Interesting. Teams has been doing this for a few years now, so I assume it’s the same functionality just transferred over to Outlook (which has been going through a massive overhaul recently). For anyone in an MS-based company with Teams being actively used, this is not a new thing.
Not triggered at all.
The evidence says otherwise.
Anyway, this conversation is going nowhere. And I think I’m done seeing the dubious quality posts and non-constructive comments you are spamming Lemmy with. So I’m gonna block you and move on.
But one last thing, and I say this with the best of intention…
I seriously don’t understand your rationale or your aim on this platform. Your frequency of trying to antagonize others indicates an unhealthy addiction; the quality of the content is all over the place, with no apparent discernment for legitimacy of the sources; and the need to engage with people here almost always turns negative, which isn’t helpful to you or anyone else.
I know you get defensive about people accusing you of being a Russian operative (which I don’t think you are) and of them ‘persecuting’ your opinion. You put on a proverbially happy face, but the urge for contrarianism (which is usually a sign of unhappiness) and that undertone of feeling disrespected shines through that. Surely you know by now that the reason you get so heavily down-voted by others on this platform isn’t because they disagree with your opinion. It’s because you seem to post and comment in bad faith trying to antagonize others and then proverbially run and hide behind the “hey I don’t support that opinion/candidate myself!” argument. You obviously have some sort of an agenda, but you won’t admit to what it really is. That lack of emotional and intellectual honesty is what irritates people.
You will keep doing what you want, and that’s totally your prerogative. But you’re not changing anyone’s minds. You’re only galvanizing them against your opinions and marginalizing yourself.
Maybe you need some emotional help? (Rhetorical question, I don’t want an actual answer.). If so, then I hope you get it.
Ooh, two replies! Didn’t mean to trigger you, friend. :)
And no matter how much you try to weasel out of it with misplaced semantics, you are still incorrect. :D
I get the overall point, but it’s kind of funny that the article’s title mentions sheep but the associated image features goats.
ETA: Oh wow, those are actually a type of sheep.
Flies are attracted to the stench of decay and fecal matter. Maybe Donnie did a boom-boom in his diaper and the fly wanted to see what the fuss was.
I’m so glad I never sent them my DNA. It was tempting from a genealogy perspective. But my concerns about privacy and them selling on customer information always weighed heavier than that temptation.
But I feel a lot of sympathy for those who used their services. For a while they incessantly advertised them, including via paid endorsements from many ‘trusted’ podcasters and YouTubers. The company’s failure should bring to the fore a drive for new laws in many countries to protect consumers’ DNA from being monetized and exploited. But sadly we all know it won’t.
Altman is the latest from the conveyor belt of mustache-twirling frat-bro super villains.
Move over Musk and Zuckerberg, there’s a new shit-heel in town!
This has the makings of a great sci-fi story.
TIL “in” means “with”.
You are incorrect. Thank you! :)
I was thinking the same thing. They have different last names, bit that doesn’t mean anything. The article doesn’t indicate they are related to each other. But it definitely looks like they came from the same gene puddle.
They are referring to the proposed law over there. Looks like it’s only fines as punishments for more. But that could change.
OP’s original comment (emboldened relevant word by me):
Everyone look at how OP engages with people in these posts. They are clearly here to spread propaganda and engage in bad faith.
IN these posts, not WITH these posts. You engage INSIDE (in) posts via comments. He/she was talking about your comments.
You are changing the topic. Comment OP didn’t say you wrote the article. That was an assertion you created yourself in response to them. So you mischaracterized their comment. And that was my point: that you mischaracterized it.
I made no explicit judgement about whether you are debating here in the comments in good faith or not. I was pointing out that your response was inaccurate.
However your response/deflection here kind of supports their original point that you are arguing in bad faith in these comments.
Sounds about right.
Quantity over quality.
He/she is clearly not saying you wrote the article. He/she is taking about how you are engaging with people in the comments.
But what about the third option??? You know, the circus carnie who pops up every four years, who says she is against both the surgeon and the clown, and who tries to lure people into voting for her because she’s got sass and moxie.
Good grief, she said that weeks ago! That little comment permanently damaged his ego on a profound level, didn’t it.
And yet almost all of them (I’m being generous here) will still obediently vote R in the election. Gotta support the team!
While at the same time having the best debate ever! Everyone’s saying so. A beautiful debate. Very classy, very high energy. 90, 73, 82, 67, 85, 94, 80, 78, 91… BINGO!!!