dnick

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

What an absolutely zero effort article. Seriously, there were no questions that occurred to the writer to ask or address, like how someone survives, has housing/food/internet/phone….basically people who don’t have to work…don’t work?

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. :)