my_hat_stinks

Yes, because the person you replied to is either wrong or lying (some terfs claim terf is a slur). Terfs do self-identify as terfs. A recent prominent example would be Sall Grover, "During this incident, Grover self-identified as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist".

Terfs by definition exclude women and are therefore not feminist. Hate groups often try to legitimise themselves by adopting more reasonable names even when it goes directly against their views, eg "All lives matter" formed specifically to counter the claim that black lives matter.

Drawing a distinction between privacy and security is kind of nonsense in this context. While they are technically different, they're only different in the way that an apple and a fruit are different. Privacy is an aspect of security.

If your privacy was violated in any other context you would not feel secure.

That's a very different question. A smartphone can to some degree emulate the other devices listed so when people are asked to pick only one device most are naturally going to choose that even if it's not currently their primary device, and since they could only choose one it's not useful in determining how many people use other devices. It also appears to be a follow-up question asking about second most important devices so it's definitely not useful out of context.

From that survey question alone you cannot reasonably claim which device is used most often.

I can't think of a scenario where you ask someone to defend why they don't drink but they are the one that is insecure and judgemental. There's plenty of situations where people drink when they shouldn't (eg driving) but it's not quite so common to be in a situation where you must drink but don't.

It's an alignment because if you look up at it they're in a line. That's what alignment means, Lara Croft and ancient artifacts are optional.

From what I could tell the gnome teleports to a random still-covered empty tile and dies when there's nowhere left to run.

That's slightly misleading, I think. There are no arrays in Lua, every Lua data structure is a table (sometimes pretending to be something else) and you can have anything as a key as long as it's not nil. There's also no integers, Lua only has a single number type which is floating point. This is perfectly valid:

local tbl = {}
local f = function() error(":(") end

tbl[tbl] = tbl
tbl[f] = tbl
tbl["tbl"] = tbl

print(tbl)
-- table: 0x557a907f0f40
print(tbl[tbl], tbl[f], tbl["tbl"])
-- table: 0x557a907f0f40	table: 0x557a907f0f40	table: 0x557a907f0f40

for key,value in pairs(tbl) do
  print(key, "=", value)
end
-- tbl	=	table: 0x557a907f0f40
-- function: 0x557a907edff0	=	table: 0x557a907f0f40
-- table: 0x557a907f0f40	=	table: 0x557a907f0f40

print(type(1), type(-0.5), type(math.pi), type(math.maxinteger))
-- number	number	number	number

They didn't wish for food, you can see all the cans stacked in the cabinet through the glass until the last panel.

Popular mostly fungible consumable item, seems reasonable enough to me. Cheese theft is common enough and I doubt eggs would be much more difficult to move.

My first thought would be selling to somewhere that uses large quantities of eggs, like a restaurant or factory.

Everyone understands that, that's a surface-level reading not some secret hidden meaning. The problem is if you take more than a second to think about it instead of just taking the story at face value you see the real relationship here.

You have one horrifically vile being ruining someone's life even though the victim worships them. The victim continues to worship them in spite of their atrocities just because they're powerful.

It's touted as a story about how you should just keep blind faith in the powerful but that's really the exact opposite of what it shows. And it's more relevant now than ever, I'm sure it'll take you no effort at all to think of another toxic parasocial relationship.

I also take idioms literally, I read the entire book right there before deciding whether to buy it. Obviously you can't trust how they chose to present the book so you need to read it to know if it's worth reading.