The "do something" is support open hardware, sell more machines, provision fewer product variations.
I get that these are the immovable objects and sacred cows of the management ranks ..new executives need to try, try, try again. All these features just sit in the "update" queue advertising their uselessness, and eventually highlight their abandonment.
As another top level comment describes, there are very inexpensive hardware store mold testing kits which are essentially just petri dishes you leave open and then mail in for testing.
Also if it is indeed mold, the source is typically some source of moisture. You want to rule out roof leaks and plumbing leaks, and bear in mind that water is incredibly non intuitive and creative in getting from point a to point b.
Another major source of humidity is the human body. Between sweat and respiration, we emit quite a bit of water. This goes into the air and into the bedding and requires ventilation to dissipate. Tightly sealed under-bed areas prevent the mattress from breathing. You might consider stripping the bedding and lifting up the mattress to see how things look.
Consider the rooms' ventilation system. Are the filters new, are the ducts clean? Hiring a professional to check the HVAC system is good routine maintenance.
A final source of moisture leading to mold to consider is condensation. Anywhere warm air meets a much colder surface leads to liquid water and mold. This can mean cracks and poor insulation in exterior walls during winter, or the air conditioning parts during summer. I've seen this combine with the bed-human moisture where under a bed against an exterior wall in a poorly insulated house was staying cold. The bottom of the mattress was moldy.
Mold is insidious. You often need to get into the mindset of a detective, or hire one, to find it. Good luck.
> Pre-passkeys, was this lockout issue a true issue with apple and google accounts?
Yes, absolutely. I have a second Google account I created and lost the password to. I can't reset it because it wants to know the exact month I opened it. I don't even know if it was 2012 or 2016, I'll never guess the month.
> privacy was not their objective. Only secure communications was.
> Signal is demonstrably anti-privacy by design.
But your second is uncharitable and misses Signal's historical context.
The value of a phone number for spam prevention has been mentioned, but that's not the original reason why phone numbers were central to Signal. People forget that Signal was initially designed around using SMS as transport, as with Twitter.
Signal began as an SMS client for Android that transparently applied encryption on top of SMS messages when communicating with other Signal users. They added servers and IP backhaul as it grew. Then it got an iOS app, where 3rd party SMS clients aren't allowed. The two clients coexisted awkwardly for years, with Signal iOS as a pure modern messenger and Signal Android as a hybrid SMS client. Finally they ripped out SMS support. Still later they added usernames and communicating without exposing phone numbers to the other party.
You can reasonably disdain still having to expose a phone number to Signal, but calling it "anti-privacy by design" elides the origins of that design. It took a lot of refactoring to get out from under the initial design, just like Twitter in transcending the 140-character limit.
> You can reasonably disdain still having to expose a phone number to Signal, but calling it "anti-privacy by design" elides the origins of that design.
They introduced usernames without removing the requirement for phone numbers.
The parent attempted to excuse them by pointing out that the initial design was based on phone numbers. Putting aside the fact that initial design is irrelevant to present design criticism, they went out of their way to design usernames yet deliberately disallow signup without phone numbers.
> Not a very good case made since you obviously didn’t read the parent discussion.
This isn't an argument, do you have anything to back up your assertion?
I don’t understand, you know what I will ask next.
And broadcasting on FM radio is then what?
You’re just redefining words, there’s no need for this. We agree it would be better from a privacy point of view if Signal did not require a phone number but you’re nit picking: it’s a one time thing, and you can take a public phone that no one can associate with you for this. And then never need it again if you have proper backups.
This is a fascinating phenomenon, isn't it? I've heard it invoked as "it's always easier to clean someone else's room." And anxiety does seem to be the key. Very often the actual blocker isn't the difficulty of a task, but how we relate to it.
The discussion is about a novel whose main appeal is described as "scenes one can imagine themselves in" with "more style than substance". That's a valid thing to enjoy, but not for everyone.
The idea that it appeals to boys and not girls was conflicted with further nuance: while girls might be hard pressed to see themselves in it, so too would some boys.
While one can make the argument that the beats' values and writings are at least complimentary to misogyny, that wasn't the discussion happening here previously.
> while girls might be hard pressed to see themselves in it, so too would some boys.
That's the same thing, in this context. Saying "only some boys could see themselves in books where men mistreat women" is basically the same thing I'm criticising.
reply