Yes.

I have a feeling you think you're saying something different than what I said.

I get what you're saying, but no. The ruling is specifically "woman" means "biological female", not "everything is a woman".

Almost any default text editor on Linux is better than Windows notepad, and many are straight up better than Notepad++

I'm very familiar with autism. While I've been diagnosed with ADHD, there's a good chance I have AuDHD. And my wife has been officially diagnosed with ASD, so I know very intimately what it's like from another person also.

My point is to say that we should make society more inclusive

100% agreed. But that's not what you originally said.

I am very much against pathologizing and trying to eliminate autism as RFKjr is doing.

Completely disagree. There's a limit to how inclusive you can make society. And even if you did make society so accommodating that things like ADHD and ASD almost "disappear" from overall societal perception, none of that will ever make the internal things alright. The internal conflict, the struggles, the mental exhaustion from trying to keep up with daily tasks and social situations, etc.

There will always always be a disadvantage for such people. ADHD puts people in a perpetual state of internal turmoil. It is quite an impossibility for someone with ADHD to feel "contented". Our brains just will not let it happen.

If there was a way to permanently "fix" my ADHD and be normal, I would go for it.

See, that still doesn't make sense. How will helping Russia steal Americans data help other Americans gain more power, control, and wealth?

Those who desire power do not share it

You would think they would be working against each other. Despite the ultimate goals of the two groups being similar in shape and colour. Ultimately they are polar opposites because the intent is for each group to have "power, control, and wealth" for themselves and no one else.

What I truly don't understand, is why?

What's the endgame? What's the purpose? What's the benefit?

While I appreciate the sentiment, I don't wish for anyone to have ADHD. It's an incredibly debilitating condition that makes basic things in daily life absurdly difficult.

There's a difference between "let's embrace our differences" and "let's not do anything to improve the lives of people".

MM/DD/YYYY

DD/MM/YYYY

Both of these are the wrong way to format dates.

If you want to stop endless troubleshooting, switch to Linux.

What a coherent and well thought-out response!

But nobody who uses it treats it like "just a tool."

I do. I use it to tighten up some lazy code that I wrote, or to help me figure out a potential flaw in my logic, or to suggest a "better" way to do something if I'm not happy with what I originally wrote.

It's always small snippets of code and I don't always accept the answer. In fact, I'd say less than 50% of the time I get a result I can use as-is, but I will say that most of the time it gives me an idea or puts me on the right track.

If there is no correlation between vaccines and autism at a statically significant level then that means there is no association between vaccines and autism.

I never disagreed with that or stated the opposite. I know vaccines do not cause autism, and I've had to scientifically explain that fact to many people in my personal life.

But I think your reading comprehension needs serious improvement. You clearly do not understand how the scientific method works.

Science does not prove things. This is a fundamental aspect of how science is done.

• You come up with a hypothesis.
• Design an experiment to test that
• Based on the results:
  • Good prediction: the hypothesis got something right
  • Bad prediction: the hypothesis is wrong, go back to the drawing board

You can disprove a hypothesis with an experiment/study, but you cannot do the opposite. The best you can do is validate that the hypothesis got something right. From there you need to refine the theory to make more and more accurate predictions until something breaks. That's literally how science works.

Go fuck yourself with prove and disprove you pedantic wanker.

Go read a Science Basics for Dummies book and then come talk to me, otherwise stay in your lane.

Their authoritarian dystopia is preferable to the American nazi parties fascist idiocracy

No, it really isn't. Neither is preferable. The reason why the American system seems incredibly bad right now is because everyone in the West is accustomed to the kind of liberty we've enjoyed for a long time. So when that changes we see the contrast around us very sharply.

But don't kid yourself that China is better. In fact, the Chinese system is the direction that America is heading towards and starting to emulate.

People in China can't even say a single negative word against Xi, and if they do it online whatever they post gets deleted within minutes and the person gets a knock at the door, often not being heard from ever again.

And that's simply not the case in the US currently. Sure you get the news story about people being turned away at the border for having said something about Trump online, or getting locked up by ICE for a few months (that's an insane reality, don't get me wrong). But ultimately these people are the exception... for now.

At least the CCP value science and education.

The German Nazis also valued Science and education. That doesn't mean anything in the long run.

ps: I know someone will accuse me of violating Godwin's law here, but it's literally relevant since we're talking about actual Nazis

I think you misunderstood my comment. Science doesn't "prove" things, math does. In science you acquire evidence that either supports a hypothesis or doesn't.

Technically, science can "disprove" things, but never "prove".

Yes this is a pedantic difference, but it's very important when literally discussing the interpretation of a scientific study.

So what I was saying is that even if the study RFK cited was supportive of vaccines not causing autism, it would still be wrong to say that it "proves" that.

A part of my brain always reads AI as Al (yes, those are two different letters). As in Albert.

So it's generative Albert. And "Albert is increasingly using more power".

This is a massively oversimplification though.

It's so oversimplified that you got the whole thing wrong.

Mr. Kennedy shot back at Mr. Cassidy, citing a study from an ecosystem of vaccine critics that he said proved a connection between vaccines and autism.

This sentence says it all. Even if the study said the opposite, it still wouldn't "prove" anything. That's not how science works.

"the victim was injured", "he was injured by gunfire"

Geez, just say he was maliciously shot by the neighbour. This is that sugar coating nonsense to downplay what happened.

The Galaxy S series and the Pixel devices cost about the same tbh

So? That's not what the person you replied was even saying. You completely missed the point of their comment.

looking at things i think i meamt Only Office. Any opinions there?

If I remember correctly, Only Office uses LibreOffice as its core and then adds or changes default stuff. I might be wrong about that. But ultimately I hear positive things about Only Office.

The hosting is on my old desktop which is running server 2016. I'd like to replace the OS on it too. I don't keep the box online so I'm not keen on using it for anything other than game servers.

Sounds like a perfect situation for loading something like Proxmox and then visualizing the Windows Server 2016 instance. You would basically have the exact same functionality but with way more options like cloning and backing up the server.

Appreciate you not going aggro on me over it.

No worries at all. I think the automatic defensiveness from Linux people comes from old misconceptions being repeated often. Or sometimes it comes from how something is read and interpreted. Someone might say "I can't switch because I need XYZ", to which a very literal response is "you can use ABC which does the same thing, so you can switch". When what the first person meant is "I can't switch because I prefer XYZ", which is a completely valid reason.