I expect the ratio comes from the TV technical industry, not LG marketing, and is used to indicate the number of pixels resolution is a good ratio to the original content's resolution when scaled. Notice how the ":9" corresponds to the 1440 pixel dimension, which is exactly twice the the 720 in 16:9 720P content.

Not if your remote work means you don't often meet people from other companies either.

With regard to MS Office / LibreOffice, I'm not surprised.

I've edited a few large contract documents in the last year, and LibreOffice Writer consistently mangled the images and in some cases the formatting, even with things which had been added to the document by LibreOffice itself. In other words, we'd save a file in LibreOffice, load it back, and get something different than we had before we saved it.

MS Word has the same kind of problems (can't reliably save and load back to itself), however when I was working on those documents last year, it proved much more reliable than LibreOffice Writer.

Which is a shame, as apart from the open source goodness, and the price, LibreOffice has a nice change history / diffing tool (which we kept on using).

In one case, loading a file into LibreOffice Writer mangled the formatting of some text so badly someone thought a financial proposition was quite different than what was really being said, causing a right panic, and only when I loaded the same file into MS Word were we able to clarify the problem.

Also I don't think I've ever seen an MS Word form render properly in LibreOffice.

We really had no choice but to buy MS Word licenses, though I'd really rather not, and can't really afford them.

I have a couple of cheap laptops at work which have integrated 32GB SSDs in them.

Every few days, both of them download several GB of data, then ask for permission to update Windows, and then fail due to insufficient storage.

There is hardly any data on them, other than the original Windows install they shipped with.

If it's that simple, why have I heard from people who voted Brexit who tell me they regret it, wish they could change their mind, and that it wasn't made clear what they were really voting for until after it was done?

I'm in the UK, writing this reply on an 0.6 MB "broadband" connection.
It's too slow for youtube or anything like that. Streaming audio is unreliable, and Google search takes uncomfortably long to load results.
The contract says "up to 8MB". I'd use mobile, because it's much faster than ADSL here, but there's no signal in the house.
This is 2km from the phone exchange.

That's a low bar. The UK is a mess economically at the moment and for the foreseeable future, but most countries in Europe are in more of a mess, so we can pat ourselves on the back.

Money isn't like chocolate. You connect together money in different ways and you really do get a different amount out of it.

It sounds to me like the GP hit upon a mode of perception of their own internal processes, by their own mind, and that no "outside" observer was invoked in these perceptions.

It sounds to me like a thought arose that contained an interesting question and jolted them from that mode of perception. But nothing in the GP's post sounds to me like it confirmed or stated any belief in kind of entity,

So the parent's message, quoted above, sounds to me *almost entirely* a statement about the author's own beliefs, masqueraded as a statement about someone else's. I.e. a projection, seeing things in the GP's post which aren't there.

With regard to saying anything about "known entities" as though those are factual things. It is debatable whether one's mind, one's internal process, and consciousness and sub-consciousness, are "known entities" or simply fantasy constructions or theories. I've met people I respect who hold that those ideas are dubious and should not be taken too seriously when making important decisions. Which leaves me wondering, what is meant by "known entities"?

Out of the two messages, the parent and the GP, the parent message strikes me as the more religious and dogmatic. This is because the GP showed that they were exploring a question about what is known to them personally by the best available empirical means, while the parent's message contains only statements about their own beliefs (as I see it, masqueraded via projection) without any empiricism indicated.

Most strokes are due to clots, cutting off the supply to some areas of the brain; rather than bleeds.

Recovery from all major strokes, as far as I know, involve the brain doing some amount of "rewiring" to replace the functions of damaged areas, over a long period of time. In the short term, to the best of my knowledge you want to restore blood flow as quickly as possible to minimise damage to the deprived areas, as well as stimulating the brain in a variety of ways. (But you don't want bleeds or swelling due to over-reactions.)

In those circumstances, persistent, long-term reduced blood flow does not sound necessarily beneficial to me, as a guess. But I would welcome objective research because the short-term and long-term effect on symptoms is far from obvious.

That said, I have known stroke patients who reported that cannabis caused some of their symptoms to improve, such as slurring of speech and fluid mobility. Being self-reported it is hard to be sure objectively, and also perhaps there are short term effects which don't last. But the same symptom improvements are reported by some MS sufferers, and there is some scientific research to support it in their cases.

That statement is demonstrably false.

My parents are not Christian, never have been, and neither am I. I am definitely not baptised, and as far as I know, neither are they.

But I was still sent to Sunday school. I think it is quite common.

Or, triggering article 50 would effectively overturn the 1973 EEC Act, as it would remain on the books as formally the will of parliament, subverted by the prerogative power being used in direct opposition to it.

When the will of parliament is expressed, the government is supposed to follow it, not openly subvert it.

No it isn't.

In stories such as this, the Government means what some call "the executive branch", and Parliament means what some call "the legislative branch".

It is quite often that those two are in opposition to each other.

Yes they are all, together "the government", and it's confusingly the same word, but that's not how it's being used in stories like this.

I have a top-end Macbook Pro from 2013 running OSX 10.9, and indeed, it freezes and won't wake every few weeks. More often recently.
It's annoying that I lose application state, but at least I have confidence that I can hold down the power button for long enough to force-restart it.

Clarification is great, and memories suck.

I agree clarification is a good thing. And lack of clarity, bad memory, and the jerked-aroundness that ensues from that is a terrible thing.

But sometimes, some "can you summarise every detail in an email" people appear to be trying to ensure that their boss/peer/coworker is so busy writing every micro-fact down to a ridiculous standard of hyperclarification that it has become a means of CYA-ing the relationship to death and there is hardly any functional work possible.

The objective is usually to get useful stuff done. If a coworker is a time sink because the relationship is such that they want all the micro-facts hyperclarified, I can sympathise with avoiding them. Though if that's what it's come to, there's probably a reason that needs addressing.

I think everyone's tendancy is towards "sleaze" as defined in this thread.
I don't think I've ever met anyone who doesn't jerk other people around to some extent.
I think it's unavoidable, because it's what I see everyone do.

So I figure, the ones making an effort are at least making an effort.

And the ones who think they don't need to make an effort, their actions are worse, but they're not self-aware enough to know it.

I have more respect for people who acknowledge this tendancy in all people, and make the effort to overcome it.
And I'm quite surprised you (or anyone) would see an acknowledgement like that as a sign of something negative.
I see it as a sign of mature honesty, and refreshing.