downvote salutes FOR FREE.
(Maybe not my comment since I’m late to the downvote party, but here you go;)
This might be true if there is existing live mold somewhere in the toilet (for that, monthly tank bleach tablet) but otherwise a lid prevents spores from settling in the first place.
Humidity reduction by ventilation can slow/delay mold but only eradication stops it.
Every example of human interest profile targeting functionality that humanity has ever invented, even if it begins as a way of legitimately improving the user’s experience, eventually is gutted and retooled to cyberstalk and pimp them out to voyeuristic clients.
The clients? Mostly rich pay-per-view incel corporations that could never hope to reach their desired audience organically, much less hold their interest, so they are absolutely willing to pay for non-consentual attention control.
Once we reach this phase, your pimp has less and less interest in delivering on promises they made to you a long time ago about relevant content. They know you’ll keep giving them juicy data to help pair you with clients that they can prove have the best chance at manipulating you and getting what they want from you.
So yes, you’ll probably find that the convenience you could once purchase by giving them more of your data will slow. Ultimately, all it will purchase is more intrusive advertisers stalking you everywhere you go.
Your idea of sticking to DDG sounds like a better option
How would something like salary or pension indicate what they know/think? Do you mean specifically the talking about it? Or that they’re not practicing leftism properly? Or is it more like just having it shows that they’re sheep?
Is it? There seems to be widespread agreement on that point, here on Lemmy, that expecting the worst of everyone is critical to motivate the Americans to go out and vote.
It’s a strong enough consensus, reinforced with absolute certainty over and over in our political communities, that I’ve been forced to ponder it myself many times. Because I also have an instinct that it’s quite possible to demotivate and even deactivate would-be voters by making them feel that theirs is a lone flame in the wind, or that the insurmountable forces of evil will make their efforts inconsequential.
As a counter example, here in New York, that wasn’t what brought people out to knock on doors and vote for the new progressive mayor. People participated because they had hope for change, or maybe just to be a part of a something new. They weren’t voting against Cuomo as much as they were voting for Mamdani, if that makes sense.
Are we confident that our all-in commitment to motivating people through fear of their neighbors’ inaction is a winning strategy?