This thread is replete with ad hominems, mind reading, and speculation ("admit it, Musk's bid for Twitter was to unmuzzle Trump". No proof offered though).
I'm okay with Musk. If you're not, fine. Why the need to constantly assert evil intentions by those you disagree with? It's gets tiring.
I actually have no opinion on Musk. I just don't care enough to form an opinion.
I just stated that I would have wished for a fact based discussion. I don't know if what the author of the piece stated was true, based in fact, exaggerated or what not. But there were a lot of factual claims to be potentially attacked. Yet OP choose to go the ad hominem route.
My problem is, that this doesn't help me as uninformed outside reader in evaluating the claims of the original piece.
Not sure if this is what OP intended, but probably not. But not engaging on a factual level strengthens the original arguments for the external observer. It is a signal to the ingroup on the cost of loosing credibility with the outgroup.
I'm a big fan of Bitwarden and have been a loyal user for years. I'm a convert from LastPass and haven't looked back. I'd say more about it but I suspect there are going to be lots of positive comments that will echo my thoughts.
Seems like there would be an opening here for DDG to create a separate section (if they're insistent on this disinformation down-rank path) to publish a clear and falsifiable algo their systems use to determine disinformation and also an option to view those results that are down-ranked as a result of the algo.
Wouldn't it be better to argue why what was heard on Rogan's podcast is wrong, rather than implicitly arguing that all solutions heard on Rogan's podcast are wrong. To me, your response seems like the bigger problem.
Information (including dis- and mis-) is all around us. Arguing that information from sources you dislike is wrong because you dislike the source is illogical. Respectfully, you should address exactly why what was heard on Joe Rogan's podcast is wrong.
Information being all around us is precisely why your request is just as wrong. To ask experts to take time to evaluate all the questionable sources out there is unreasonable. And yes, this is a questionable source regardless of the interviewee or your feelings about Rogan. Obviously any podcast cannot be a rigorous or thorough treatment of the topic. The format makes that impossible.
The flip side of information being ubiquitous is that quality information has never been more accessible. Research papers and studies are clicks away. The answer is to not form conclusions so quickly, to seek reputable sources, and to seek a lot of them.
This is my experience too. In fact I stopped using todoist due to how it handled recurring tasks - which, like you, is a huge part of how I stay organized. For me, "remember the milk" does recurring correctly and is very low friction.
Epidemiology and history wasn't as effective as you think in identifying the origins of The Spanish Flu. The origin being Kansas is only one of many plausible theories.
There are many websites where I enter my phone number and it's rejected. Sometimes programmers are too clever for their own good.