TheActualDevil

Ah. Sorry, I assumed you knew what you were talking about about and not just copy/pasting a thing you found. My bad.

Questioning doesn't mean you have to come to a different conclusion. I'm cis-het(ish) and don't just take that for granted. I've thought about my gender identity and sexuality and done the introspection. I'm definitely more of a gender abolitionist, so I don't necessarily follow the loosely ascribed gender traits consistently, but I'm not trans. Questioning and defying social norms does not make one not cis. And that government comment is weird. Society assigns them to us. The government just writes it down.

So not really then. I've always heard this but not seen it explained. But what you're saying is that with every interaction the likely hood of finding a match goes up. But realistically, probabilities like that are just fun quirks of math, not representations of reality. Probabilities are doing the math on events, but these are events discussing concrete and unchanging dates. Every person paired up isn't given a random date in every interaction. They have a set date from the outset, you just don't know it. There's not a random number generator picking a number from a set every time. Unless you're in a simulation and none of this is real and birthdays don't exist and the computer you're plugged into has to make up a random birthday every time you interact.

Because time and direction are different metrics? West is a metric that only means anything in relation to something else in a straight line. It's a direction. West doesn't stop being west if you go too far. It's always west.

But aren't the tides caused by external gravitational forces (the moon?)

Oof. Yeah... Sometimes there's just no getting around it. That's rough. I've had some that when I was working on them I just knew that it should take 5 minutes but will end up being 30 because every input means I wait 5 minutes for it to catch up. We also have some that are used and continuously updated every day. I was finally able to convince them to archive old ones and get a new sheet every quarter.

My workplace switched from G Suite to all MS a while back. I was livid at first. MS Excel does have some good features that Sheets doesn't, and some of their formulas can be better functionally. But Google understands user experience better and it definitely runs more efficiently than Excel. Like, Excel, This workbook isn't set to share yet, it's entirely local. Why is every other window of Excel also updating every time I change something? They aren't affected!

Anyway, if possible, when I'm working on a really chunky workbook, if possible I'll do all the work offline in the app and everything else open in the browser. If I have to add it to a shared sheet, I'll just paste it in when I'm done and know it works. I work with excel lot, but it's mostly data sifting and I tend to use Excel in ways it was not designed for, so my formulas can get out of hand sometimes and be a bit much on larger sheets.

If I had to guess, Teams is getting small updates when that happens to you. You have it turned off on startup, but if it gets an update and the end of that update is a restart of the program. And poorly designed updates tend to reset connections or settings. And Teams loves its updates. I wouldn't turn off the auto updates though if I was you. Usually they are security updates.

See, that's the main thing that differentiates introverts. A lot of introverts trend to being quiet and unsocial, but it's because they've learned that it's exhausting. Then there's the lot of us who, for whatever reason, have been forced to push through and do it anyway.

Being social is a skill you have to develop, and since we've had to put in more work, we can be pretty good at it. When I'm in a social situation I can turn it on. My defense mechanism when I'm feeling uncomfortable is to shut my brain off and let that social muscle memory take over and I become super charming. Or I have to take over a meeting because I'm the only one who actually understands the topic and can communicate it. I can do it, and I'm good at it. But as soon as it's over I can feel my brain deflate. Sometimes it uses all my spoons and I know immediately that I'm not going to get anything else done the rest of the day because an early surprise meeting showed up on my calendar.

That's what that is! I had a couple colors from this company and knew that thing swiveled out but had no idea why. That makes sense.

I can't look at their sources, so I'm going to believe them, buuut that is death per energy units. And I can't argue that nuclear isn't more efficient and generally safe. Presumably though, those injuries from wind are from construction primarily? Nuclear power plants have been out of fashion since the 80s for some reason, so there aren't really equal opportunities for construction incidents to compare that while wind construction has been on the rise. And I can only assume that after construction, the chance incidents only go down for wind while they can really only go up for nuclear.

None of that is to say that nuclear is bad and we shouldn't use it. Statistics like this just always bug me. Globally we receive more energy from wind than nuclear. It stands to reason that there's more opportunity for deaths. It's a 1 dimensional stat that can easily be manipulated. it's per thousand terawatt per hour, including deaths from pollution. So I got curious and did some Googling.

After sorting through a bunch of sites without quite the information I was looking for, I found some interesting facts. I was wrong in my assertion that wind deaths don't go up after being built. Turns out, most of those deaths come from maintenance. It does seem to vary by country, and I can't find it broken down by country like I wanted. It's possible that safety protections for workers could shift it. But surprisingly, maintenance deaths from nuclear power are virtually non existent from what I can tell. It seems like the main thing putting nuclear on that list at all is including major incidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima. Well, Fukushima has really only been attributed for 4 deaths total. And Chernobyl was obviously preventable. So it looks like you're right! Statistically, when including context, is definitely the least deadly energy source (if we ignore solar).