JamesB

Opening your front door in Florida be like:

I prefer to book within 12 to 48 hours of the desired time. That approach has worked very well for me. When I give more advance notice, I tend to get too many requests to change the time, which is something I simply don't care to deal with.

https://rent.men/Boston_TH

For me, "sequencing providers" meant hiring one provider per day, every day. I guess I need to step up my game. 😄

While I agree with you in principle, my experience in my years of hiring, which are more than I care to admit, has been somewhat different. I have only known one provider that worked for a little over 3 years before leaving this line of work and starting his own business. Even then, there were some pretty significant caveats: he worked virtually 24/7, didn't filter clients based on looks or age and happened to receive a small inheritance that included both cash and real estate after a family member passed away. I genuinely wish this young man the best of luck, but based on what I've seen over the years, the odds aren't exactly in his favor.

The strategy can work for a while but it is not a sustainable long-term business model. It's more of a fantasy version of escorting than a realistic representation of the job. Someone might initially attract a handful of clients who fit that description but the pool of gay, wealthy, attractive men who regularly hire escorts is inevitably quite small. And even wealthy clients who hire escorts typically value variety and zero strings attached rather than committing to one provider indefinitely. Having money and options means they can easily move on to someone new. The gay escort market is also heavily segmented by looks, age, body type, and specific archetypes. The "fresh 18" appeal probably has one of the steepest depreciation curves of all. Put it all together: a small target market, high client turnover, a rapidly diminishing youth advantage and constant competition from newer faces. That's a business model with a ceiling and an expiration date, not a particularly reliable long-term career.

Name change https://rent.men/Rican_Angel

To be honest, a $50 cancellation fee doesn't seem like a big deal to me nor does it necessarily mean he was "trying to teach you a lesson." It's just a cancellation fee. So, you ended up paying the fee, didn't get to meet him and very likely earned yourself a nice Mr. Number review in the process. I guess you showed him.

Assumptions are the mother of disappointment. If it matters to you, always ask.

Name change https://rent.men/CertifiedLMT

Related discussion: https://www.companyofmen.org/topic/170335-height-difference-a-turn-onoff/

I don't really see any reason not to disclose the profession, but based on the clues available, they seem to point fairly strongly toward the person being an ICE agent.

https://www.companyofmen.org/topic/155206-411-on-jose_colombia-in-orlando/

https://rent.men/settings/reviews

My guess is that the reason new profiles keep disappearing comes down to how modern listing platforms handle account security and ban enforcement. RMen and RMasseur, which share backend infrastructure and ownership, appear to have strict anti-ban-evasion measures. Once an account is permanently removed, creating a new one would typically violate the platform's TOS. Automated systems can use various signals, such as email addresses, IP addresses, device fingerprints, payment information, photos and other account patterns, to identify and remove duplicate or replacement accounts either immediately or during routine sweeps. Listing platforms rarely respond to support tickets regarding banned accounts. This is usually due to automated support queues that auto-close tickets tied to blacklisted account, as well as strict legal/liability policies preventing staff from discussing internal moderation rules. .

The charge is not obstruction of justice. Prosecutors charged under 18 U.S.C. section 2232(a), “Destruction or removal of property to prevent seizure.” That statute makes it a felony to knowingly destroy, damage, waste, dispose of or otherwise take any action for the purpose of preventing or impairing the government’s lawful authority to seize property. It carries up to five years. The indictment specifically alleges that Tunick “did knowingly destroy, damage, waste, dispose of and otherwise take any action to delete the digital contents of a Google Pixel cellular phone, for the purpose of preventing and impairing the Government’s lawful authority.” Your cocaine analogy is closer to a classic obstruction or evidence tampering theory. Section 2232 is narrower, it targets actions taken to keep property from being seized, regardless of whether a formal investigation or judicial proceeding has already begun. The government’s theory here is that wiping the encryption keys (via the GrapheneOS duress feature) destroyed the digital contents of the device in order to prevent its seizure in usable form. Whether deleting encryption keys while the physical phone remains intact constitutes “destruction” of the property under section 2232 is precisely the legal question the court will have to decide. The physical device was not damaged, the data became permanently inaccessible. That distinction is real and is not settled by the statute’s text alone. On the procedural points we agree: the warrantless nature of the border seizure and the reported denial of counsel raise serious Fourth and Fifth Amendment issues that the defense is properly litigating. But those issues do not change the statute under which the government actually charged the case.

