Agreed, it looks like cosmos based on leaf and stem.

I have the Feker Alice 80, and am pondering a second split keyboard. The double B key annoys me.

How are you finding this keyboard? I’ve been wondering about it.

I love it!

How did you get back in?

I have my old login details but they don’t work 😭

I think it’s more complex for chippies. Fish and chips was meant to be a cheap treat, that’s why it has such a strong working class heritage behind it. So the price rise makes it untenable in a way that may not affect other takeaways. Like, if I’m going to pay £20 for some fish and chips, I might as well have a Chinese. It’s a cultural thing.

I think I agree with you - I don’t understand why it needed to be said.

It’s kind of condescending to both their own customers and those of Baldur’s Gate 3 that they feel they need to explain that different games are different 🙄

Also, whilst I may be in a minority on this, I’m primarily rating a game on its story and gameplay (obviously I’d also like it not to be as buggy as hell). Since all games should be starting on an even footing with that (you need at least 1 creative human brain), you can’t blame studio size. There are plenty of great games with small budgets. And plenty of crap games with big budgets.

I like that you’ve mentioned Skyrim - part of its success (and longevity) has been the ecosystem of mods that built up around it. But I think we all understand that not every game develops this same ecosystem, and we don’t need that explained to us in Twitter threads, just like we didn’t need it explaining to us how budgets work.

Scientists don’t publish “alarmist claims without data”. They publish scientific research which is reviewed by their peers and then built on or contradicted as needed. Scientists can’t just make stuff up - their papers are reviewed before they’re published and if they write crap, it doesn’t pass review. There have been several studies since the first paper on this so the link seems fairly robust.

Had you read the article and understood how science works, you’d have learnt that the the patients all had a form of cancer caused by asbestos, and their only exposure was via talc. You’d have also learnt that courts had already upheld the findings in previous litigation with expert testimony (this is where courts listen to scientists who provide evidence to support or refute the clams being made). So at this current stage there’s little doubt that the science is incorrect, both in the scientific literature and in law (though of course there may be a missing piece of information that has not yet come to light).

Finally, I’d like to comment on your absurd remark “sometimes… was found to cause cancer”. Asbestos is an extremely dangerous carcinogen (thing that causes cancer), which is why we regulate it nowadays. The cancers are awful and often kill within 12 months of onset. It is frankly inhuman to suggest that any contamination of a product would be acceptable unless you’re the only one volunteering to die a horrible death, of course.

If you’re not going to read the article or show any compassion for fellow humans then maybe don’t comment and let the mature adults discuss the issues instead.

Nestle (as of last year’s financial returns) owns 20% of L’Oreal (L’Oreal details on last share sale, Nestle statement of its relationship with L’Oreal). They reduced their holdings a couple of years ago (down from 23%) but at 20% they’re still one of the more significant L’Oreal shareholders (though not the largest at L’Oreal).

Have you noticed your left and right arrow keys are the wrong way round on the Monsgeek? Flagging just in case you haven’t spotted it!