This is super infuriating. I wish there was a way to offshore the effort and work needed to toggle each option off to the culprit website.
Perhaps when website A presents you with such hostile prompts, take their contact email, and subscribe it with automation to each of the vendors. I'm just too tired of this shit.
It definitely depends on how you're measuring. But the benchmarks don't put it at the top for many ways of measuring, and my own experience doesn't put it at the top. I'm glad if it works for you, but it's not even a month old and there are lots of folks like me who see it as definitely worse for classes of problems that 3 Pro could be the best at.
Which is to say, if Google was set up to win, it shouldn't even be a question that 3 Pro is the best. It should be obvious. But it's definitely not obvious that it's the best, and many benchmarks don't support it as being the best.
Unfortunately Vitamin D deficiency tests (probably it is not covered by your insurance), high dose supplements are currently pushed so much by Doctors I started to think this is almost a scam. Most of the research about the subject are very noisy and conflicting.
If there is any reason for the test, it would be diagnostic and not preventative, and that is generally covered. Just checking cause you want to know your levels generally wouldn't be, but there are any number of symptoms that could be related to that.
As for it being a "scam" - there are enough valid studies that show what this one did, that folks who are deficient that are able to raise their levels tend to be slightly healthier.
There isn't necessarily evidence for supplementation beyond "normal" range, and I do agree that no one should just take high-dose vitamin D supplements without data (tests) that it is necessary.
> On 26 January 2006, Google launched its China-based google.cn search page, with results subject to censorship by the Chinese government.
> In January 2010, Google announced that, in response to a Chinese-originated hacking attack on them and other US tech companies, they were no longer willing to censor searches in China and would pull out of the country completely if necessary.
They never had a problem censoring their results. They claimed to pull out "in retaliation" for being hacked; realistically, they noticed that China didn't want them to succeed, and gave up on trying.
First, in 2006, there was still a general belief I think that Western companies could profitably exist in China and be, if not a "force for good", than at least a force for slightly more openness. Google's options were either to not be in China at all, or to be in China and abide by their laws. So when they censored search results in the 2006-2010 time period, at least they told you they were doing it and that it was at the demands of Chinese authorities. I think it's a fair debate to have on either side whether this was a good thing, but I think it's a gross oversimplification to present that this was a simple black-and-white decision and that Google "never had a problem censoring their results."
Perhaps you could quote something from that section that you feel is relevant here. It didn't look relevant to me.
> Google's options were either to not be in China at all, or to be in China and abide by their laws.
OK. So, they chose "be in China and abide by their laws", and you think it makes sense to characterize that as "they left the market rather than bend the knee"? Those are exactly opposite descriptions. They bent the knee rather than leave the market. That's what happened.
It is not Greek either, The area had been under control of tens of different civilizations in the last 10.000 years. Calling it Greek would be equally ridiculous.
reply