Themadbeagle

Take my breakdown with a grain of salt, as I did not dig into all of it, owing to the quantity of citations. Picking some at random, I found a mix between sources contemporary to the time period and ones that are secondary. I did not check the relevancy of the wiki quite, this was just 15 minutes of snooping around.

This one was interesting as it claims it was minutes from a meeting of a contemporary society called the the American Philosophical Society.

[103] Ord, George (1840). "Minutes from the Stated Meeting, September 18 [1840]". Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 1: 272.

They still seem to be running to this day, and sound like they have a long history in the US. Not to say they are trustworthy, I know nothing about them.

It will not, because those laws already largely exist. It has been quite well established I'm the US that inciting violence is not considered protected speech. The laws just don't apply the same to wealthy people like Trump as they do to anyone else.

Let take this as an example that just blindly saying things "worked" in the past means we should keep doing things the same way

I am sorry that I cannot provide an answer for your question as I am not really super familiar with it (only briefly played around with it about 5 years ago), but I will say this might be a good time to play politics. If your manager is so adamant on a clearly worse solution, you might try getting some advocates on your side with some sway to influence your manager to change their mind. It could be well respected technical coworks, or, if your bold, your managers manager. That last one I recommend caution around as people can get vindictive when you go above them.

Your edit gave me a chuckle

Lol

Always got to love victim blaming. It's always a class act.

Be mad then I guess lol

I really hate the idea of saying corrected in this context. There is really no right and wrong in language iself. Standardized language is not some "correct" way to speak, but a common guide to try to help an individual be understood by more people. Someone not following standard is not wrong, just maybe difficult to comprehend due to not following convention. I think in one off mistakes that are hard to understand, it is better to thinking in terms of asking for clarification. In more consistent problems of understanding, I think explaining (which is not the same as correcting) to them a more conventional way of speaking to easy future communication is the best path.

Also equating individuals unique linguistic quirks to cancer is gross.

I've been trying to answer you question for like an hour using my limited understanding of cancer, viruses, and long term, low dose, chemical exposure. Honestly I'm not a biologist or anything so I really don't have an answer either the most I can say on the matter is that these problems are really not compatible. The way you "target" a cancer cell, or "target" a virus, or target chemicals are whole different and don't really share anything in common. I can also say that BPA is more a problem of long term, low dose exposure that we don't really expect to see a realistic end to anytime soon. You can target it in the body, but we are going to keep being exposed to it for years to come, even if there is a ban on it. The oceans are full of it, the waterways are full of it. Much of the world is already contaminated with it.

I knew exactly what video that would link to before I clicked. Great video, glad to see someone else reference it.