I wonder what you think of using https://docs.freestuffbot.xyz/ as a source instead?
With a feeds client
Duh, they want the money
a date with a therapist?? OwO
context matters
According to the modlog someone else (admittedly a slightly trollous user) posted this with the title "Jill Stein ally says the Greens' strategy is about making Harris lose the presidency" and got banned for it based on rule 1. I thought removal was reasonable but apparently the rule says "If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive." Could someone clarify how the alterations to the title didn't make it more descriptive?
I only know this because I was searching for certain keywords and stumbled upon comments in the deleted thread.
especially when you use something with inline citations like bing
I see this as an absolute win
Next up just make the info glean-friendly
It's not a mistake, just confusing UX. The text in question comes from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBFC
Personally, I'm just extremely irked that they refer to Wikipedia as "Wiki" when 1. that's not a proper noun 2. WP is right there
(don't swat my house with a slideshow, matt mullenweg, pretty please)
brat summer is looking gooood
WILL NOT TOLERATE THIS SLANDER