The Chinese way of measuring a person's output by saying they did 30% wrong and got 70% right is pretty good. Even if someone makes a bad decision or two (or ten) we can still get something out of the what they've done right.
Also, making a food diary and rating how bad your GERD is each day a little after each meal can help in working out what's causing the worst of it. Look especially for trends: I can eat one meal in a week with onion or garlic in, but any more than that and I'll be up at night with nausea and chest pain. It can be harder to work out by just looking at things that make it worse immediately.
If you've got GERD you can try eating a low FODMAP diet. Worth googling, lot of stuff from the NHS in the UK about it for treating IBS.
I had to cut out Garlic, Onions and most of that family of vegetables (alliums) as after trying to cut out the foods the low FODMAP diet suggests, those were the ones that actually caused my symptoms to cease entirely. I then returned to eating whatever else really I wanted, and I transitioned to vegetarianism and then veganism afterwards with no ill-effects over a few years.
Pathetic moralising about a health issue that exists purely because companies exploit a portion of humanity's inability to properly regulate their consumption behaviour, all the while crushing them in work and denying them access to free and regular access to high quality exercise sites and equipment.
Any reprieve people can get, medical or otherwise, from this manufactured hell we've been forced into is good. Being a puritanical, and denying people access to help because it's too easy and 'skips all the grind' is frankly pathetic at best and outright malicious and violent at worst.
No, you said that now, in modern times, that means ideological closeness, not merely geographical. Somehow, human nature seems to have shifted. If it can shift like so in the transition to modern times, I don't suppose this appeal to human nature could also shift in an imagined future. That it is not such an immutable quality - that even you have conceded as such by your own reply.
Media blitz against China, trying to manufacture consent against a "state enemy". Nothing in that article actually points towards the Chinese state's (Hong Kong or mainland) involvement. Private investigator police chuds that have worked for the UK for over 10 years being overly forceful to extort a money from someone a client said owed them? Sure sure, definitely has to be directed by the Chinese state, the Chinese are bugmen who never have feelings of their own or who act on their own volition.
Naked warmongering predicated on racism and yellow peril narratives.
The "topic" is a naked propaganda article loosely related to linguistics, whose aim is not to inform about policy changes that might impact minority language teaching but to smear China as a dictatorship. Either delete the post as it is clearly barely on-topic as is, or let people discuss its shortcomings.
Any discussion on the PRC's policy regarding minority language teaching that tries desperately to hide the fact that the PRC has some of the most progressive affirmative action for minorities to maintain their culture and language roots has got a clear and obvious agenda. The article can't even help but concede that this, potentially (in the way the author has decided to frame the policy), is a retreat from the PRC's original and historic position of minority language dominance in minority ethnic regions. It falls back on interpreting a part of the potential policy that is to be debated at congress as "criminalising advocacy of ethnic minority rights", the title of the post itself, which is an absolute reach and completely poisoning the framing of the discussion.
Slop that refuses to acknowledge how the Congress system actually functions, trying to make out that the Central Committee dictates policies to Congress instead of the other way around.
This is Chinese democracy in action and these worms want to pretend like Xi Jingping himself sets the legislative agenda. Just vile, overt propaganda.
Even if this policy is regressive on the previously first-class affirmative action policies set by the early PRC, you can barely trust anything written in this article with its complete inability to describe the truth and how the PRC actually functions.
This is basically the rhetoric used by my local Trotskyists in "support" of Venezuela against the US kidnapping of Maduro.
Edit: I haven't seen their statements re: the US invasion of Iran yet but I can imagine it's similar, as they shoe horned in lines against "Iranian, Russian and Chinese imperialism" during their screeds in "solidarity" with Venezuela.
And all states are authoritarian, so it loses its explanatory value and is a useless term when used to isolate and describe individual states.