What if the life I'm imagining I'm protecting is one where I have the option of choosing a platform/application that isn't scraping the absolute dregs of the barrel to squeeze out that last bit of profit margin.
That's a win win right?
What if the life I'm imagining I'm protecting is one where I have the option of choosing a platform/application that isn't scraping the absolute dregs of the barrel to squeeze out that last bit of profit margin.
That's a win win right?
The way that sentence is structured implies otherwise, but that could be a misinterpretation on my part, I suppose.
I know of it but I've not put any effort in to specific practice.
My personal opinion is that most communication between anyone contains manipulation, even if they aren't doing it consciously, it's an intrinsic part of how we deal with each other.
The difference is that i don't have much of a natural instinct for it, i have to practice and be much more intentional, which brings benefits and drawbacks.
I find that a lot of people in general can be manipulated in similar ways (I'm no exception to this) but techniques vary by culture, upbringing, experience, context etc, i don't like to do it , however, for the reason stated a bit further down.
Identifying which markers work for which people is a a lot of the battle initially.
Unfair is relative and heavily context dependent but in some circumstances yeah it can feel a bit like a cheat, what I've found over time is that I'd be cheating myself just as much as anyone else, my goal in general was/is better communication and understanding, if I'm intentionally manipulating outside the norms then the interaction is tainted in terms of learning natural communications patterns.
If they are intentionally manipulating outside of the norms then that's significantly more interesting and useful for gaining samples from uncommon behaviours.
Lots of practice.
For me it works like an elaborate pattern recognition tree.
e.g. This face in this context means x thing 75% of the time so far.
Then it's "strong opinions held weakly", you now have a working hypothesis but it's just that, a hypothesis.
Every facial/body/word/etc change could be a modifier to the previous assumption. You could also match some newly remembered memory to the situation that also changes the impression of what is going on.
It's exhausting, but it becomes easier with practice.
It's gets more refined the more you are around the same people, as you get a 'feel' for their patterns.
You also start to build up a library of 'shortcuts' that you can sometimes apply to unfamiliar situations/people.
At some point it starts to become 'muscle memory' and the energy required to do it is greatly reduced.
YMMV however, I've no idea if this will work for anyone else in the way I have described.
I'd also say to remember that everyone is guessing to some degree or another it's just that your guesses might require a bit more intention, whichever method (s) you settle on.
You do what you can with what you have, that is the best that can be reasonably expected of anyone.
Ah. OK. Thanks for clarifying
Also levels for fecal matter in most things that come from agriculture.
Milk is weird, I don't disagree, but governmental regulations on levels of "safe contamination" isn't a milk only thing.
I was genuinely asking because it wasn't (and still isn't) clear that that's what they meant.
The dairy farm thing makes sense.
Other than cat milk, possibly? I've honestly no idea.
But " just eat/drink plants " will kill a cat right?
You mean cats? Are they not obligate carnivores?
The book is great as well, there is also a prequel book "The Boy On The Bridge"
You’re never going to get an honest answer to this question,
The honest answer was in the post they were originally replying to.
I will never tolerate ads. I will give up YouTube before I watch ads.
Youtube isn't an existential need.
Ad's or bust isn't a real dichotomy.
Here's another honest suggestion, drop ~~free~~ ad supported Youtube as a product and go full premium.
It'd significantly reduce infrastructure costs and they'd be able to fund it with subscription monies.
edit: used the wrong quote at the start
Depends on how you define 'cost' I suppose, but seems like the trade off isn't worth it for you, which is fair.
Some might value the perceived benefits much higher than you do.