but chose not to do so.
That depends on your definition of "chose". If you have ever worked with government organizations, it takes a lot of work to make changes. There might have been a solution that was planned but it took too long to get through all the stages of planning, approvals, budgeting, bidding, etc.
For the official to claim could not have when it could have is misleading. The why of it not having a backup doesn't get asked when the baseline is "couldn't have".
In almost every case when a problem arises, every outsider's answer to the problem is "it could have been avoided." You and others do not exactly why the problem was not avoided but do not probe into details. The problem was not technically a petabyte server can be built easily these days. The problem was existing government infrastructure did not have a petabye server in place. From my time working with government organization, it takes lifetimes to change things. Someone could have realized they needed a 1 PB server 5 years ago, and it took this long for it to planned, approved, budgeted to be installed next year when they actually need 2 PB worth of space.
As an example of how technical solution exists somewhere in the world does apply to local situation, look at broadband internet. I was limited to 20mbps cable internet for many, many years. Of course your easy answer would have been: "I could have 1 gbps fiber." The fact that 1 Gbps fiber internet exists in the world was not the problem. The problem was there were only 2 ISPs that had could offer me coax to my location. Due to the age of the coax cable in the ground, it would have to be replaced to get higher bandwidth coax and those companies were not willing to that. While there was 1 Gbps fiber in my town, it did not run to my neighborhood for many years. Satellite and Starlink only provide marginally higher speeds but that those are theoretically maximum speeds.
My problem was only solved when one company finally ran fiber to my neighborhood. Of course then multiple companies did so. Then the local cable companies ran new coax cable lines to compete.
all champagnes and sparkling wines are identical, in so much as they are a type of wine.
By your logic all red wine and all white wine are exactly the same. They should all be labeled "red or white wine" and put in beige boxes and let the consumer guess which one they got.
FYI, French Champagne is highly over rated and over priced for what it is.
Your personal opinion of what champagne costs should not factor whether they should have protected name origination. If I hate Brie cheese, they shouldn't exist then.
Champagne and parmesan they make no sense.
Champagne is a specific region in France that made a very specific alcoholic beverage based on wine.
two identical cheeses but one you have to call something different because it was made somewhere else. many words have become a general meaning for all products of a type no matter where they are produced, parmesan and Champagne are good examples.
They are not identical. They are similar at best. But in the modern world, can you make a new smartphone and call it a Pixel or an iPhone? Why not?
Not my problem. By the way, I can find many sites that tell us that you can consume as much phytoestrogens as you like, and it will be better, substituting soy and peas for meat.
You asked if I was concerned and I said no. But your first retort is "not my problem." To summarize you care about my opinion only if I agree with you but try to gaslight me when I have a different opinion.
You now are directed to the National Institute of Health links I gave another poster, actual studies, feel free to deny them.
So in another post, directed to another person you made links which I could not see and comment on. But I am somehow supposed to know what they were. Why don't you link them here?
Already it has been found that women raised on soy milk substitute have longer and more painful periods and are at risk of uterine fibroids
Citation needed.
The problem with the idea that phytoestrogens are good for you is that long term studies have not been made.
Shifting the burden argument. Plants have had phytoestrogens forever. Forever. People have consumed them since forever. Your argument is that I must somehow prove to me they are safe instead of you proving they are dangerous.
Perhaps tobacco was good for us until the long term studies were made? https://onlineexhibits.library... [yale.edu].
Red herring argument. First of all your link goes nowhere. Second, what I posted again was has not been any studies that say they are bad. This is the opposite of tobacco where there are numerous studies that show that it was bad for you.
And don't let us forget that the Sugar industry paid Harvard to falsely claim fat was a health culprit, not sugar. The disastrous results are still with us today. Morbidly obese people who think fat caused their obesity. https://www.npr.org/sections/t... [npr.org]. Actual Nutritionists knew better. They knew the faked results were just that - fake. They used actual legit research, not bribes.
And what does this have to do with people who have been eating plants since before recorded history? So there was a Big Plant industry in the cavemen era keeping us from learning the truth by bribing Neaderthals? I guess when all you have is a hammer, everything must be a nail.
