You’re missing the point. The issue with Fahrenheit is not about the conversion from Celsius, most Europeans don’t need to do that anyway. The problem is Fahrenheit in itself, it’s just not elegant or scientific and therefore comes off as arbitrary and only makes sense when you grow up with it.

Haha, I get it, it’s totally fine!

I don’t think it’s funny, because the joke is illogical. If he is a teacher in a University, and it looks like it, that it is his job to mansplain.

So close. You seem to have Sheldon levels of understanding sarcasm.

It’s just a simple joke about the term being misapplied to an everyday setting.

Probably stuck on an older os which doesn’t support the newest browser updates.

Either you understand that the consensus is that naming things is hard and you just want to elevate yourself above everyone else by arguing against it, or you’re unaware that it is the consensus, in which case your opinion doesn’t really matter because you most likely underestimate the issue.

It’s such a truism that I’d suggest googling "naming things is hard*.

There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation and naming things. – Phil Karlton

https://www.namingthings.co/

“Figured it was a bad idea” actually means that some people were against it because they believed semantic class names were the solution, I was one of them. This was purely ideological, it wasn’t based on practical experience because everyone knew maintaining CSS was a bitch. Heck, starting a new project with the semantic CSS approach was a bitch because if you didn’t spend 2 months planning ahead you’d end up with soup that was turning sour before it ever left the stove.

Bootstrap and the likes were born out of the issues the semantic approach had, and their success and numbers are a testimony to how real the issue was, and I say this as someone who never used and despised bootstrap. Maintaining semantic CSS was hard, starting was hard, the only thing that approach had going for it was this idea that you were using CSS the way it was meant to be used, it had nothing to do with the practicality. Sure, your html becomes prettier to look at, but what good is that when your clean html is just hiding the monstrosity of your CSS file? Your clean html was supposed to be beneficial to the developer experience, but it never succeeded in doing that.

It is already specifically about fructose. That in itself is a distinction that is swiftly overlooked in the comments. Not to mention that what is discussed is more about the action of the substance, and not necessarily the amount.

It’s downvoted because the research is much more nuanced than “too much sugar bad”. And because those kinds of comments reek of know-it-all attitude through oversimplification.

I suggest you go back to the beginning of the discussion to see what it was about, because I feel like I’m going to be repeating myself.

Of course it’s better because the risk of consequences is quite small compared to when you’re breaking the law in your own country.

What is silly is the idea that that is in any way relevant to what we were discussing here. And I use the word discussing lightly. There’s a big difference between the insinuation that a foreigner is at risk for tunneling into the Russia and the Russian government eavesdropping on its population.

Nothing is going to happen when your traffic moves through Russia. In fact, you have more chance that something will happen to you if you don’t.

Please do tell what could go wrong. Is the internet sheriff going to turn up?