Not sure how right or wrong that is when taking into account the more moderate sections of it, but in this particular case, as the article says, it’s not really about Islam. The holy texts don’t really call for any of this.

I sometimes don’t even listen to the amount they say. I just hear a number and know it’s time to use my card.

I wonder how much was mistakenly charged to me over the years.

The very same happens in French. The use of recently popular gender-neutral structures like “étudiant.e.s” is strongly discouraged in formal writing. The older “étudiant(e)s” less so but still not recommended.

What’s recommended is to either say “étudiants et étudiantes” or just use the masculine form as a group for both masculine and feminine forms, as has been the standard forever, and almost no one bats an eye at.

It’s not TERF, it’s not misogynistic, it’s just to make texts easier to read. It takes more time and effort to read a text full of those extra period/parenthesis characters, for very very little gain.

People wanting to write a text where they consider the sacrifice in readability worth it for the extra emphasis on gender inclusion still can; the police won’t show up. It’s just not standard grammar.

“Multiple nested menus to perform basic functions like equipping something”

Damn no need to roast Elden Ring alive like that! :D

I can see why they would want that. They may consider email to be inherently less safe than their platform, so they don’t send any sensitive information there.

Canada’s government stuff also generally works that way, except without any links.

I’m not sure how legit their concerns are, but it’s a thing.