Verqix

https://www.thedailybeast.com/harris-trolls-trump-ill-go-to-debate-even-if-you-dont

Fully on board with that. It's why in journalism you see an indicator of closeness make it a more relevant source description. Like "democratic senator", "someone close to the president" etc. Moreover you have to question the publishers alignment and dedication to truthfullness.

But if people lack the critical reading skill to already mistake "unverified" with "anonymous source [of function/closeness to the subject] according to [insert news agency]", that is just trying to find truth in a statement ment to give you doubt.

Edit: On alignment of the publisher: "Newsmax TV holds a conservative political stance, broadcasting many programs hosted by conservative media personalities. CEO Christopher Ruddy has compared the network to Fox News."

Fox News itself said not to consider it actual news reporting.

Why would a reliable source close enough to the president to know the truth about campaign aspirations go to a Fox News clone?

Also, in regards to the interest not being factored, if they implement a check the limits for what is being checked could be interest (number of installs or active uses) based. An app doesn't show anything after 1 second? If there are 500.000 users it's probably fine, but if there are 10? It's way less likely to be a false positive, and way less impactful if it is a false positive.

Did you miss the "most" keyword? Also, what is their definition of a "text-only" app? What devices are they using for the "don't install or load" check? When is something called "unresponsive"?

There are so many ways to trigger false positives on any check google introduces. Their way of handling developers who don't understand why they have their app pulled is by giving a blanket "violates the rules" remark.

I imagine SD card reliant apps, apps where a server is down, apps with specific time based information in text on start, apps calculating a lot of data etc. all potential victims.

Unverified to you means "verified by a source that prefers to remain anonymous"?

Have you considered the comment not being serious but highlighting the absurdity of antitrans folks being so incredibly focused on young peoples genitals while decrying others as perverted for wearing clothes that differ from their own?

One of the things you could do is calculate towards understandable numbers. Per tax payer in Britain (32 million) it would cost ~1150 for that first item on the list. Imagine the amount of dinghies you can buy per person for the lot of these. Billion just isn't that magnitude to most people.

My guess is you're thinking of the DRC, because Congo is pretty much equal in size.

But the original law still exempts name change by marriage . To me it feels like name changes not on official public record should be the target, as in a deliberate pseudonym. Still, what fits under that umbrella? Your twitter handle, if it isn't your legal name would fit, but no one included that since the law was written.

So you chose culture over their personal choice and you and your kid(s) have to live with the consequences. That's a pretty sad thing that could be prevented by only allowing circumcision to be performed when medically necessary.

If this becomes precedent and enforced the whole Irish tax dodging method becomes moot, puting Ireland on par with other EU nations. If this is a high enough fine it will have long term ramifications.

The main issue to me is, big companies will find the next best thing and continue with unethical accounting, outside of the EU.