Arizona

The second sentence explains it perfectly fine to a layperson, and anyone used to interpreting plots has no real problem even without the supplied explanation. The only points of confusion for someone unfamiliar with the different models are the are the labels.

Perhaps those railing against high schools, colleges, and even post-graduate education, need to go back and deal with their *own* biases and self-delusions. The institutions and systems are there.

"imply"

I see you're trying to post a dupe on /.

We helped our uncle, Jack, off a horse.

Out of curiosity, I opened the web version (https://teams.microsoft.com/v2/, in Firefox 144.0, on Mint 22.2, using Cinnamon 6.4.8 on a Beelink mini-desktop). To make the usual "test call", I can't go to three-dots (...)--> Settings --> Calls --> Devices (there is no "Devices" under THAT version of "Calls"). However, I CAN go to the "Calls" menu on the far left of the window --> Custom Setup (gear menu) --> Device Settings, and then do a Test Call.

From there, all works fine, including sound and video. Of course, all my Sound Input/Output devices work OK in the OS itself....

I used Firefox (not sure of what the version was) to successfully hold Teams meetings on the web on Mint (likely ~20 or 21), and Vivaldi on a different Mint system. I'm sorry I can't remember more. It was 6 months ago or so.

I have a couple of people I *can* "upgrade" to W11 from W10, but I think they're ideal candidates to move to Zorin or Mint.

MS used to supply a desktop client of Teams for LInux, but hasn't for a year or more at this point. However, the web interface works well enough. And if you don't mind snaps on your system, you can try wrapping the web interface in a sort of desktop app: https://snapcraft.io/teams-for...

Cute, even with the unironic discussion of irony self-contradiction.

No one will know if you actually know what 'irony' means.

If a person got sevely sick or died after believing lies that seems less important than if the wrong song played in the background of the youtube video?

About 20 years ago Lee Smolin published "The Trouble with Physics" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Physics) and Peter Woit published "Not even Wrong" where they described the core problem with String theory as people attached to the community to the general public of interest (i guess mostly scientists).

Since then, things have shifted a little bit, and the mindset is
changing. That does not mean that everything is peacy already - people who got their professorships 20 years ago may be heads of chairs right now.

I also am fully convinced (as a former experimental physicist who has nothing to do with particle physics) that sometimes it is necessary to follow and explore theories which do not result in immediate predictions. You only will know later if it did not work, and in the current interpretation on youtube there is a lot of hindsight.

That's an interesting link, thank you.
The "nuances or causal factors" do show up -- somewhat -- farther down that report:

Fair. MY point is that I don't trust that source because whomever/whatever wrote it made a logical error.