ISometimesAdmin

Great answer, and to add to this:

There's a world of difference between someone who's single, not satisfied with it, and actively desiring/seeking a relationship (single and looking) and someone who actively self-identifies as inherently doomed to be single due to the actions/perceptions of others (incel).

People in the former category NEVER call themselves incels.

I totally agree, though I wrote this in the context of OPs post specifically saying (emphasis mine):

I have seen in many US shows where they portray guys who are living with parents as losers, or there are jokes or memes about it, I never get it.

Yep, the other workaround that's elsewhere in this thread is to set up an entry with a different authoritative DNS in the hosts file, allowing a single machine to resolve the old domain manually.

This could be part of a greater effort, basically asking other instances to help the users evacuate the instance and transfer their accounts, before running tootctl self-destruct

OP, this title is stupidly misleading and incorrect, you should change it immediately.

The Taliban seized the DOMAIN, aka the ownership of the queer.af name that people could type into their browsers, and their system would resolve into an IP address.

As the Taliban control Afghanistan, (see where the domain comes from), this was inevitable and the instance owners were already planning to retire the instance as they didn't want to give money to the Taliban to keep it up.

The INSTANCE, aka the physical server, was not in Afghanistan, and still has its IP address(es), and so has had absolutely nothing happen to it.

It can also be used to make methamphetamine.

I feel like her reply is just as likely to be to call him a race traitor or whatever. It's hard to reason with people who gatekeep that hard

If the GOP wanted to counterattack, they could always start funding hyper-progressive candidates too 🙂

I'd honestly prefer raw parroting in most cases, even if it's "obviously" wrong. I don't want people selectively interpreting the facts as have been conveyed to them, unless they're prepared to do a proper peer review.

Though btw, I also think it's fascinating the difference if you look up Pyhäsalmi Mine gravitricity "2 MW" vs Pyhäsalmi Mine gravitricity "2MW"

You'll get different articles entirely

I googled Pyhäsalmi Mine gravitricity "2 MW" and EVERY article covering this has also cited 2 MW.

Now, under Occam's Razor, what's more likely:

1. Absolutely none of the article writers have any clue what the difference between a MW and a MWh is because none of them remember any physics
2. Some of them could suspect that it's wrong, but an authoritative source of the claim wrote/said 2 MW capacity when they meant "2 MW peak generation" or "2 MWh storage" (I'd presume Gravitricity, but I'm struggling to find such a source, myself)
3. One writer miswrote/misquoted as per 2, and everyone is mindlessly recycling that original article's contents with no attribution or care.

I don't know which one it is. But I'd generally lean against 1.

Damn, Steamboat Willie going into public domain really has Disney tightening the purse strings /s