Sunflower plant here.
I feel like a cannibal munching on sunflower seeds while reading the description of my type of plant XD
Sunflower plant here.
I feel like a cannibal munching on sunflower seeds while reading the description of my type of plant XD
At least, not at first. As the scandal heated up, EFF took an impassive stance. In a blog post, an EFF staffer named Donna Wentworth acknowledged that a contentious debate was brewing around Google’s new email service. But Wentworth took an optimistic wait-and-see attitude—and counseled EFF’s supporters to go and do likewise. “We’re still figuring that out,” she wrote of the privacy question, conceding that Google’s plans are “raising concerns about privacy” in some quarters. But mostly, she downplayed the issue, offering a “reassuring quote” from a Google executive about how the company wouldn’t keep record of keywords that appeared in emails. Keywords? That seemed very much like a moot point, given that the company had the entire emails in their possession and, according to the contract required to sign up, could do whatever it wanted with the information those emails contained. EFF continued to talk down the scandal and praised Google for being responsive to its critics, but the issue continued to snowball. A few weeks after Gmail’s official launch, California State Senator Liz Figueroa, whose district spanned a chunk of Silicon Valley, drafted a law aimed directly at Google’s emerging surveillance-based advertising business. Figueroa’s bill would have prohibited email providers like Google from reading or otherwise analyzing people’s emails for targeted ads unless they received affirmative opt-in consent from all parties involved in the conversation—a difficult-to-impossible requirement that would have effectively nipped Gmail’s business model in the bud. “Telling people that their most intimate and private email thoughts to doctors, friends, lovers, and family members are just another direct marketing commodity isn’t the way to promote e-commerce,” Figueroa explained. “At minimum, before someone’s most intimate and private thoughts are converted into a direct marketing opportunity for Google, Google should get everyone’s informed consent.”
Google saw Figueroa’s bill as a direct threat. If it passed, it would set a precedent and perhaps launch a nationwide trend to regulate other parts of the company’s growing for-profit surveillance business model. So Google did what any other huge company caught in the crosshairs of a prospective regulatory crusade does in our political system: it mounted a furious and sleazy public relations counteroffensive.
Google’s senior executives may have been fond of repeating the company’s now quaint-sounding “Don’t Be Evil” slogan, but in legislative terms, they were making evil a cottage industry. First, they assembled a team of lobbyists to influence the media and put pressure on Figueroa. Sergey Brin paid her a personal visit. Google even called in the nation’s uber-wonk, Al Gore, who had signed on as one of the company’s shadow advisers. Like some kind of cyber-age mafia don, Gore called Figueroa in for a private meeting in his suite at the San Francisco Ritz Carlton to talk some sense into her.
And here’s where EFF showed its true colors. The group published a string of blog posts and communiqués that attacked Figueroa and her bill, painting her staff as ignorant and out of their depth. Leading the publicity charge was Wentworth, who, as it turned out, would jump ship the following year for a “strategic communications” position at Google. She called the proposed legislation “poorly conceived” and “anti-Gmail” (apparently already a self-evident epithet in EFF circles). She also trotted out an influential roster of EFF experts who argued that regulating Google wouldn’t remedy privacy issues online. What was really needed, these tech savants insisted, was a renewed initiative to strengthen and pass laws that restricted the government from spying on us. In other words, EFF had no problem with corporate surveillance: companies like Google were our friends and protectors. The government—that was the bad hombre here. Focus on it.
I don’t know whether it is illegal for someone to open a letter addressed to you or not, in the country you live, but this is pretty important. If the information presented here is accurate, this is not simply EFF focusing on the government, its EFF actively resisting similar rules to be applied on e-mail as those applied on regular mail. Would anyone use any of the non-electronic mail service providers or courier services if it was a given that for each piece of mail sent, there would be exactly one open and read, shared with multiple other parties besides the sender and receiver?
It seems to me that this is the whole point of this (quite long, but interesting) article and this instance probably illustrates it better than any other chosen to discuss in the article.
So what is it with Anakin’s picture? Javascript is the dark side of the, web development, force? XD
Seriously tho, valid points.
Eating less is not that hard
There are always hundreds of excuses, but hardly any of them are reasonable.
but blaming everything on external factors is addict behavior.
Okay, I 'll give it a go too. Even though @storksforlegs@beehaw.org already mentioned what I am about to say, obviously to no effect.
You say you are speaking from experience. That you 've lost some weight. And then you make claims that go way beyond your experience, that are far tοo general. I won’t go so far as to say that the position you support is ignorant. This won’t be nice. I will assume you are more educated than I am. But I will point out, that your experience alone hardly constitutes solid ground to speak for everyone. There is room there for you to be mistaken.
