Does the Pennsylvania court's refusal to apply "preconceived notions of what is reasonable in the age of the Internet," in the context of a tax sale where the only notice given to a known owner was by publication in local newspapers, justify the categorical disregard of this Court's decision in Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950), which also preceded the "age of the Internet" by decades yet held notice by publication was inadequate where the identity of the property owner was known?

Does the Pennsylvania court's refusal to apply 'preconceived notions of what is reasonable in the age of the Internet,' in the context of a tax sale where the only notice given to a known owner was by publication in local newspapers, justify the categorical disregard of this Court's decision in Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950), which also preceded the 'age of the Internet' by decades yet held notice by publication was inadequate where the identity of the property owner was known?