oh shit. super bad guy. glad i never installed a fucking client. fuck everything about this.

i don’t trust it because it is very big on the design meaning to be “censorship resistant” and there are certain kinds of posts that people make that probably should be censored, and while i like that some tools exist to make pseudononymous, censorship-resistant communications possible (tor and i2p are good. freenet is fine imho), this one looks like a grift that has a neon sign saying “censorship resistant”… and i am sure that associating with those people will lead to encountering some of that material that probably should be censored.

I really wanted to like the ms launcher. very customizable, and frankly it is kind of awesome. but I didn’t stick with it. I was using oneui for years when I started shopping for launchers, and I landed on kiss.

most people get at least some of their food for free, subsidized, or through farming, gardening, or hunting. this study only accounted for foods taht people buy. it’s misleading to claim this represents accurately how much people spend on food.

Some vegetarians spend less money on food, others don’t

why didn’t you include the name of the study?

First, it is always unclear whether the omitted-variable bias exists because the “true” model is unknown. Thus, future research may include more covariates other than the ones considered here to minimize the bias. Moreover, studies like the present study rely on consumers’ capacity to honestly report information on the food consumed. Future research may consider other methodologies that can actually observe and report all foods consumed and the cost associated with them. This way, it will also be possible to capture other personal, cultural, socio-economic, and behavioural characteristics of the consumers which are difficult to assess using the present methodology. However, data of this nature would be expensive to collect.

i refuted the one i had already seen. i’ll deal with the others later.

so why include the misleading one?

the oxford study doesn’t account for people who don’t pay money for food, grow their own, hunt, fish, raise livestock, or even have it subsidized. basically, it doesn’t account for poor people anywhere in the developed world. you are jumping to conclusions to say that it is cheaper for anyone but the wealthiest people.