This could be a router or VPN issue, or both. Is FitGirl private? They probably have info about port forwarding and seeding in an FAQ.

Yeah I was going to say, “sounds familiar”.

Who?

Ah! In my scanning I missed the “adjusted by country mean” but yeah, you’re totally correct.

I scanned the study and couldn’t figure out what a negative factual score means, it only talks about factuality being rated from 0 to 1.

How often does this happen? What is it costing your friends? Are they sneaking it to you? Are they the purveyor of the establishment?

In any case, if you were only going to spend $5, you don’t have to accept the full $20 worth of food/drink. You could say, “oh I was only planning on spending around $5 tonight, this is too much, but thanks.” Or if the somewhat direct approach feels awkward, max out your tip at what you were originally going to spend. If it’s not enough, they’ll stop giving you so much.

Well it finally changed the 8th time I pressed it, so checkmate.

This is what I fucking said Trudeau should do.

I would be very surprised if there aren’t a ton of calls happening right now between Trudeau and other world leaders.

Even if it isn’t about simultaneous tariffs, we need to line up allies and trade partners. Repairing relations with India and China could be top priorities. I expect more announcements over the next 48 hours…

That’s wishful thinking. It won’t last though; production will go down and prices will go back up. And while the prices are down the producers suffer. And when production goes down there’s less money in the economy and we call that a recession.

Post-penultimate has a nice ring to it.

Which one is Gen-Z again?

When Epic started hiring every software engineer in video games they flipped that red curve, at least to the right of that blue line.

I make sure to never get attached to one brew so I can drink it anywhere, anytime. I’ll drink instant without hot water if I need to (and not just frappe.)

I still have RiF installed for the nostalgia.

I’m not OP, but I would say it’s not a well-written informational article, and the entire argument made by the author is to directly contradict the title.

The author seems to be trying to come off as an investigative journalist, but does so by trying to weave an entertaining story. In the parts where the author does make journalistic points (rather than creative writing) they often aren’t clear about their points. They vaguely mention things without telling you what they think that means. For readers, that means you have to work to glean the actual points from their story, both by deciphering what isn’t creative writing, and by unraveling their unexplained quotations and off-hand statements.

When they finally start getting away from creative writing, you’re subject to a bunch of info and quotations pulled directly from the Repubblica article before finally getting to the meat of the author’s argument (emphasis mine): “The report strongly implies that these sites exist to lure in unsuspecting customers, gather evidence of wrongdoing, then use self-provided names and addresses to issue fines.” There are a couple of quotes that kind of back this up. However the author even agrees that the quotes aren’t really supportive: “It doesn’t state that directly but most reasonable readers seem likely to draw that conclusion.”

But most of the discussion/quotes in this area are just telling you random info from the Repubblica article that is unrelated to this argument anyway.

Then the article takes a left turn and starts randomly talking about sting operation legality in multiple jurisdictions, and some random statements about the (il)legality of IPTV. I think the implication here is that law enforcement wouldn’t do this type of sting since it would be illegal, and what the targets are doing isn’t likely to be deemed illegal anyway. This seems like a weak argument, at best, but it’s the best I can come up with since the author didn’t explicitly tell us their point here.

As a reminder, the title of the article is ‘Bogus Pirate IPTV Portals Run By Law Enforcement “Entrap Hundreds”’. That means you’re going into the article thinking you’re going to get a story about Bogus Pirate IPTV sites. But then the author is basing that title off an article they spend their whole article debunking. That just makes it that extra little bit of difficult to quickly read the article. A more accurate title would have been "Italian Journal Claims Bogus Pirate IPTV Portals Run By Law Enforcement to Entrap Hundreds (But I Don’t Think It’s True) ”.

All in all, I think it’s a difficult read, and most certainly a difficult scan.

I don’t think anyone has mentioned: being very competitive.

Somewhere uncomfortable