TL;DR: The bill applies to direct delivery and DoorDash-like delivery (this is already legal and simply removes or extends sunsetting clauses).
Author of this article apparently does not know the difference between this and what "to go" implies. Or is looking for rage-clicks. Hope I saved a few.
Inside Job was also renewed until it was suddenly rugged, so I'm not holding my breath for anything Netflix produces until it actually airs.
The buy page literally lists videos and music as being part of what you're buying with Prime, and unlimited storage for photos and that twitch sub are also listed benefit if you click the view more button.
I don't know why that would be considered "free" since they're literally advertising those things.
How are any of these things "free" if you're paying to get these "free" features?
I don't know how willing you are to use a different app, but Sync allows me to block entire instances and it was the first thing I did.
However, you'll still see their comments on non-blocked instances, so your mileage may vary.
Adverse possession isn't that simple, and laws regarding it vary by state. In this case, it appears to be Washington state, which requires a number of things that indicate an uphill battle for anyone trying.
Among other requirements, it needs to be uninterrupted (occasional activity doesn't count), exclusive (the true owner doesn't use it) for ten entire years, notorious (impossible to miss if you ever are on the property, we're talking anywhere from fencing it off to building an entire house on it) and hostile (without permission).
So in reality, if I already owned this, avoiding adverse possession on this property is as easy as visiting it once every 5-8 years and telling them to quit the area if they're trying to elbow their way in (which resets the 10 year clock).
So yeah, not as much a free land grab as one might think.
Asking honestly: do you think doing so would change anything?