Addictive behavior is not rational. People get addicted to stuff, whether there are inherent addictive qualities to whatever they get addicted to or not, not because they choose so, but because they are vulnerable to addictive behavior. This, more often than not, is something indicating other psychological issues that need to be addressed. It can be insane amounts of stress, it can be depression, it can be many other issues that need to be addressed in order for someone with addictive behavior to get to a place where that person no longer needs crutches to function. Attacking how an addict rationalizes the addiction, not only doesn’t address the issues that lead to this behavior but it probably adds to to them.
So, since you can’t know why someone is displaying addictive behavior, implying, for example, that a person with severe anxiety that turns to food for comfort is lazy, is actually neither nice nor helpful. It’s not even speaking the truth as you said. It’s just negative, probably adding to the problem causing the unhealthy relationship with food.
I won’t bother with the rest of the generalizations you 've already made, but I will suggest this. If you want others to respect your experience when you speak about it, try to consider its limitations before you draw assumptions that include other people’s lives.
Yet when you go to the doctor how much time do they spend talking about your cardio routine vs popping you on the scales or talking about weight?
Well, last doctors I 've seen actually got angry when I mentioned that I 'll get back on my bike. They said 2 weeks after the surgery to insert plate and screws after my crash were not enough. They didn’t bother to ask my weight at any instance. Orthopedic surgeons… XD
Seriously though, effects of exercise on human health are not exactly lacking in research. Its pretty old, but I found it really very interesting.
I am getting old.
When I was a kid, my parents, my siblings and I would go to very crowded beaches during the summer. Sunny weather, vibrant colors, cool water. It was nearly impossible for me to bother with whatever everyone else was doing. My attention was focused to everything that was fun and new to me. I would swim for hours, climb rocks and attempt the most challenging dives I could, run on the wet sand. Even build castles!
And then, gradually, every next year each summer visit to the beach would become less magical. Every next year, my attention would start to focus less on the beach and more on the people. And not just people who were calm, friendly and enjoying themselves there. No. I would focus on people who were rude, stressed out and annoying. Loud people who would disregard everyone else around them.
Until, at some point, it started actually feeling bad visiting crowded places. Felt like there was no way I could enjoy being at the beach if I were to share it with other people. Now, I can point you to places that very few people know how to reach. And they are great. As long as you have your own company.
I envy my kid self. If you were to ask that kid what it felt like to be at the beach, you would get a lot of excitement and zero negativity.
Now, even though I will mostly avoid crowded places it’s not always possible to do so. So, when I end up in a crowded place I actively focus on what is important for me to enjoy my time. Laughter is music for my ears. Kidding around my friends, swimming and all the good stuff my kid self knew how to do better. I try. Sometimes I succeed, others I feel old and tired ;-)
What if you are toxic to an user, on the other side of your screen, who happens to have depression or other mental disorders, and you don’t know that fact? Would you feel OK knowing that you’re driving someone to hurt themselves, or worse?
This is probably one of the most important things to consider before posting something in a public space.
And this is not something that occurs recently or during the last 5 years. I’ve been browsing internet since 2006, and it was as bad as it is now, just with other intermediaries, like online chats, forums, etc.
What you describe here and above this sentence is true. It happened, it happens still. But, in my experience, not to the same extend. I 've been spending time in online communities since the early 90’s and I believe there is a reason the toxicity is getting worse. Part of it is what @daredevil@kbin.social said. I mean most of the platforms offered by huge corporations try to drive engagement for profit. To achieve this, to get more people involved and engaging as much as possible, the interactions have to get limited to the least common denominator. It’s not just reaction buttons, it’s much more than this. Another part of it is the technological shift. The web was populated by significantly less netizens before certain technological advancements, with probably the most important of these being the smart phones. I believe this combination is the reason. The huge increase of people surfing the web and the appearance of huge corporations actively controlling how new people get used to surfing the web.
Btw at 2006 google was already there and quite big and facebook was already starting to get big.
Anyway, thanks for the link, as a fediverse newbie, I really appreciate it!
There was a time before google’s search engine, when all the previous attempts had not managed to become the dominant entry point for the web. During that time, we would find interesting web pages through people and/or specific interests. Then, google came, and for a time it was good (read like The Second Renaissance Part I story from animatrix). Ads and SEO were not everywhere yet, content mattered more than those two. So, while I came here to suggest what @bbbhltz@beehaw.org commented, when I read your post text I thought that maybe, at least for what we tend to constantly look for news, articles and discussions, we shouldn’t constantly rely on search engines. For example, most technologies have news letters, weekly/monthly magazines, mailing lists, community boards or other forms of group communication through which you can gradually discover better content sources (individuals or groups) on what interests you. Without the search engine service and its cost (direct or indirect) between you and the content.
