I’m familiar with udev rules. But it’s going to be more effort to write something that works with everything I might connect to than it is to just run xrandr each time. The way it is right now, it never fails and I don’t have to spend more than a minute tinkering with projector settings when I give a presentation.

Multi monitor has never been more reliable for me than it is on Linux. The downside is that it’s not automated and I need to connect/disconnect them through the terminal.

If that’s what you meant to say, then it would help to actually say that. Regardless, the argument doesn’t hold water. If Teams has poor support for older hardware and non-Windows operating systems when other apps don’t, then that’s a Teams problem. If it takes someone who specializes in Teams to be able to work with it effectively when other apps require minimal training, then that’s also a Teams problem.

So when you say “I believe in objective morality”, you mean that you believe morality should be objective, not that it is objective. I’m inclined to agree because that would certainly simplify life a lot, but unfortunately, you can’t just make morality objective any more than you can make gravity not exist. It is what it is, and we have to figure out a way to work with what we have.

Thanks, that’s good to know. I’ve been experiencing this too and I know T1 diabetes runs in the family, but I ruled it out because I thought it wasn’t a symptom of diabetes. I should check with a doctor.

So morality is relative in a society that doesn’t have a proper moral framework?

I think you missed the “indirect” part. This isn’t someone going around stabbing people. It’s someone who goes around obstructing people from getting medication or medical treatment that they need, or from acquiring food, or someone who indiscriminately gets people fired from their jobs and put on the streets where they’ll die a slow death.

Regarding solitary confinement: As an individual, you don’t have the power to detain someone in that manner. But you do have the power to kill.

As far as I’m aware, diabetes will lead to hyperglycemia, not hypo. Taking insulin for diabetes in excess of what’s needed or not eating enough while on insulin will lead to hypoglycemia. It appears this information is incorrect.

Any honest conversation about a situation will end up with two people, happily or not, having to admit there’s one path more moral than others

You don’t say that they agree on which path is more moral than the other, but I’m assuming that’s what you mean. But also, no, that doesn’t happen. In an honest conversation where you disagree on morals, you just learn that you both have different values.

There are some things that more people are likely to agree on, like your example about stealing a towel from a hotel. But there are also many that people vehemently disagree on. For example, is it morally right to kill someone who has (and will continue to) indirectly kill many of other people?

go into any business in Canada or the US with more than 200 employees

That’s like, 2% of businesses in Canada. Even if they all use Windows, it doesn’t prove the point that few businesses use MacOS.

Might be a Boost bug, but the link doesn’t include anything past the hyphen.

Perhaps the U.S. could be named after gold

The United States of Aumerica

I’d love to see it being used by enemies so they’re challenging without cheating, though.

Check out Sony’s work with GT Sophy

I think we should be looking at all the marketing and data collection used to that end.

Or acquire freely through a number of digital means

What you want is a distribution-aware contextual binary search. With whatever information you have (appearance, personality, vocabulary, etc), you can come up with a probability distribution in the space of possible ages and start your guess with the value at the 50th percentile. Then depending on whether the true age is higher or lower, your next guess will be either the 25th or 75th percentile. Rinse and repeat.

In reality, the way most people intuitively do agree guessing is already an approximation of this procedure.

If sexual pleasure is the only thing going great in a couple […] one should probably reconsider if said relationship is still a loving one.

This makes sense if you omit the second condition.

You’re basically telling me that asexual people can’t love one another.

And seriously, if the friction is the only thing that make you enjoy sex, and not with whom you have sex with, you seriously should reconsider your relationship.

Why would you choose to do anything for fun that isn’t mutually enjoyable? You can enjoy both your partner’s company and also the activity you do together at the same time. It’s not one or the other. Don’t like condomed sex? Then don’t do it. There’s more to a romantic relationship than sex.

So what you’re saying is that Andrew Yang should run again.