When we read the news, we care not just about accuracy but relevance. It's no good presenting a bunch of true facts and reporting nothing about the most important issues of our time. In fact, doing so is misinforming people.
Advertising is the same. Just because a company has the most money doesn't mean their products are deserving of our brain space.
Advertising is inherently biased. What you describe, "not made or paid by the seller" is NOT advertising.
Imagine I came to you and say "would you like this sandwich?". You might take it, if you felt hungry or liked the filling. Now imagine I come up to you and say "I'll pay you 100 (insert currency) to eat this sandwich". Suddenly, the sandwich becomes decidedly less appealling...
The sandwich is advertising, and eating it is exposing it to your brain. If it were really beneficial to you, no one would be getting paid.
They can have their beliefs, but once it's available I'll be switching straight over to the sponsorblock-enabled version thank you very much
It's unlikely that genetics play no role. One of the main factors is believed to be the conditions in utero. These are, of course, affected by the genes of the mother, at least in part.
unproved and unconfirmed
Sure, but it's not relevant. It's unlikely that genetics plays no role whatsoever, and impossible that it is completely determined by genetics.
Raising a person does not give them genes
Yes, I know. That's not what the article is suggesting at all. The gay uncle supports his siblings in raising children. Those children share genes with the uncle, therefore the "gay" genes get passed on.
Just because there isn't a gay gene doesn't mean genetic factors don't affect sexuality. It's believed to be a combination of genetic factors, conditions in the uterus (which are affected by the genes of the mother as well) and other factors.
Siblings share a lot of genetic similarities. A gay uncle who supports their siblings at raising children will improve the probability that those shared genes are passed on.
I don't disagree with your conclusion, but why does that phrase indicate it's nonsense?
I guess primates spend their whole day searching for food, seeking a mate, defending their territory, or looking after offspring. This is work.
Yes, you make a good point. The west should be talking more about the conflicts we are responsible for (which if you go back in history is probably practically all of them)
I do try to get out every day, sometimes it helps but sometimes it makes me feel more worn out.
I'll try keeping my window open a bit more often.
I don't think the distractions are the problem, on good days I'm motivated enough to keep away from the distractions. On the bad days I can force myself to keep staring at the work but my brain just wanders or I just stare into space.
Worst of all, driving people away from official releases puts them more at risk of downloading malware, and wastes the time of developers. By all means turn it off by default, but refusing to include a feature IS an anti-feature.