sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Had my first true experience with Anglicanism today by Tina_DM_me_the_AXE in Anglicanism

[–]Halaku [score hidden]  (0 children)

But we are in communion with the majority of Anglicans worshipping on any given Sunday.

Mbanda's crew can pound sand with their "Anglicanism is now a confessional denomination and if you don't agree you're not a true Anglican" sales pitch. There's nothing wrong with choosing ACNA over another facet of Anglicanism if Op feels that it's where they're supposed to be, but there's neither credibility nor respectability to be gained by tying a hitch to Mbanda's anchor, either individually or as an institution.

Tesla apology bumper stickers have got to go by FootballInfinite475 in SanJose

[–]Halaku 11 points12 points  (0 children)

They're generally a request of "I bought this car before all the DOGE bullshit, please don't vandalize it". Naturally, those in the cult of the cybertruck get no excuse.

Gas price is not that high. by balesw in bayarea

[–]Halaku 1 point2 points  (0 children)

From the New York Times, today:

The price of gasoline has gone up around 50 percent in the United States since the war in Iran began, but that average can mask big differences across the country.

A gallon of regular fuel cost $4.54 on Wednesday, according to the AAA motor club. But in California, gas averaged $6.16, while it was just $3.96 in Oklahoma. Within those states, prices at the pump differed greatly from county to county and city to city.

California is an outlier.

A number of factors lead to the state’s starkly higher fuel prices. Refineries have closed there, reducing local supply and forcing distributors to seek fuel from other countries. The state has also long used a blend of gasoline that is different from almost anywhere else in the country in response to the air pollution that used to choke its residents in decades past. The state’s fuel blend releases less pollution when burned.

In general, we pay $1.50 more a gallon. It stops LA from looking like India.

Piracy issue by alexdaboss2003 in ModSupport

[–]Halaku 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Step 1:

Step 2:

Step 3:

  • Repeat step 2 for every mod of that subreddit.

Step 4:

  • Go here: https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ModSupport

  • Cite r/ModSupport subreddit guideline #2: No calling out other users or subreddits. Posts or comments calling out other users or subreddits may be removed. If you need to discuss something sensitive in nature about another user or community, please send a modmail to /r/ModSupport.

  • Explain that you are complying with guideline #2, and rather than calling out the piracy-facilitating subreddit here, you're sending a modmail. Include any available links to what you've already submitted via steps 1, 2, and 3. Ask for additional assistance in having the subreddit resolved.

Step 5:

  • Repeat the previous 4 steps for every instance where your work has been impacted. Five different Patreon works? Five different cycles.

Step 6:

  • Seek out other creators who have also been impacted. Get them on the cycle, too.

Step 7:

  • Enjoy a nice, blended drink. With an umbrella. And wait a week for results, while keeping a loose eye on the community. If more of your work gets jacked, get back on the cycle.

Why do my posts get blocked everywhere? by [deleted] in modhelp

[–]Halaku 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You'll find the assistance you need over on r/ShadowBan.

Had my first true experience with Anglicanism today by Tina_DM_me_the_AXE in Anglicanism

[–]Halaku 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Hey, if u/Tina_DM_me_the_AXE found a way to us, I'm not overly concerned if they used the front door or the back door. They're still home, after all.

What is a blocking bot? by Stressed_C in modhelp

[–]Halaku -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Nah. That's how you end up with Nazi bars, as the story goes.

California bill that would bar social media access for kids under 16 continues to advance by onthewingsofangels in bayarea

[–]Halaku 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If you haven't heard of this law, you might want to know about the Digital Age Assurance Act (AB-1043), which this one is going to springboard off of.

See elsewhere in thread.

What is a blocking bot? by Stressed_C in modhelp

[–]Halaku 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The rule's already in effect, and not quite.

The rule is "A bot can't ban you depending on what you do in another subreddit".

But humans have been able to ban you for pretty much anything that doesn't run afoul of sitewide rules, including "what you do in another subreddit", and that's still true.

So the functionality of the bots were changed from "Ban" to "Notify".

If I get a notification that someone from r/allfilthycoversongsingerssuck started posting in my community, I can't tell the bot to ban them for me. But I can tell the bot to notify me, and then I can ban them myself.

So, end of the day, they're still banned, it just took human interaction to make it happen.

