dave5104

I assume the person you're responding to is referring to the fact that Trump lost and ended up inciting an insurrection against the federal government in an attempt to prevent his opponent from taking power.

That's not really ending on a good note.

> Users opt into notifications by first indicating interest through a user gesture — such as clicking a button. Then, they’ll be prompted to give permission for your site or app to send notifications. Users will be able to view and manage notifications in Notifications Center, and customize styles and turn notifications off per website in Notifications Settings.

Looks like there will be some interaction required to prompt it.

That being said, hoping there's a browser-level option to just turn it off.

Unless you want to unplug your modem, turn off your cell service, and live life as a luddite, your privacy on the internet doesn't exist.

> Why do people always bring this up when people talk about "Facebook"?

Wasn't one of the points of their recent rebrand to Meta to better define "Facebook" as a singular product, and not the company and its other products?

> * Bait and switch. Now replies to the original tweet will be out of context

I used to think this could be a problem too... but Reddit has had an edit button as long as I can remember, and bait and switch doesn't really seem to be much of a problem.

Perhaps it'd be more troublesome with the concept of retweets or quote tweets?

> Since Hawaii is an island, everyone needs to buy sunscreen on arrival after landing at the airport.

If you're implying this is somehow enforced at the airport, this is not even remotely true.

Source: Brought my own sunscreen from outside of Hawaii and used it all last week while visiting.

It is beneficial, just not from a financial aspect.

With Reedy Creek, Disney doesn't need to worry about whether local politicians will approve expansions or meet the needs of the Walt Disney World complex since the local government is purely serving Disney.

If you take a look at Disneyland in California, Disney is going up against Anaheim and Orange County councils on a pretty routine basis to get new things built.

Not sure where that idea comes from, but Disney absolutely pays taxes and your claim is false. In fact, the special tax district is allowed to (and does) charge Disney additional taxes over the state maximum to provide services like utilities and infrastructure.

Removing the tax district means it is illegal for Orange/Osceola Counties to continue charging the extra taxes to Disney to pay for their infrastruture.

If anything, it's a financial sweetheart deal for Florida, not for Disney. The thing Disney gets out of it is being able to maintain their property to the standard of their liking.

> not educated enough to think critically and realize their tax dollars will now subsidize the millions (billions?) of dollars of infrastructure

For what it's worth, it's likely residents of Orange and Osceola Counties will be taking up most of that extra tax burden. Both of those counties are relatively blue, and neither of them voted for DeSantis... so that's probably just gravy to him.

> local governments who would likely be bending over backwards to appease the house of mouse.

This part isn't necessarily guaranteed. Over in California, Disneyland frequently has trouble with Anaheim/Orange County when seeking approval for new projects. They've had entire hotels and parking structures designed, publicly announced, and then canceled because the local government wouldn't play ball.

The only thing that guarantees Disney's continued ability to build whatever in Florida is if they continue to be their own local government.

> This sounds like something is changing somewhere

Well, their parent company (Warner Bros. Discovery) just completed a big merger 2 weeks ago.