Yeah, I guess there are two ways to view these words...
In one you see the use of the word as a slur as a bad act, in the other you see the word as damaging in itself, like having to watch nsfl gore or something.
If you feel the word itself is damaging to see, censoring it makes sense. If you just care about people not using slurs, seeing the word itself is fine.
It's pretty silly that using them in a discussion about slurs would upset enough people that it's better not to.
If you actually use them as slurs, censoring doesn't really make you a better person. Telling someone "you're a fucking r-word" isn't really all that much nicer than writing out the full thing...
They're certainly old enough
I imagine the thought process is that it's easier to do it now during the chaos than later when there's some form of new government and organised defence.
They're taking out capabilities so a new, possibly not Israel friendly government, won't have them, and thus will be less of a threat.
It doesn't make it ok of course.
Loose leaf or bust! Keep the tea bagging to online shooters
Landlords are an effect of the system; it's pretty pointless to shame them if you don't change the system
Some countries tax properties higher if they're not your primary residence for example. It might drive rents higher though
Because we don't want kittens?
What don't you like about it?
Is iCloud a file sharing service or social network in some way? If it isn't, comparing them with such services makes no sense
You should have though. This type of scanning is the thin end of the wedge to complete surveillance. If it's added, next year it's extended to cover terrorism. Then to look for missing people. Then "illegal content" in general.
The reason most people seem to disagree with you in this case is that you're wrong
No wonder Intel has been on a bad trend. A CEO who prays rather than fixes thing isn't great