Posted on 04/24/2025 2:45:47 AM PDT by Openurmind
"How can I help you today". That is what you see when you open Microsoft Edge's new tab page in the latest development version. Microsoft is replacing the traditional new tab page with a page that is all about Copilot. It is the second Copilot feature that has been added to Edge recently by Microsoft.
Currently, that is only an experiment, but there is a chance that this new AI-powered page is replacing the classic new tab page, at least as an option.
Snip....
Many of the interactions with Copilot redirect you to the Bing website where the results are shown. Pretty much anything that I typed was redirected to Bing. Any request to interact with the open tabs was ignored. It is possible that this is still in development and that interactions with tabs come at a later point in time.
(Excerpt) Read more at ghacks.net ...
“You can buy Office 2021 professional plus cheap.”
If I’m desperate I might give it a try. When MS changed the standard menu with “the ribbon” (MS Office 2007, I think), I decided that my 2003 disk was golden. MS says it doesn’t install well on Windows 7 and 10, but it installs perfectly. Each time we’ve relocated, my carry-on bag contains the program disk and a flash drive with family recipes.
Each newer version removes some of the keystroke options, and I despise using a mouse unless there are no other options. (I kinda miss DOS in some ways.)
Actually, as a search engine it is often far better than any search engine, as well as doing calculations, etc. Just yesterday i was looking for a part for an old Jeep, and AI immediately gave me the part number and source of that number, as well as other pertinent info. W/out any pop ups or ads.
But not all AIs are the same ideologically. Asking my typical test question, "can you provide a list of negative effects of homosexual relations?", which query easily manifest bias, https://poe.com/chat answers the question like as Google typically has (mainly inferring a victim status), stating:
Certainly! It's important to approach this topic with sensitivity and understanding. Here are some potential negative effects that can arise in any relationship, including homosexual relationships, but it's crucial to note that these are not inherent to the nature of the relationships themselves: Potential Negative Effects
Social Stigma: Individuals may face discrimination or prejudice from society, family, or peers, which can lead to emotional distress.
Mental Health Challenges: Stress from societal rejection or discrimination can contribute to anxiety, depression, or other mental health issues.
Relationship Challenges: Like all relationships, homosexual relationships can experience issues such as communication problems, jealousy, and differing expectations.
Family Rejection: Some individuals may face rejection from family members, leading to feelings of isolation or abandonment.
Legal and Economic Disparities: In some regions, same-sex couples may not have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, affecting issues like healthcare, inheritance, or adoption.
Health Risks: Certain health risks can be more prevalent in some LGBTQ+ communities, particularly related to sexually transmitted infections (STIs), often due to lack of access to healthcare or education.
Cultural or Religious Conflicts: Individuals may struggle with conflicts between their sexual orientation and their cultural or religious beliefs, leading to internal conflict.
In contrast, https://www.perplexity.ai/, which I prefer. answers the same question with,
Based on the provided search results from reputable medical and public health sources, here is a summary of **negative health effects associated with homosexual relations**, particularly among men who have sex with men (MSM). It is important to note that many of these risks are influenced by social, behavioral, and structural factors, not sexual orientation itself. The following list reflects findings from the literature:
---
## **Physical Health Risks** - **Higher rates of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs):** MSM are at significantly increased risk for HIV, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, hepatitis A and B, and human papillomavirus (HPV), which can lead to anal cancer[3][4][5].
- **Increased risk of certain cancers:** Gay men have higher rates of anal, colon, testicular, and lung cancers, often related to higher rates of HPV infection, tobacco use, and other risk factors[3][5].
- **Substance use and abuse:** Higher prevalence of alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drug use, which can contribute to chronic diseases and increased risk behaviors[3][5].
- **Body image issues and eating disorders:** Gay and bisexual men are more likely to experience body dysmorphia, eating disorders such as bulimia and anorexia, and use anabolic steroids[2][5][9].
---
## **Mental Health Risks**
- **Increased rates of depression, anxiety, and mood disorders:** Studies show higher prevalence of these conditions among gay and bisexual men, often linked to social stigma, discrimination, and minority stress[1][3][6][8].
- **Higher rates of suicidal thoughts and attempts:** MSM and LGBTQ youth are at greater risk for suicidal ideation and attempts compared to heterosexual peers[3][6][8].
- **Higher rates of substance use disorders:** Including alcohol and drug dependence, which are associated with both mental health and physical health risks[3][5].
---
## **Other Health and Social Concerns**
- **Increased risk of domestic violence and physical abuse:** Some studies report higher rates of physical and sexual abuse among lesbian and bisexual women, and domestic violence in same-sex relationships[3][4].
- **Homelessness and social instability:** LGBTQ youth are at higher risk for homelessness, often due to family rejection or discrimination[4].
- **Victimization and antigay violence:** Higher rates of being victims of violence, bullying, and hate crimes[4].
---
## **Context and Considerations**
- Many of these health disparities are not caused by homosexuality itself, but are linked to social stigma, discrimination, lack of culturally competent healthcare, and minority stress[8].
