He sounds similar to those insufferable effective altruists. Most of these people have a genuine skill in something narrow, and the willingness to walk all over everyone in pursuit of the 'highest score' achievement on their 'net worth'.

Yet they've convinced themselves that only they can save the world, so they have to make as much money as possible by any means necessary in order to fund misguided charities. They'll burn down the planet and anyone necessary to make money so they can save it.

Sir Chris is still in control of his charity, so really all that money he gave them is still in pursuit of his own goals, the charity is only spending money it makes through its investments. So whilst it sounds so generous to donate billions to charity and I'm sure it brought him great publicity, it's little more than a tax-efficient way to attempt to bring about societal changes that society didn't ask for.

I'm sure it was also nice that whilst he 'donated' billions to the charity, when it came to his divorce settlement, that was taken out of his 'personal fortune' which amounted to less than a billion.

So don't give him that much credit.

So then... continue using exclusively Apple's store then?

If you consider Apple to be the gold standard for security, you have just keep going as you are.

I don't see how giving other people the freedom to choose infringes on your security.

Remember these are people who know what it's like to go through apartheid and ethnic cleansing.

South Africa today is largely governed by the people who fought and won against apartheid, so it's understandable that they feel a level of solidarity with the people of Palestine.

(in this context I'm choosing to gloss over the real and present issues with the ANC, because they are not relevant to Israel's genocide)

I don't know, your #2 reason doesn't seem to stand up to reality.

I don't know where you are, but where I am (UK) you can go on any high street (in most towns there will be an area where most shops are, think strip mall in the US) and you will find at least a couple shops that fix and sell electronics - primarily smartphones, but also vacuum cleaners, TVs, computers, games consoles.

Pretty much all of them are locally-run and are, I assume, profitable in spite of every electronics manufacturer trying to run them out of business.

I say I assume because they wouldn't be everywhere if they weren't.

I've had phones fixed by them, they offer warranties, reasonable prices, only had an issue once and it was put right after a tiny bit of back and forth.

I think by "we can't afford it" you mean "capitalism hasn't yet found a way to centralise the profits and run the small business owners out of business".

2&3 completely agree

On 1 though, I agree IF every other game embraced the modding community as much as Bathesda games do. GTA is the only other game I heavily mod, and in comparison it's such a pain in the ass, the game engine is not designed to support it so you get weird bugs, just overall a worst experience.

So I think it's fair to rate the base game highly for its support of mods. They've decided that providing a great experience for mods is a high priority for them. Maybe they can make the base game better if they don't have to make it compatible with whatever modders want to throw at it.

My main concern with this is that what you're doing is desensitising people from the speed limit.

I'm from a country that has arbitrarily defined speed limits and VERY low compliance rates compared to the UK (if you've ever been to Italy for example you know what I'm talking about). The nice thing here is that because the vast majority of roads have a speed limit that 'feels' appropriate (ie the road is designed for its speed limit), the amount of speeding I see here is negligible compared to what I was used to.

And generally here when the limit changes people comply to it because you can trust there's usually a good reason.

There's roads near me that are arbitrarily set to 30 (no pedestrian walkways, no side roads, but it passes near the back of houses and I assume they successfully petitioned the local authority to change it to 30), and traffic flow there is usually 40-45. I've never seen an accident there.

We have a poorly designed intersection not too far away and there's always accidents there to the point that there's now a consultation to fix it.

If this rule came to England, both these roads would be turned to 20, and that won't really be solving anything. In the first example I assume locals will still be driving 40, and it will create unnecessary overtaking because the road is wide and the visibility is good so it's not necessarily unsafe. But you've gone from a safe 40 road to risking head-on collisions pointlessly.

You're flat out wrong when it comes to the Roman Catholic Church - I don't know enough about Islam to say whether you're right about that.

In church doctrine, Matthew 16:18 and 16:19, and again in Matthew 18:18, give ultimate authority to St Peter (the first Pope) and all the Popes that followed him.

Essentially the Pope can decide whatever, and it just is. Tomorrow the Pope could decide that gay marriage and abortion are a-okay, and they would be a-okay as far as heaven is concerned.

He might get lynched and the next Pope reverses it, but that mechanism for change exists, and has been used many times in the past - one notable recent one was when the Pope decided dogs go to heaven, so now dogs go to heaven.

Source: ex-Christian who was very involved within the Church institution.

You're assuming that they're honest about their reasons, which is not the case.

The main message of the film (besides being a 2h ad for Mattel) is gender equality and female empowerment.

This threatens these people more than homosexuality, but I imagine even for them saying "we don't want our women to even imagine a world where they're not subservient to men" would be a tough sell.

Far fewer people are willing to stand up to defend the LGBT community so they're a convenient scapegoat ('conservatives' will always find a group small enough to target in order to push their unpopular policies, it just works).

It's mad!

I bought a laptop, from Amazon, something I do at most every 2-3 years.

For months since Amazon has been spamming me with laptop offers. I don't see what the best case scenario here is, I return the one I bought and get a new one?

You mean that every American citizen is automatically issued a photocard ID free of charge after they reach a certain age?

Because that's how it works in most of Europe for example. Some countries mandate that you must carry it at all times in case the police requires you to identify yourself. You use this card to vote, and you can also travel freely within the EU with it (loads of people don't even own a passport for this reason).

That's against Google's terms of use, you're not supposed to replace an app with something different.

If you had downloaded an app and all of a sudden it changes into something else, you'd be pretty displeased. Imagine if Facebook the company suddenly changed the Instagram app into an app for Facebook, they can do most of the same things, but it's not the same.

Plus it would be fair for the developer to get new payments for lifetime subscriptions, it's a new app which is significantly more work than just maintaining an existing one.

I'm not sure how they got to that conclusion, but we can kinda guess.

The tongue is PACKED with blood vessels, so in case of any damage it can get tons of nutrients to fix itself. But this takes a very energy-intensive.

So if the rest of the body would have the same density of blood vessels, we'd need drastically more energy to feed all of that.

And I guess they're asserting that all else being the same we wouldn't be able to ingest or process sufficient food to keep that going.

It's a bit of a strange argument though, I'm going far outside of my physiology understanding, but you'd have to imagine that had we evolved such advanced healing capabilities, we'd have also evolved the means to feed them. And OP underestimates just how much food someone can eat. As someone dealing with an ED, I can tell you that you can easily triple your calorie intake (though whether that's sufficient I wouldn't be able to say...).

All in I'd look forward to OP defending their assertion.