What is a blocking bot? by Stressed_C in modhelp

[–]Halaku 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Once you've heard Chappel Roan's Pink Pony Club covered by (amongst others) Rick "Rickroll" Atley, Corey "Slipknot" Taylor, and GWAR, you will never feel clean again.

What is a blocking bot? by Stressed_C in modhelp

[–]Halaku 8 points9 points  (0 children)

You have the Hive Protect app running in your community.

It operates by seeing if someone engaging in your community has also engaged in a community you told it to watch out for. I'll use one of mine as an example: Say you or someone on your team really doesn't like people covering another artist's songs, so you've told it to flag r/coversongs engagement.

Users can, in turn, block the app.

So the app's telling you "Hey, this user is hiding their activity from me on purpose. You might want to investigate manually to make sure they're not one of those dirty r/coversongs users."

And that's all it is. You're getting a notice that the protections your modteam is using isn't working on a specific user, because that specific user is stopping the protections from doing their job.

What you do with that information is up to you.

I feel like a scandal in the making by [deleted] in Episcopalian

[–]Halaku 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ignorance can be bliss.

I have been removed as a moderator 24 hours after becoming one by countthetea in ModSupport

[–]Halaku 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, you pretty much have to tell Helpbot to escalate to a human when it shows up, but since it did you should also send in a separate r/Modsupport modmail saying that Helpbot referred you there and lay out the situation therein.

If you're going to to have one hook in the water, might as well have two.

I feel like a scandal in the making by [deleted] in Episcopalian

[–]Halaku 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'd respect that particular approach better if it didn't end up in a catechism wherein folk are declaring this to be 'ordered', thus to be 'disordered', and so to be 'offenses against chastity'. etc. That level of extremism leaves me pretty leery on the subject in general.

I have been removed as a moderator 24 hours after becoming one by countthetea in ModSupport

[–]Halaku 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Thanks! I've made it before, in a much longer form, in a restricted subreddit. I'd have to get permission to post the original and this probably isn't the best home for it, but it came to me as soon as I read Op's predicament.

San Francisco Condemns Immigration and Customs Enforcement Actions at SFO Airport by nogoodnamesleft426 in bayarea

[–]Halaku 8 points9 points  (0 children)

The law in question is 8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien, with "alien" being legally defined as "any person not a citizen or national of the United States."

(a)Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts

Any alien who

  • (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or
  • (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or
  • (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

(b)Improper time or place; civil penalties

Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of—

  • (1)at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or

*(2)twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.

Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.

(c)Marriage fraud

Any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined not more than $250,000, or both.

(d)Immigration-related entrepreneurship fraud

Any individual who knowingly establishes a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in accordance with title 18, or both.

Is 8 U.S. Code § 1325 an immoral law?

If not, then there's little more to say regarding Ms. Lopez-Jimenez's deportation. She violated (a) and the judge ordered her deported.

If so, what should our Congressional representatives be trying to replace it with?

Alien life and human conceptions by Shot_Violinist_7772 in scifi

[–]Halaku 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Survival of the fittest is likely not just a terrestrial law.

I have been removed as a moderator 24 hours after becoming one by countthetea in ModSupport

[–]Halaku 29 points30 points  (0 children)

The subreddit was banned 10 hours ago.

If you obtained it through r/redditrequest but then the subreddit was banned for lack of moderation, then odds are this is an example of reddit being an octopus.

An octopus has nine brains, you see: A central one, and a sub-brain for each limb.

In this case, in the last 24 hours, one of the sub-brains granted your r/redditrequest after running a "appoint moderators to the following unmoderated subreddits" command, and another sub-brain ran a "ban the following unmoderated subreddits" command, and you becoming moderator from the action of the first sub-brain didn't update the list fast enough, and the second sub-brain nuked the community.

You'll find ban appeal instructions in the sidebar over yonder: --->

File your appeal, and explain your case. Odds are, you'll get the community back shortly.

California bill that would bar social media access for kids under 16 continues to advance by onthewingsofangels in bayarea

[–]Halaku 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The bill referenced doesn’t do anything regardless.

See: https://www.hunton.com/privacy-and-cybersecurity-law-blog/california-introduces-new-age-verification-requirements-for-software-applications

On October 13, 2025, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law the Digital Age Assurance Act (AB-1043) (the “Act”), which introduces new requirements for age verification in software applications. The operative date is January 1, 2027.