- Safe sex practices, regular health screenings, and supportive environments can significantly reduce many of these risks[5].
---
**Summary Table**
| Category | Negative Effects Noted in Literature
| |-------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------| | Infectious Diseases | HIV, STIs (syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, HPV, hepatitis) |
| Cancers | Anal, lung, colon, testicular, breast (in lesbians) |
| Mental Health | Depression, anxiety, suicidality, substance use disorders |
| Substance Use | Higher rates of alcohol, tobacco, illicit drug use |
| Body Image/Eating | Body dysmorphia, bulimia, anorexia, steroid use |
| Social/Other | Violence, abuse, homelessness, discrimination |
---
**Note:**
These findings reflect population-level risks and do not apply to every individual. Many health concerns can be mitigated by access to healthcare, education, and supportive social environments. The medical consensus is that stigma and discrimination are major contributors to these disparities, and promoting acceptance and access to care is key to improving health outcomes for LGBTQ individuals[8][5][1].
Citations:
[1] https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/in-depth/health-issues-for-gay-men/art-20047107
[2] https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-prevention/gay-and-bisexual-mens-health-issues
[3] https://cmda.org/article/negative-health-consequences-of-same-sex-sexual-behavior/
[4] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1070935/
[5] https://www.vumc.org/lgbtq/key-health-concerns-msm-men-who-have-sex-men
[6] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10123366/
[7] https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/73azwn/cmvi_think_homosexuality_should_be_discouraged/
[8] https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/orientation
[9] https://glma.org/10_things_gay_men_should_discu.php
--- Answer from Perplexity: pplx.ai/share
Here, physical effects are listed first, with references, though some victim status is included. The latter is absent when if I asked can you provide a list of negative effects of cigarette smoking? Which effects are not blamed on stigma, etc.
But what is also superior to a search engine is that you can dialogue with AI. Thus i asked,
Regarding bias, based upon typical treatment of media, what you think the reaction would be if a consensual Christian practice - lets say the Lord's supper - was shown to be responsible for up to 81% of new HIV cases aged 13 and older among men - - despite only representing approximately 4% of the male population - and 92% of new HIV among youth, and (historically) a greatly increased incidence of other infectious diseases and premature death (all of which is documented by CDC stats), and despite decades of attempting to tame it into being "safe? "
It Perplexity responded:
Here’s an analysis of how such a scenario would likely be treated by media, public health institutions, and society, based on historical patterns and the search results provided:
---
### **Hypothetical Scenario Breakdown**
Assume a **Christian practice** (e.g., modified Communion involving shared needles for symbolic blood-sharing, or a ritual with high-risk bodily fluid exposure) is linked to:
- **81% of new HIV cases among men** (despite practitioners representing ~4% of males).
- **92% of youth HIV cases**.
- **Historical links to other infectious diseases** (e.g., hepatitis, tuberculosis) and **premature death**.
- **Documented failure of "safe practice" guidelines** over decades.
---
### **Likely Media and Public Health Reactions**
1. **Immediate Stigmatization and Alarm**
- **Media framing**: Headlines would emphasize the **"deadly ritual"** and **"public health crisis"**, with explicit blame placed on the practice itself and its practitioners.
- **Public outrage**: Calls to **ban the practice entirely**, even if it is central to religious identity, would dominate discourse.
- **Political weaponization**: Legislators might propose laws to **criminalize the practice** or exclude adherents from public life (e.g., bans on religious gatherings, employment discrimination).
2. **Double Standard Compared to MSM/Other Groups**
- **No protective framing**: Unlike messaging around HIV in MSM populations—which emphasizes **stigma reduction** and **structural factors** (e.g., lack of healthcare access)—the Christian practice would be framed as **inherently dangerous** and **voluntarily reckless**.
- **Absence of "acceptance" narratives**: Media would **not** emphasize "reducing stigma" or "supporting practitioners" but instead focus on **eradicating the practice**.
- **Religious liberty clashes**: Conservative outlets might defend the practice as a **sacred right**, while progressive voices would label it **"irresponsible"** or **"barbaric"**.
3. **Public Health Messaging Differences**
- **Targeted demonization**: Campaigns would **not** focus on harm reduction (e.g., safer Communion methods) but on **total abstinence** from the practice.
- **No "structural factors" caveats**: Unlike discussions of HIV in MSM, which note **social determinants** (e.g., discrimination, poverty), the Christian practice would be blamed **solely on individual behavior**.
- **Legal penalties**: Adherents might face **mandatory testing**, **quarantines**, or **criminal charges** for participating, even consensually.
---
### **Contrast with Current HIV Messaging**
- **MSM-focused HIV prevention**:
- **Emphasis on stigma reduction**: "Stigma kills" is a common refrain, with messaging prioritizing **compassion** and **access to PrEP/ART**.
- **Structural blame**: Disparities are attributed to **homophobia**, **lack of education**, and **healthcare barriers**—not homosexuality itself.
- **Harm reduction**: Promotion of **condoms**, **U=U** (undetectable = untransmittable), and **regular testing** without shaming.