A friend at an early workplace was the recipient of one of the earliest bypass operations. He was told by the hospital nutritionists that nee needed to limit sugars, and always eat moderate amounts of fats. He lived quite healthily until his mid-90's. All that despite the sugar industry and its claims otherwise.
Let me see if I understand your sentence. A person facing heart bypass surgery was told he should practice moderation in his diet. And?
I'm inclined to trust science, even then, I'm a skeptic.
Your posts say otherwise. Part of science is the recognition of the limits of the research conclusions.
However, I can grok that since our endocrine system plays a powerful role in our health and under normal circumstances, our sex based differences, that proven disruptors might cause problems.
The words "proven" and "might" are the problems in your statement. These disruptors have not been proven to be cause problems. "Might" is the keyword until we know more.
I can look at even handed research like that from the NIH, can consult with nutritionists, can look around results like gynomastia in males, and uterine fibroids in women, and connect some dots.
So you are placing equal weight between even scientific research with your uneven observations and speculations.
But I recommend you eat as much of endocrine disruptors containing plant products as you can. You might be used as part of a long term study some day, helping humanity.
I am not going to listen to anything you recommend. You are a random person on the Internet who has biased conclusions based on little evidence but their own personal observations. It is a lack of humility that you think your opinions means anything to anyone else.
Here's a better idea, how about stop trying to make vegetables look and taste like meat? If people seek the taste and texture of meat then they should eat meat. If eating meat somehow upsets them then they should understand that losing that taste and texture comes with it.
Why are you against choice? If people want their vegetables to look like meat, that is their choice. From the standpoint of someone who cooks a lot, form factor plays a role in the ease of cooking. Have you had friends over to watch a game? Some of them are vegetarians. They get veggie burgers. Others get beef burgers. One person cannot handle red meat but isn’t vegetarian. Chicken burger for them. The main difference in my preparation of the meal is which patty they get. Nothing else changes. But according to your world view, no one should get a choice and everyone including me should be inconvenienced because it seems to offend you even though it does not affect you.
It's both. He's intentionally spamming the politicians as a form of activism.
Are you concerned about phytoestrogen overload?
No.
Overconsumption of those has them functioning as an endocrine disrupter. It upsets hormone balance in males, and in women, their natural estrogen production can shut down.
No they have not shown to do that. There have been studies that show that it might be a factor under certain conditions. For example some specific compounds like 8-prenynaringenin are present in low enough concentrations in most foods not to have negative effects. The population at highest risk for these compounds is heavy beer drinkers that favor hoppy beers. The key word being "might" not "is". Other compounds have no consensus about how much is detrimental with the emphasis that as of 2023, there are no definitive studies on humans but only animals.
Brexit did not cause the spike in immigration.
Yes it did. One of the main arguments for Brexit was to get rid those of pesky immigrants taking jobs from Brits. However, that backfired.
For example, the vast majority of foreign labor in industries like agriculture were seasonal workers from the EU. They were not immigrants and left after the growing season. After Brexit those EU workers did not come back as it was far easier for them to work in an EU country. Unsurprisingly, Brits did not want to work long hours outside doing manual labor for little pay. So the UK needed to replace that workforce with foreign but not EU workers. That meant workers had to come from other further away areas like Africa and Asia. For these workers it does not make economic sense to leave and come back; thus they had to immigrate into the UK. Thus more immigration.
This also applies to non-seasonal industries. For example, the UK has a shortage of nurses. Before Brexit, a nurse from the EU could work a few years in the UK easily. Now that nurse has to immigrate to the UK on a more permanent basis as Brexit has increased requirements and reduced the number of foreign labor spots.
Microsoft Is Plugging More Holes That Let You Use Windows 11 Without an Online Account
Technically, they are plugging more holes that let you set up Windows 11 without an online account. Once you've done that, I presume you can still create a local admin account and zap the account used during setup. Now if they were to remove the ability to create local accounts entirely, that would be a problem.
U X e dUdX, e dX, cosine, secant, tangent, sine, 3.14159...
