1. It's the user's choice isn't it? Say user uses the browser for some website already, and for him, opening lots of tabs on mobile browsers isn't very convenient. Website wrapping apps while not terribly indispensable, are surely of positive value. Website owner also might find it easier to write, test and guarantee better experience on apps as compared to 10 kinds of mobile browsers, 3 main engines and subtle variations in WebKit engine.

2. In-app purchases are declared upfront. Garbage? User decides, not you.

3. Fair point. This can be generalized to bad search feature in both Apple and Google stores. Inexplicable, horrible, deliberately non-useful search functionality. But being deliberate, apple and google surely see some value in this madness which I fail to see, so I'm not sure it will help them if they improve their search.

OK, that is fine, I'm not sure you read "But as a general statement it is completely not true that a competent GPU is capable of doing something on its own."

So if you didn't talk about GPU drivers, you are missing something important.

It is still useful for kids to eat less salt. Because this taste for salt once developed is hard to destroy, and later they might satisfy this with junk food. And dietary sodium doesn't do much of good above a certain level, so it is not that they are missing much.

Cooking is a processing - and uncooked forms of various foods have various dangers. E.g. Bird flu, tape worm, some food borne diseases etc.

Fundamental flaw - every nutrient and every poison has a dosage at which it is effective.

So 10 grams of Vitamin C a day can be considered "high Vitamin C diet". 10 grams of protein a day can be considered "low protein diet". 10 grams of paracetamol a day can be considered "poison".

Once you realize this, your statement makes zero sense. All three nutrients are essential? Great. What is the amount at which they are effective? No one knows.

People associating windows with easy and simple are known as computer geniuses - top 5% of population in "computer genius" terms. For 95% people using computers, windows is associated with difficult.

Linux is associated with "what's that?". Ok, Linux is actually not associated with anything.

Well, (both) the competent GPU makers suck so hard at driver writing, that black holes have developed an inferiority complex. So on top of a competent GPU, one needs a competent GPU writer, or at least hold the hands of GPU makers in writing drivers for an OS and/or test the drivers beyond imagination.

Apple is doing that well with their limited GPUs supported. But as a general statement it is completely not true that a competent GPU is capable of doing something on its own.

While there is such a thing as a "high quality" app, it is a very low barrier - 99% of Android Play Store apps are "high quality". Basically if an app doesn't crash during its core functionality, and performs the core functionality, it is "high quality". Rest is all subjective.

That doesn't mean many people will like or find use in 99% of Android Play Store apps - different people will like and use different apps. But that doesn't mean there is any criteria set in stone making the not used apps "low quality".

Ahh, you guys are funny. Time travelling from 18th century, but pretending to be time travelling from 23rd century. Go and check actual 21st century and you will weep.

Ok, so you use the word "know" a lot more lightly than I do. That is fine. Though it did lead you to trust food label calorie numbers a lot more than they deserve, so I thought you might be in reverse gear about this. Probably not.

Most used cameras are of the CCTV variety - hard to beat a 24/7 camera in amount of usage. Most used video system is the eye, in some animal or the other. Electronic equivalent would be the TV - many brands would beat iPhone. And most used electronic video *capture* device, of course, like earlier, CCTV.

Yes, it is complicated, and not really known to mankind. It would be good if you point out the error when slashdotters and people elsewhere make the mistake of considering it simple and lecture others.

Diet effect on water retention are also significant.

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler". I see these attempts to quantify the as yet unquantifiable as violation of the principle in second half of the alleged Einstein quote.

Read up on the faeces link again that I posted earlier. The 30% microbes cannot be ignored, as I mentioned earlier. Different species of microbes act on different macro nutrients, like I mentioned earlier. No one knows for sure the relative efficiency of different species of microbes in the gut - someone saying they are guaranteed to be equally efficient will need to cite away to glory.

Our own sucrase makes sure we don't need the little bugs to tackle most sugars. Which means we don't share our food with "friends" like good children should. So god punishes us with obesity. Sorry, just listened to relatives talking to their kids. But yes, the point stands that more of sugar comes as ATP than slower food like starch, fat etc.

"Calorie is a calorie", and similar statements are poetry. Good to preach to the choir, useless for contradicting someone.

You didn't deserve the benefit of doubt, because of other sentences you posted exposed that you did really mean "eat" , and you did NOT mean "eat, digest, and metabolize".

Take your post's sentence :

So no, it is definitely a retrospective change you made to your own sentence. While I don't mind educating someone, even for free, you can't convince me you meant this from the start.

Which is good, because useless statements disguised as simple actionable statements are dangerous.

My original objection was to the sentence "Whether you eat 12 thousand Calories in pizza or 12 thousand Calories in kale, the impact on your weight will be the same". To which you have already made one retrospective change without an apology, while using the universal arithmetical addition operator in a non-standard way and not even objected on my earlier interpretating it thus. Moreover, this is not a minor change because the original sentence pretended to be useful, was falsifiable, actionable - and I pointed out many ways in which it is either wrong, or needs citation.

The new sentence does not have these qualities (except of incorrectness). Even so, when you have turned your sentence into such a useless sentence, I can still prove it to be wrong - or at least in desperate need of citation. But I think you will again change it retrospectively, so it would be best if you put down the sentence which you now want to replace your aforementioned original sentence with, and I will address only that.