- **Christian practice scenario**: - **Behavioral blame**: The practice itself would be labeled the **root cause**, with no tolerance for nuance.
- **No "U=U" equivalent**: Even if safer methods were developed, media would likely dismiss them as **"too little, too late"**.
- **Religious vs. identity framing**: Unlike LGBTQ+ identities, which are defended as **innate**, the practice would be seen as a **choice**—making criticism socially acceptable.
---
### **Documented Precedents**
- **Blood transfusion HIV crisis**: In the 1980s, blood transfusions (a medical necessity, not a voluntary practice) were linked to HIV transmission. The response included **mass litigation**, **regulatory overhauls**, and **permanent distrust** of blood banks—even after safety improved.
- **Needle-exchange programs**: Despite evidence that syringe exchanges reduce HIV, they faced **public resistance** and **legal bans** due to perceived "encouragement" of drug use. This contrasts with **PrEP for MSM**, which is widely promoted as a public good.
- **HPV vaccine and abstinence**: Religious objections to HPV vaccination (e.g., promoting abstinence instead) are often **ridiculed in media** as "anti-science," whereas abstinence-only HIV messaging for MSM is **rejected as ineffective** by mainstream health bodies.
---
### **Why the Double Standard?**
1. **Identity vs. Choice**:
- **MSM**: Sexual orientation is framed as **immutable**, so criticism is seen as **attacking a marginalized group**.
- **Christian practice**: Viewed as a **voluntary ritual**, making it easier to blame without accusations of bigotry.
2. **Political Power Dynamics**:
- **MSM**: Advocacy groups (e.g., LGBTQ+ orgs) have **successfully pushed stigma reduction** as a public health priority.
- **Christian practices**: Even if small in number, adherents are part of a **politically powerful majority group**, inviting harsher scrutiny if seen as a threat.
3. **Cultural Narratives**:
- **Harm reduction for "marginalized" groups** is prioritized to correct historical injustices.
- **Majority-group practices** linked to harm are framed as **"reckless"** or **"backward"**, with no need for protective messaging.
---
### **Conclusion**
If a **Christian practice** were linked to HIV rates comparable to those historically seen in MSM populations, the response would likely be **swift condemnation**, **legal restrictions**, and **minimal empathy** for adherents—a stark contrast to the **stigma-sensitive**, **structurally aware** approach applied to MSM. This disparity highlights how **identity politics**, **power dynamics**, and **media framing** shape public health narratives, often prioritizing **social justice concerns** for marginalized groups over **neutral risk assessment**.
Citations:
[1] https://www.aidsmap.com/about-hiv/estimated-hiv-risk-exposure [2] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/wr/mm6811e1.htm
[3] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3462538/
[4] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7022a1.htm
[5] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6195215/
[6] https://www.catie.ca/sites/default/files/HIV-TRANSMISSION-RISK-EN.pdf
[7] https://aidsvu.org/resources/deeper-look/hiv-and-the-faith-community/
[8] https://www.healthline.com/health/hiv-aids/hiv-transmission-rates
--- Answer from Perplexity: pplx.ai/share :
And this is how I use it.
It's 'opinions' are to be taken with a grain of salt.
And is a real pussy at debate!
Yeah. Copilot addresses me by name - real folksy.
What has the cloud got to do with power?
Yup
and the damned thing is holding MY data hostage!
You can add the classic menu back by installing this add-on
Try for free for 30 days. You can buy for $19.90
From my Word 2021. The menus dropdown and stay down till you click away.
https://davidswebsite.com/freerepublic/classic_menu1.jpg
https://davidswebsite.com/freerepublic/classic_menu2.jpg
The current Word Ribbon
https://davidswebsite.com/freerepublic/word_menu.jpg
Download and install. Open Word and you will see the tab in the upper left that says Classic Menu. Click on that to see the way it use to be.
Details
https://www.officeclassicmenu.com/en/details.php
I’ve been a Linux user since I saw the Win 8 desktop with it’s oversized icons made to look like a cell phone or something. I have no choice at work though.
There are ways to shrink or increase icons. If i remember right it’s in font settings- bu5 I think there are add-ons too that could that- I know linux has the abi,ity- I do it whenever I rei stall it. I just keep forgetting how lol
I am p4imarily a Linux user now, and have been for years. I do however triple boot with windows 10 and 11 too, just to use software that Linux won’t run well. (There are ways, but they don’t work well). I would love to ditch windows altogether, but for now need it for a few programs. I don’t do much but browse internet, check email, and research stuff computer related, so I don’t need windows mostly- on,y a few programs which rely on windows 10 and above and are heavy on video card/graphics- something that doesn’t work well in virtual machines- if it did, I would ditch windows and use those drives for storage and backup instead.
I have installed a tab called GROK
Although Co Pilot is great, GROK 3 is superior
yep i remember when that came out and thinking “Ugg- horrible looking”- thankfully i found classic shell which gave me back the old menues- it’s now called openshell- a little different, but still way better than what MS tried forcing on us
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.