So if you invested 10% of your monthly income every month for 20 years, in a single company, you could be worth 0.00001% of what bezos is worth. Or you could have picked the wrong company and have every cent of your savings wiped out. Sounds like a win/win!
Right, if it's good enough it can quit advertising itself.
Really the only reason for a logo like that is to advertise to other people that you are wearing good quality. Upper income people who can afford actual high quality can't effectively 'show off' that way, so they usually content themselves with flying under the radar while still comfortably fitting in wherever they feel like, or showing of in other ways like cars and vacations, but mid or lower income didn't have as much leeway and have to take advantage of what they have available if they want to feel either part of a group or better than others.
Pretty much 'anything' clothing. I guess if it's a clothing brand of good quality and there is no choice except to wear it with the logo they stick on it might be an exception, but anything outside of that is basically paying to belong to some club with basically no membership requirements except spending money.
Yes, but it can only handle up to two syllable words, 5 the grade level vocab and it only follows the first 3 words of your prompt and fills in the rest with narcissistic mad-libs.
Well, it might be a 'software design issue', but it's really more of a branching point that was made long ago and reflects the world we live in. It could be fixed, but the point is that error messages are often not logged but people tend to act like they must be, and that their vague description of an issue should be enough to track it down like 'something flashed on my screen last week'.
Hell people can't even describe useful parts of an error that's correctly happening...'it's not doing ANYTHING!' can often mean anything from not booting, to the mouse not moving, to 'it's working perfectly but icons are snapping into place instead of staying exactly where I'm dragging them'.
Well, 'proven wrong' is a bit of a stretch. 'will soon block screen capture' doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room, but also isn't that crazy to read into it that maybe it would block screen capture on the presenters screen... especially if you grant that it might only have control over the teams portion of the screen. I've had it black out windows on my own machine even when not presenting.
But further than that, it's not fair to say everything has to be read only from the most or the least charitable viewpoints. Context is a thing and if you're even a little bit familiar with the history of software enshittification, it's reasonable to assume that an uncharitable reading is fair without assuming the app will now melt your computer for spare parts if you try something that is disallowed. 'As shitty as we can get away with' might be a good rule of thumb.
That's a charitable reading, and likely justified by the article, but based only on the phrasing, it's just as likely to read that as assuming Microsoft will block all content in order to ensure the safety of sensitive data. Sniff tests have to be adapted when things tend to stink in general, or companies regularly try to cover up their smell.
It only 'matters' to the extent that OP claimed it doesn't run in families, and you seemed to be claiming it does 'because' you had 3 -5 relatives that died from it. All I'm saying it's that anecdotal evidence doesn't refute an assertion like that.
If you'd said 'it does run in families and here is a statistically significant sampling across variable x, y and z' i wouldn't be arguing, I'd likely be reading an article about it. But it's worth pointing out when people use unscientific reasoning in a forum where other people might be influenced by an argument if no one calls out the fault in logic.
Just funny that you are saying that you can't relate to someone because they can't relate to someone. Empathy isn't just about feeling other people's pain, it's about being able to understand things from another perspective.
Not being able to relate to them is literally relating to them.
The question wasn't wether there are inheritable health issues, diabetes, some cancer, etc are demonstrated to have a heredity component. I'm not even arguing that heart disease 'isn't' hereditary, I'm just saying that in the context the argument, you saying that several of your family members had it doesn't prove that specific thing is inherited. Everyone does of something and the fact that you can find 3 to 5 people in your lineage that died of that does point to it being inherited.
Is there a reason you have to interact with this person? It seems like if you're in a situation where her response comes with an LOL, your best course might be just to not engage. If you're in a position of responsibility with teaching her how to interact then gently repeating that respecting how someone would like to be addressed is probably warranted, even if it doesn't seem terribly effective the first (many) times.
Their belief system is based on an a being that can't be sense that banished people to infinite torment for following instincts that he designed them with, then sent part of himself to be tortured and killed as a sacrifice to make up for a curse he put on them, but only if you it was necessary. A ridiculous age of the earth is hardly the craziest thing schools like this teach.
So if you invested 10% of your monthly income every month for 20 years, in a single company, you could be worth 0.00001% of what bezos is worth. Or you could have picked the wrong company and have every cent of your savings wiped out. Sounds like a win/win!