From a privacy standpoint, Signal is the clear winner. Neither Telegram nor WhatsApp comes close when it comes to data protection, metadata minimization and overall security architecture. Telegram is better thought of as a cloud based messaging and broadcasting platform than a private messenger. Regular chats are stored on Telegram's servers, where Telegram controls the encryption keys and can technically access the message contents. Only Secret Chats use end-to-end encryption and group chats do not support end-to-end encryption at all. WhatsApp provides end-to-end encryption by default, so Meta cannot read the contents of your messages. However, Meta still collects a significant amount of metadata, including who you communicate with, when you communicate, how often and various device and connection details. Also, if you back up your chats to Google Drive or iCloud without enabling WhatsApp's end-to-end encrypted backups, those backups are no longer protected by the same encryption. If privacy is your primary concern, choose Signal. If convenience and widespread adoption matter more, WhatsApp offers a reasonable balance of usability and security. Telegram's reputation as a privacy focused messenger is largely driven by marketing, unless you exclusively use Secret Chats, it should not be considered a private messaging platform.

While the federal government may believe it has a legally sound case for treating the destruction of encryption keys as destruction of property to prevent federal seizure, there are some significant legal and technical questions. The storage device itself was not physically damaged or destroyed. Destroying the encryption keys simply makes the data unreadable; the encrypted data still exists on the drive exactly as before. The question then, is whether rendering data permanently inaccessible should legally be considered "destruction of property" when the property itself remains intact. From a technical standpoint, the data is still there. Without the keys however, it is effectively unrecoverable. Whether that amounts to legal destruction is ultimately a question for the courts.

Biff Wellington. Rich, meaty and expensive.

I’m not a Samsung user so take this with a grain of salt. As far as I know Samsung’s "Remote Unlock" via SmartThings Find (Find My Mobile) was discontinued. That said, before resigning to a full data loss, check the following: Even if you haven't manually backed up your phone recently, Android devices often perform silent daily backups while charging over Wi-Fi. On your computer, look under Devices / Backups. Check the timestamp of the last backup. If a backup was made prior to the update, your contacts, text messages (via Samsung Messages), settings and photos (if synced to Samsung Cloud/OneDrive) are safe. Check Google Drive and Google Photos. Log into photos.google.com and drive.google.com with the Google account associated with the phone. Go to Drive > Storage > Backups. Look for a device backup file for your Galaxy S23. If active, Google automatically backs up text messages, call history, app data, and device settings. Try common system default PINs. When Android software updates force a lock screen on an un-PINned device, it sometimes defaults to standard initial setups or carrier-level locks: 0000, 1234 or the last 4 digits of your phone number. Reboot into Safe Mode. A third-party security app or a corrupt update cache may be triggering the prompt. Press and hold the Power/Side Key + Volume Down until the power menu appears. Tap and hold the Power Off icon on screen until Safe Mode appears. Tap Safe Mode. If a corrupt app caused the prompt, Safe Mode may allow entry or let you try biometrics. If none of these work, I believe there is no reliable way to recover or bypass a forgotten screen lock PIN. Samsung (and Android) encrypt the lock credentials on-device, neither Samsung Support nor your Samsung account can retrieve or reset the PIN itself. Good luck. Hopefully one of these options gets you back into your phone.

https://www.exotikomenspa.com/

I would recommend bumping the existing thread rather than starting a new one.