Nobody won a rally, it's just a headline that can be parsed to get more than one meaning. I presume this is the correct parsing:
(Subject) [verb] {object}
(Albertans 'crushed' by Liberal election win) [rally] {to separate from Canada}
or phrased less ambiguously:
Albertans who were 'crushed' by the Liberals winning the election went to a rally about separating from Canada
You're not wrong, but you've got a bit of an extreme take on it. I think you and your parents may have different thoughts on what it means to "approach" a woman though. I'm going to use "flirt" to refer to talking to a woman with intent of seeing if they would make a good partner for you and just "talk" to indicate just being friendly with someone.
it is only appropriate for a man to talk to a woman who doesn’t know when the social situation is explicitly designed for meeting strangers
No, it's fine to talk to strangers of any gender in public. Approaching them and flirting with them is not. As long as you can roughly understand when you're making someone uncomfortable and stop it, you're not going to come off as a creep/predator. Stuck in a lineup in a store? Chat with someone beside you, maybe commiserate about how long the line is. If you want to flirt with them, then yes the situations you mentioned are definitely the places to do that.
(sort of an aside: whether "meeting friends of friends" is an appropriate situation to flirt with someone you just met is still situation dependent)
They are adamant that I need to learn to approach women or else I will never find a partner.
Approaching women in random public spaces with the intent of finding a partner is also a pretty bad idea. While it could work, it's definitely creep/predator behaviour so I avoid it. It's very likely to make them uncomfortable, since they're just trying to do their thing not get hit on. This can easily be harassment, though I'm on the fence on whether it's always harassment.
Personally I like to flip the genders on situations like this and ask if I'd want to be the other person in this situation. It's worth keeping in mind that woman have way more statistical reasons to be weary/wary of any interaction with men, though. Regardless, e.g. if some woman was beside me in line and started chatting with me, I'd be fine with it. If some woman came up to me and complimented my shirt, I'd be fine with it. If some woman came up to me, complimented my shirt, and then asked for my number I'd be weirded out (I don't know you, lady). If some woman came up to me and asked me to take out my earbuds to commiserate about how long the line is, I'd be annoyed that I'm missing my music.
What you're describing sounds a lot like eosinophilic esophagitis which indeed generally cannot be tested with the skin prick test (though the skin prick test can sometimes work, lack of allergens found in a skin prick test does not guarantee that your esophagus will not react to those allergens).
The best option is changing your diet to experimentally narrow down allergens. You can do it somewhat like a binary search though I don't think medical professionals will recommend that since it can lead to malnutrition. I've been recommended to sequentially eliminate common allergens by doctors, which is a safer option.
To address the original question, blood tests for allergens (assuming they work) would have the same limitations as a skin prick test (the flaw of any general test for a localised problem). Though I suspect a blood test would work a lot less well because it's no longer connected to your immune system, which is responsible for allergy response.
This is the first and only post by the account, so it's not worth interacting with
According to the original source the majority of Albertans do not see it that way (only 44% think she's a traitor), which are realistically the voices who matter the most in getting her out of power.
I was hoping it was an April Fools joke but now I'm just disappointed for two reasons.
A bit of a strangely organised article. The relevant information is actually near the end of the article, with the start just providing general slaughterhouse tactics. Here's a summary of the relevant info:
Unfortunately the original order makes it very annoying to read if you don't care about the website's agenda. They'd probably have more success in reaching other audiences if they skipped the general slaughterhouse tactics part since it isn't about avian flu at all.
We are discussing what someone would use when writing about a hypothetical person.
And that changes it how? It's insulting to misgender someone, though I can understand how you'd think that there's no harm in insulting someone hypothetical.
I suggest you do some research on the history of language
Per your suggestion, "they" has been used to refer to a singular person since the 14th century. "He" is currently masculine-only. I apologize if you misunderstood my use of "never" to refer to things around the 18th and 19th century (when it apparently was considered bad to use "they" in the singular) when I presumed that there was an implicit limit to modern usage of English.
Someone with undetermined/unknowable gender would use the pronouns they/them, never he/him.
This sounds like open weights but not actually open source (which requires an open training set), but we can only hope they are true to their promises when they actually release it. Bonus points if they also release how much energy they wasted to train it and how much energy it wastes to run it.
If you don't want to follow other people's suggestions on how to communicate your information better, that's fine. But insulting people who are just offering friendly suggestions (and explanations) is not ok.
Despite what you have seem to believe, I actually agree with your post's general thesis. It doesn't really matter to me whether you believe that though.
What do you mean by "Canada's Joe Biden moment"? Joe Biden had at least 4 years worth of moments.