Some people want everyone to use an open standard. But not everyone thinks it's a good idea, including me. Why should the government intervene in an idea that isn't widely adopted? There is nothing inherently "better" about open standards that were created by the open source community, compared to open standards donated to the open source community by a company.

If we amend the Constitution of each nation to require mandatory prison time for publishing in a closed document format, only then will we properly unseat Microsoft's dominant format. Because there's no fighting the inertia. Not when there are no immediate negative consequences for using proprietary formats, and with short term pain when dealing with less popular but "open" formats.

Open formats are out there. OOXML is one. The problem is getting people to adopt the standard, not coming up with a standard.

Unfortunately, the answer to "how to promote" is well known: it takes money, lots of it. This is literally what advertising is about: promoting things.

This is why the mostly widely used variant of Linux is...Android.
The most widely used format for printed or printable content, is PDF (created and promoted by Adobe).
JSON was created by State Software.
SQL was created by IBM.

The list goes on. Maybe It's OK to use a standard that was created by a commercial entity, that has been made open source.

Microsoft has a whole business model built on proprietary standards. They encourage sharing documents in their own proprietary formats instead of open-standard ones, in order to lock people in. When someone sends you a Microsoft document, they don't care that you have to buy MS Office to read it properly. They are co-opted into the culture MS is trying to create, and they think you belong in it also. And if you don't want to be in it, you're a loser.

So tell me: who doesn't give a shit about whom?

Back when I was learning Linux, I was constantly told by experts to read the man page. The problem was that I never knew which command I needed to use to know which man page to view. With AI today, that is far less of a problem.

Thanks for the improvement. I agree, you could probably have animals significantly larger than bacteria. I was going to suggest insect-sized, but decided to be overly conservative in my speculation.

Thanks - I remembered from high school that at least one of the noble gases had been made into at least one compound, but wasn't sure which one. I assumed - incorrectly, as you pointed out - that all of the noble gases could be made to form compounds.

I'm glad they're supporting Linux even more now. There aren't a lot of us but maybe with Microsoft constantly making their OS worse, some more converts will show up.

The thing is, I don't really use GOG Galaxy because the big value add for me is that I can download and install games to run off line. And admittedly this is what GOG Galaxy does in the background (and it will even backup the installer and fetch bonus content if you want it to). But I don't necessarily need galaxy to run my games, as the installer already does a nice job putting it under my desktop's menu and I can browse or search for games.

Where Steam's app is ahead is that it has better integration with friends lists and makes it easier to invite your friends into a game. It's not that huge of a deal because Discord can already do some of that on Linux today if you grant it permissions necessary for it to track what game you're playing.

And BTW, to all the people obssessed with "paleo" / "cave men" diets and think that means "meat":

While there certainly were (just like today) some hunter-gatherer societies (such as in the high arctic) that got most of their calories from meat, the average hunter-gatherer got the majority of their calories from plants. But not highly bred high-calorie plants, but rather high-fibre wild plants, meaning that they had to eat significantly more of these fibre-loaded plants. Your average hunter-gatherer ancestor ate way more fibre than a person eating a "modern" diet today eats.

A proper "paleo" / "cave man" diet isn't a high-meat diet - it's a high fibre diet.

No, the last fad was antioxidants. Bodybuilders being obsessed with protein is entirely different from maxing protein in normal consumer food products (even things as non-protein-related as water itself)

Do be careful with that. Do remember that inflammation isn't inherently bad. Inflammation is the activity of the innate immune system, doing things like fighting/preventing disease and cancer surveillance/attack. Just shutting down inflammatory reactions (for example, long-term taking prednisone or an equivalent steroid treatment) can certainly make you feel great, but can significantly shorten your expected lifespan.

Don't get me wrong, if you have a chronic inflammatory disease, it absolutely needs treatment, and the medical system is often pathetically bad about treating them. Chronic inflammation itself can even lead to cancer, such as lymphoma. But you need to find a targeted way to control your specific condition. For example, if you have say Sjögren's with small fibre neuropathy, an appropriate treatment might be IVIG or something like HyQvia or Hizentra - not broad-based immunosuppression. Unfortunately, such treatments are expensive, and doctors often resist prescribing them, or patients end up in insurance-denial hell.

They really haven't. Nutrition science has been a process of refinement as we've learned more over time. E.g.:

"Fat is bad"
"Saturated fat is bad, non is good"
"Saturated fat is bad, monounsaturated is good, polyunsaturated is bad. Oh, and trans fat is really bad."
"Well, among the polys, omega 3s are good, others are bad"
Many refinements later: "Concerning this specific fat molecule, the health impacts are X, except there's evidence that people with Y genetics have Z impact..."

The earlier statements weren't wrong, they were just overly broad.

This is part of why I had the new "ultraprocessed" label. We've been working so hard to separate out what specific things are causing what impacts, and then they just leap backwards and lump everything back together again : Homemade doughnuts deep-fried in coconut oil and lard: "not ultraprocessed". Store whole-grain bread: "ultraprocessed". Such a moronic grouping. Yes, the average of the ultraprocessed category is worse than the average of the non-ultraprocessed category, but that says nothing about individual foods. It's also a back door for anti-tech/anti-science woo to sneak into food science.

The issue is that this is only relevant to sustenance farmers, people with certain diseases, and alcoholics.

It's almost impossible to end up with an essential amino acid deficiency eating any "normal" modern diet. Even a vegan eating junk food is going to get sufficient quantities (they're going to suck at bodybuilding, but they're not going to get deficiency symptoms). There's too many staples that go into modern food. Nobody eats "only corn", "only wheat", "only potatoes", "only soy", or whatnot; it's always a mix. And there's no need to get everything all at once within a single meal - it's fine for it to be spread out not just between meals within a given day, but across multiple days.

Yeah, even on a vegan junk food diet, it's almost impossible for a modern person to not get all the amino acids they need, for the simple reason that there's not just one plant used in vegan junk food - corn, wheat, potato, soy, etc - and together, even if their protein is watered down with a lot of carbs and fat, any realistic mix still hits sufficient levels of essential amino acids, as the required amounts of each to avoid deficiency aren't huge.

Vegans have other actual things to worry more about. B12, for example, requires fortification or supplements (the body stores years worth at a time, but eventually you will run out if you don't consume it). Iron is highly likely to be in the low-but-acceptable to deficient range if either the diet isn't specifically high-iron or supplements taken. Some other minerals are real but lesser risks than iron as well. Etc.

Re: protein, they're surely talking about "in a modern diet, without disease, alcoholism, etc". Of course people in sustenance diets can readily end up with protein deficiency. Some diseases can cause it, and severe alcoholism can lead people to it as well. But a "normal" person eating any "normal" modern diet doesn't really need to think about whether they're getting enough protein.

Now, deficiency aside, people working on muscle building do need to actually think about what they're eating. But again most go too far - benefits taper off after about 1,6-2,2g/kg-d. There's some uncertainty about these figures, and it's possible that there may be some benefit to somewhat higher protein intake, but there's no benefit to living off of an extreme protein diet like some do.