Maybe it’s not a being, maybe you have some generic abnormality that can be exploited somehow. Bonus points if the abnormality is regeneration.

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’.

Jesus, yeah, rename anything bordering anyplace with teeth and see where that gets us!

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.

Dumbest thing about the entire thing is that naming it the Gulf of ‘anything’ basically highlights the perspective it was named from. Naming it the Gulf of Mexico highlights it in reference to the US, basically intrinsically identifying it as an American gulf, and specifying it as ‘the one near Mexico’. By Trumps logic we should name every gulf that touches the US ‘Gulf of American’. He’s so arrogant that he can’t even see anything past his very first instinct. Like if you said ‘the part of my yard next to Fred’s yard’ and Trump came in and said you should rename it ‘the part of my yard next to my house’….that’s what Fred should call it, and it references Fred as being more important in the equation.

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.

So what is a first or a 2:1?

What specific phase is it? I know you mention there is ambiguity, but is it something before asking someone on a serious date? Is it after a few dates and deciding if things are serious?

I think all I was saying is that you can’t give advice like ‘don’t pussyfoot around, just answer the question’ when a big part of the topic is ‘what does this question mean?’

That really assumes the person being asked has some idea what the talking phase is. You literally cannot clearly answer a question that doesn’t make sense. Is ‘talking’ a positive thing? An ‘only friends’ reference? Coming back from an argument?

That is arguably worse

Honestly judge, that’s were I had all the evidence that I’m not corrupt and stuff…

But how does that answer OPs question about why is friends upon in Western society? That’s what ‘dawg’ was commenting about.

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.

Seems like it. It was worded a little unusual so not terribly surprising, but technically you said it’s a deal breaker if they’re not into x, y and z. :)

Good things to future out since cloud to cloud lightning is significant and if the island is large it would likely be in the path often. Not an expert for for story telling, might make sense that it is handled relatively benignly. Maybe the coral is a poor path to follow or is very attractive, making the strikes really frequent and light, hardening the sides and creates a pocket of relatively low energy in the surrounding clouds.

Wow, those are deal breakers if they’re not into them?

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.

Shouldn’t exist. That’s different.

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.