MS should finally make teams available on linux. like it used to be.

but they know it would make switching to linux too easy for BYOD users. so they give us a terminal editor. and try to compete with vim and nano?

i would argue, that Star Wars is and was a distopia. Sure, they had times of peace. But it never lasts very long and even during times of peace the little guy gas to struggle: The lower platforms of Coruscant are riddled with crime and slavery is quite lucrative in the outer rim (even though it is theoretically illegal).

All that happens before the phantom menace, while huge megacorps are giving themselves political appointments. It is not as extreme as WH40k - but i have not heard yet of a universe so much over the top, as where space nazis could be considered the good guys.

Money. it is all just business. as long as israel pays for services companies will deliver. the only thing stopping them from delivering, is an embargo. but since microsoft is an american company, i dont think chances for that are high.

good message, but bad post:

• climate has nothing to do with the rest
• poverty existed pre-indistrialisation
• poverty kills people in non-fascist organisations
  • fascists always promised to solve poverty (german fascism = "national socialism")

i haven't played magic in a long time. is that considered balanced? the card seems quite OP...

does anyone have the actual written law? it is hard to argue using summaries or even opinion pieces of musky boy.

exactly because of allergies it is important to stick to the menu. if someone has a real allergy, not 'i fart a little more', they know exactly what they can and cannot eat. so they will order what they know is safe and the restaurant knows how to prepare the stuff on the menu.

i dont know how bad you can mess someone up with lactose, but milk has a large possibility of cross contamination. i know you can kill someone with celiac disease from just a little cross contamination. so lets just not risk it.

as they should. i dont like american culture, where some people seem to think it is ok to take an item of the menu and alter pretty much everything about it.

btw: if you want to be treated like a king in france... look up history

all good. i know it can be frustrating, to constantly repeat the same points. therefore tones may slip. if you allow me to give some advice, keep reading. otherwise have a great day, and ignore the rest of this post.

i think it is useful to target the most powerful party: "you claim that ..." (the person trying to learn something) becomes "they claim that ..." (the company selling something). that way the person (if that person is genuinely trying to learn) is not pushed into a defensive stance.

additionally dont forget that you may be an expert on a certain toppic. but others are not and therefore need much more context to pick up just the right keywords. e.g: what is DEXA and why does a scan for osteopenia matter for body fat? or is +/-5% your personal quality gate or is it a medical standard?

anyway, i hope this shows why ppl may disagree with a post - even if agreeing with the main message. have a great day.

you don't seem to get my point entirely, so ill try to explain it here. your standpoint seems to be:

• body fat cannot be determined by impedance
• the measurements are that unreliable that the mere presence of the measurement hurts more than it helps

you present these points as expert, not as your opinion. in the comment thread you write: "I’m happy to delve into this subject in as much depth as you may be interested in". when someone asks you for sources, supporting these points (presumably because they are interested) - you deflect and take a combative stance. it is deflection, as you ask the person trying to learn something, to find proof that your point is wrong. since you (initially) did not provide sources for your points - you seem to take the absence of evidence (from the companies selling these) as evidence, that it can not work and will cause harm.

This line of argumentation makes me second guess your motivation. even though i agree with the overall viewpoint. i am not asking you to prove it is a scam. as you mentioned it is tedious and wasteful to prove every new scam attempt false. so if you shift your argumentation just slightly (which you did in your reply to me), the whole second guessing of motivation won't occur:

• The companies selling these products don't provide any proof, that these scales work as advertised
• especially in medicine it is required to proof, that the benefits hugely outweigh the drawbacks
• who is more likely to tell you a falsehood: the person actively trying to sell you something or the one not selling anything?
  • -> be more skeptical of the person with a motivation to mislead you and ask them to provide proof and sources

these points are a very strong argument IMO and don't require to do any more research. but they seem much more genuine as you don't appear go back on wanting to discuss the subject and don't take a combative stance towards the person probably trying to learn something.