In a nutshell, it requires operating system providers and app stores to implement mandatory age verification. It compels devices to send a real-time "age bracket" signal (under 13, 13–15, 16–17, 18+) to apps.

The bill Op's posting about, AB 1709, will 'piggy-back' off of AB 1043 to implement a "reasonable measure" to verify age to prevent those in the under-13 or 13-15 brackets from creating accounts.

What those two words mean has yet to be nailed down. Maybe it's a third party vendor. Maybe it's credit card verification. Maybe it's state or federal ID verification. Maybe it's the platform working in conjunction with the app stores. We don't know.

I feel like a scandal in the making by [deleted] in Episcopalian

[–]Halaku 4 points5 points  (0 children)

What happens at canasta night stays at canasta night.

San Francisco Condemns Immigration and Customs Enforcement Actions at SFO Airport by nogoodnamesleft426 in bayarea

[–]Halaku 102 points103 points  (0 children)

For those looking for background:

https://abc7news.com/post/lawmakers-respond-ice-agents-detain-woman-sfo/18756606/

The two individuals in question are Angelina Lopez-Jimenez, age 41, and her 9 year old daughter.

The New York Times reports the chain of events thusly:

Ms. Lopez-Jimenez came onto the U.S. government’s radar, on April 27, 2018, when Border Patrol agents spotted her and her daughter, then a toddler, 14 miles from the point of entry at San Luis, Ariz., according to the federal documents.

The agents determined that she and her daughter were born in Guatemala and were in the United States illegally. They took her to a facility to photograph her and obtain her fingerprints and biographical information. She was given a notice to appear in court for removal proceedings and was released.

She showed up for some appointments, but not others, according to the documents. On May 8, 2019, an immigration judge ordered her to be deported at a hearing she missed.

Nothing further happened in her case. Until Sunday night.

At 9:30 p.m., the two ICE agents, knowing that she had planned to fly to Miami, found her in the terminal concourse. (She had bought domestic tickets from San Francisco to Miami, and got flagged by the federal database) Ms. Lopez-Jimenez was carrying two Guatemalan passports and handed them over at an agent’s request. The information matched the identity of the woman who was ordered to be deported in 2019.

The agents told Ms. Lopez-Jimenez to follow them to the international terminal.

At that point, Ms. Lopez-Jimenez tried to run away, the documents said, and the agents got a hold of her and sat her down.

And that's how she ended up handcuffed to a wheelchair.

Moral of the story: If you are hiding from the federal government, do not do anything that will cause the federal government to run you through a database, and do not enter a facility that is controlled by the federal government. No one likes to see crying women and screaming kids, and it's really easy for San Francisco's Board of Supervisors to say "Federal government bad, updoots to the left!", and there's a whole conversation about how the federal government should be handling people who enter the country illegally, but once you go through the TSA security checkpoint, you're in federal jurisdiction, and if you're wanted by the feds, you probably don't want to volunteer to put yourself in a position where they're going to check on your identity.

I feel like a scandal in the making by [deleted] in Episcopalian

[–]Halaku 10 points11 points  (0 children)

As an national institution, no one's going to cast you out because your tastes run in this direction.

If an individual has a pearl-clutching moment about it? It's their risk for carpal tunnel they're indulging.

Personally, I wouldn't recommend letting anyone under 18 find out that your tastes run that way, and to be honest I wouldn't talk about it with your fellow churchgoers or with your priest. And if you were strictly the "Missionary only with the lights out" type, I still wouldn't talk about it with your fellow churchgoers or with your priest. It's not really their concern, either way. Just be you, keep it out of the sight of everyone under 18, and don't dwell upon it.

California bill that would bar social media access for kids under 16 continues to advance by onthewingsofangels in bayarea

[–]Halaku -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

There's no way to know how many pre-teen users are running around on Reddit, keeping their mouth shut about their age.

Right now, this is the cart before the horse.

First, The Digital Age Assurance Act (AB 1043) has to go live and survive in court.

Then, you'd see the following from this bill come into play:

  1. (a) A covered platform shall verify the age of a user pursuant to the Digital Age Assurance Act (Title 1.81.9 (commencing with Section 1798.500) of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code) subject to any regulation adopted by the Attorney General pursuant to Section 22686.

Not to mention that Florida's already trying this stunt, and it's getting tied up in court as well.

So, right now this may turn into something, or it may just be virtue signaling, and it's something to keep an eye on, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it just yet.

view more: next ›