It seems like the word is eponym and eponymous is the adjective derived from eponym. So from that I think “eponymous noun” and “epynom” would thus mean the same thing.

“An eponym is a noun after which or for which someone or something is named. Adjectives derived from the word eponym include eponymous and eponymic.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eponym

If there is visible mold on a part of a surface, then it’s reasonable to assume that a much larger part of that surface already has mold, it’s just not visible yet. Bread is basically a sponge, the surface of a sponge is the entire sponge, so that mold can have spread everywhere in the bread.

I found this overview which looks right to me: https://www.eatingwell.com/article/91553/4-moldy-foods-you-can-eat-plus-which-foods-to-toss/

Should you be dead from eating mold? I suspect that it’s a lottery with many factors: which types of molds that you have eaten, the quantities, your immune system, … But keep at it and eventually you might win a price.

I think that you didn’t read the article before chosing to back Cruz.

Except that bloat is not what the republicans are targeting. From the article:
“However, it isn’t the infotainment bloatware, wireless key-fobs, power seats, or over-the-air subscription services they’re blasting, but safety systems that the NHTSA says have saved 860,000 lives since 1968.”

As if USA republicans would ever consider taking away your mandatory infotainment system with opt-out ads, that’s now what their donors are paying them for.

Maybe that the government reactions don’t engage with the anger, is what makes those reactions worthy of inclusion? Actually, scratch that, whether or not those reactions do or don’t acknowledge the anger is irrelevant to whether or not they should be included. Those reactions are relevant to the article because they inform us of what the other involved parties are doing.

In this article those reactions at the end do not fit in with the main story of the angry people, because they don’t acknowledge that anger. I’d call them tone-deaf reactions, but a journalist isn’t allowed to write that (except in opinion pieces), so the journalist can only give those tone-deaf reactions as they were (+ provide some context about them, which I appreciated). That the anger of those people was so far only responded to with tone-deaf reactions, makes those tone-deaf reactions very relevant to the anger of the people.

Not unfocused at all imo. The article says that Hong Kong would traditionally hold an open inquiry in cases like this and then goes on to explain why that is probably not going to happen for this disaster (hint: authoritarians don’t like open enquiries). And then at the end of the article there are some reactions from other more remotely involved parties + some context about those remarks. The end of an article is where those reactions are traditionally put and reactions from various parties are always going to be more varied in nature, but that doesn’t make them non topical or “unfocused”.