My understanding is that not saving window size and placement is a limitation of Wayland right now (for security reasons that it's trying to address rather than ignore like xorg I think?). I think it's something that's planned to be added eventually, but who knows when that might be. It is frustrating in the meantime I agree.

Take all this with a large grain of salt of course, I am by no means an expert on the matter and am just repeating what I read when I looked into it myself a year ago or so.

I mean, assuming the existence of a god, I don't disagree. But if you are assuming the existence of a god then you're not really atheist. This is the kind of misinterpretation that theists who can't imagine not believeing in the supernatural often make about atheists; that we're simply angry or confused rather than rejecting the paradigm altogether.

I thought that part of it at least was that much like existing life has a harder time breaking down these mirror proteins the same is true in reverse. So any life that was mirror protein based would struggle with consuming and gaining energy. As such the current protein chirality basically won by being first to market. That being said I don't see why that would hamper reverse chirality photosynthesis, and I don't really know what I'm talking about so perhaps your suggestion is more convincing after all.

It's especially worth noting that "Traditional Chinese Medicine" is a relatively modern invention by the CCP for cultural unity purposes. It takes various pre-scientific practices from all manner of historically disparate places and times in what now constitutes modern day China and pretends that they were always some kind of harmonious whole. Like as if the EU made up something using ancient medical beliefs from Portugal to Romania in order to enforce the idea that Europe was somehow historically a whole and therefore should be today. It's utter rubbish.

This may be a bit off topic but I can't help but feel the need to rant whenever TCM is mentioned and hopefully this is informative to someone.

From the conclusion of the paper you linked:

This review has found that there is no convincing evidence of major impacts of vegan diets on dog or cat health. There is, however, a limited number of studies investigating this question and those studies available often use small sample sizes or short feeding durations. There was also evidence of benefits for animals arising as a result of feeding them vegan diets. Much of these data were acquired from guardians via survey-type studies, but these can be subject to selection biases, as well as subjectivity around the outcomes. However, these beneficial findings were relatively consistent across several studies and should, therefore, not be disregarded.

There is an urgent need for large-scale population-based studies to further investigate this question, with a particular focus on assessing the dietary aspects cited to be of particular concern, e.g., taurine and folate. For guardians wishing to feed their pets vegan diets at the current time, based on the available evidence it is recommended that commercially produced vegan diets are used since these are less likely to lead to nutrient imbalances.

While it does support the viability of specially formulated vegan dog and cat diets based on the current research it is important not to gloss over the fact that they also stress that the current research is lacking and largely based on self-report surveys. Personally I'm not terribly swayed by this paper one way or another and wouldn't take it as being definitive. Of course I recognize that more precise research has difficulties due to the ethics involved, but I'm also confident that we can do better.

I agree with what you say about the obsession with natural diet being weird by the way, but I think there is a reasonable disconnect in the leap from natural meat -> meat based pet food ------> no meat. For example, even if I don't eat the same food an early homo sapien would eat I still eat the same kind of food rather than an all mineral diet or something. That's not to say that I wouldn't if such a thing were viable of course, just that I'd want to be very sure first.

That's not a strawman. You should review your knowledge of informal logical fallacies and be certain of their application before leveling accusations of them at people, even if you really disagree with them.

This has got to be parody, right?

That is assuming of course that all the women who said yes are in fact people being truthful and not creeps 'as-a-black-man'ing.

Of course Anne of Green Gables is set in PEI so really it should have been set there. It would have been even funnier since they could probably outnumber the current population pretty easily if they immigrated en masse.

Yes and no. I can't speak to the particulars of this situation but differences in means matter even if they currently produce the same outcome. A toothless dog and a dog in a muzzle are different in important ways.

I'm not a doctor or even well read on the subject but my understanding is that: a) it's not, and b) it's a rather different texture/stiffness.

You often can't though unfortunately. Most plastics can only be recycled a handful of times before they degrade too far. Recycling, while better than nothing, is a far more inefficient and flawed process than it is often presented as. That's why it is far better to reduce usage in the first place and reuse things as is where you can. Of course this is all still easier said than done.