Likely a mixture of these answers, though if you want to wait for an expert to weigh in maybe ask for that. A roadway is obviously a very different environment with a lot of money and research put into ensuring it can handle a lot of traffic and weight, having to accommodate worst case scenarios so it’s obviously going to have a very strong base, and a comparitively very durable and thick base of asphalt. Your driveway, on the other hand, is probably going to be covered in a mixture very much driven by price. If you do the minimum underlayment and thickness, you’re probably going to need to give it every advantage possible to avoid rework.

Suspenders. .

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.

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. :)

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.

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.

That’s like saying black lung runs in families because your family all worked in the mines.

Funny? Do you think religious schools don’t exist?

Wonder how many new ones it’s creating.

Scientist: ‘Look at this science thing that is definitely true because DNA!’ Narrator: ‘It wasn’t true’

Was this description meant to be ironic, or was that accidental?

Just a double-decker couch, nothing to worry about.

Which is exactly why the tariffs are stupid at one more level. The only thing they’re good for in theory is to level the playing field for non-tariffed products, to make them competitive to make ‘here’, but no company in it’s right mind is going to invest in the infrastructure it’s meant to drive knowing they aren’t guaranteed in the slightest.

That’s a big leap… Dumb blonde to beating women.

Little odd of course, but not the worst way to try to illustrate more than 1/4 but not 1/2… Which seems to be in the ballpark of the number he mentioned. If 40% of spousal murders are committed by women it fair to say it’s not “always men”, but it is more than half but less that 3/4.

Did you typo or did he? .03 is significantly bigger than .004

Makes sense, but it still seems like all the recognizable ‘quotes’ mentioned are quotes the movie used, and not ones that are came from the movie itself, to the point where it would only be in very specific context where anyone saying them would be quoting Aliens.