Not sure why this is modded as "troll" when this is describing something that has happened.

Of course the question remains of whose definition we should use. But people would rather be divided by a word than actually talk.

Second link is incorrect and should be this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I don't know why you try to minimise how evil the CIA is. Maybe you don't have all the info, or maybe you think it's fine to do evil things under the pretext of national security.

If it's the former, here is a starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I hear this book is also good: https://www.jeffsachs.org/news...

If the latter: can we please agree that arranging coups in distant countries has nothing to do with national security? When the US was attacked as a nation on its soil, it was by an organisation that had initially been supported financially by the CIA, arguably indirectly. So the CIA carries some responsibility for the only recent attack on national security in the US, that I can think of.

It can be, depending on the context. For someone who does not interact with companies that require an age check, the former is clearly superior to the latter. So yes, if you provide a service that requires an age check, the burden of the age check can be on you, that's not unreasonable. And let us be clear, social media companies deserve zero sympathy, they are not owed the technical means to maintain their addictive business model.

Side note I wouldn't map "liberalism Vs conservatism" to "left Vs right" (and I'm not certain that you did), especially given how "liberalism" doesn't have a unique definition, depending on where and when it is used. Some concepts valued by some liberals are seen as problematic by some leftists, for example private property. Where and when I grew up, "liberal" was used as synonym for "centre right".

I thin one reason for dual boot used to be "Windows for games, Linux for everything else" but wine and proton have made that reason disappear.

No, he claimed that "Most people lack enough protein".

When I asked for evidence, he failed to provide it. He provided evidence about old people and athletes. Most people are neither old nor an athlete.

He also provided evidence that more protein intake does not make a difference for old people (last link in the long list of links). So there's contradicting evidence.

Evidence for the claim would be a meta study that shows protein intake would bring a benefit for most people.

I agree. I mentioned "obsessing" because that is the vibe I got from the post I was replying to. I believe you can eat healthy without worrying too much about it. How to eat well isn't complicated, nor is it secret knowledge. It shouldn't require significant brain bandwidth to do it right.

I will add that allowing oneself some exceptions is good for mental health (for instance eating cake and drinking alcohol is generally not great, but a slice of cake with a bit of sparkling wine on a special occasion can foster one's happiness, just don't have a special occasion every day).

This research is about specific subsets of the population and therefore also not supporting your general claim.

I only looked at the first and last link so far, neither supports your claim.

The first one essentially says that some subgroup of older people have lower nutrient intake in general, and that it includes lower protein intake. After a quick glance, it does say "below recommendation" but does not offer evidence of degraded health. In other words, it could also be that the recommendation is not fit for older people. The same article also says that overall, older people have "better" nutrient intake. By the way, nutrition recommendations vary vastly from one country to another, including across developed countries.

The last article says that increased protein intake made no difference in the experiment, which directly contradicts your claim.

This does not motivate me to check the other links, or to believe your claim.

Citation needed. Common wisdom is actually the opposite.

Also I'm not sure why it all needs to be so complicated. Eat with diversity and with little processed food, don't eat more than you need, don't drink sugar instead of water and you'll be fine. It's a solved problem for a long time already, at least for people with access to food and without bad genetic luck. It's not rocket science.

Obsessing about all these things is mentally unhealthy, and mental health is health.

What are you referring to? Can you provide a link?

They're still getting it wrong and talking about integration instead of interoperability.

Every time I use their products it's a horrible experience. Think Teams, OneDrive. What I hear about recent Windows versions isn't great either. My understanding is that few people use Microsoft products because they want to, it usually is because they have to. "Provide inferior products but make sure people still have to use them" is great logic for a drug lord, but most people here don't appreciate it, or the impact it has on the world and on their work environment.

Should it matter? The founders weren't gods, they did their best for their time. They made mistakes, and times have changed. Amend the constitution, make it illegal.