Placing orthotics bellow your arches is very harmful in the long term. In general you shouldn’t prevent your foot doing what it is designed to do (big heel drops, fat soft shoe soles, orthotics) unless there is a problem (read injury) and only temporarily (until you recover). So are narrow toe-boxes in shoes, your toes should be able to move freely and naturally. If they can’t, the restriction will create irreversible (read: even surgery won’t completely fix what they cause) problems, that mess up all the bio-mechanics of the leg. I wish I knew this when I was younger, working 8-10-12 hour shifts (yeah, I know), as a waiter/barman.
Btw, it might sound counter-intuitive, but proper running, relaxed and a little each day (even as little as 10 minutes) can help getting your legs stronger, relieve stress, restore fascia (without stretching, static stretching never ever worked well for me) and keep it flexible and strong, reset nervous system firing patterns on your shoulders (moving your hands like you do in running with the proper form is way more effective than PT exercises like trap-3-raises for the traps) to counter balance the amount of time you spend looking down, help re-align your spine, and pretty much invigorate your whole body.
But most importantly, rest and eat well. This will be the defining factor on whether your body will adapt and get stronger or not, and how long it will need to do it. We are supposed to be standing all day (not facing downwards though), your feet shouldn’t be the issue here, your neck & shoulders are the part that is assuming the unnatural positions for extended periods of time, so as often as you can break them and do some gentle full range of motion movements (a.k.a dynamic stretching) the better.
Regardless, good luck with your new job! :-)
Hey friend, it didn’t make only you sad. The viewpoint expressed was really not nice. Facing hardships in life because of your sexuality (which is not exactly a choice) seems like is not enough to be understanding towards other groups of people facing hardships in their life by having it be determined by things they didn’t choose. In many cases it doesn’t even seem enough to be a decent person.
Having lived all my life close to people I love and are struggling with the most difficult disabilities caused by autism, I had to try to ignore the comment that made you sad.
Responses from those users are more likely to pendantic, overly argumentative, and unhelpful.
I can’t always be sure for the first two for myself. I do try to be helpful though, which seems a little easier to judge. Now, when I find it difficult to judge how my own comments can be perceived, how is it possible to be sure about other people’s posts and comments…
The rest of my thoughts are pretty much what @HappyMeatbag@beehaw.org said.
Great topic! Looks like a very fun book to read too. So do the Sapiens books mentioned in the article. Nice.
In this scenario, “Bob” is a hypothetical guy who believes that a woman has cut in front of him in line at the supermarket checkout. He and the woman get into a brief shouting match before she informs Bob that she’d just ducked out of her spot in the line to replace a carton of eggs that turned out to be cracked. He apologizes, and that’s the end of it—except someone recorded the incident on their smartphone, then uploaded only the shouting match, reading all kinds of deplorable motives into it. “The video need only include a hint of cultural asymmetry,” Rose-Stockwell writes:
It may be seen as an angry outburst by a man (Bob) toward a woman (the other shopper). Or a Democrat (Bob) toward a Republican (the lady). Or any heightened reflection of their implied group identity. It can be repackaged as an example of a troubling trend in society. People who feel this way who see the clip now have an opportunity to explain exactly why it’s offensive. They can link it to a larger narrative that may have nothing to do with the actual event itself.
That outrage is often stoked by journalists, who, Rose-Stockwell notes, “are shockingly susceptible to reporting on this kind of thing,” furthering what he calls “trigger chains: cascades of outrage that are divorced from the original event.”
This is so common… And not only with incidents where a part of them can be taken out of context and used to evoke emotional response related to rage.
I am eating something like 400grams of watermelon as I read this study. My feet hurt a little, its been a long ride, almost 3,5 hours (no snacks) on the bike. 80+ km distance, 1300+ meters of elevation. I keep wondering, does that count as hibernation? Will I become obese until I get 40 (getting close)? Will my (lower than 15% atm) bodyfat increase? Is it only the few grams of fructose in watermelon, or is it sorbitol (produces small fatty acids when eaten in moderation) too? What about lycopene (makes my sperm diagrams look like I am in my 20ies)? Oooof, all those studies, really, make me worry! At least I 'm safe, in the winter there is really no watermelon for poor me that doesn’t shop fruit out of season. Maybe that’s the secret and I don’t get fat? Who knows !!
I can remember a time when I was a kid, that one of the most recent chicks got to feel so accustomed to my presence that it would follow me around when I was near and let me pet it. So it was easy for me to pick various insects and provide instant snacks, probably tastier than what the rest of the flock was getting. This is also how hen’s teach little chicken (few days old) how to locate food when they are young. After it grew a little, when it spotted me, it used to behave like a dog does when you return home. It sprinted towards me, made silly (to my perception) noises and examined me tilting it’s head. This picture reminded me of those sprints and made me smile.
Wikipedia defines snack as a small portion of food that is eaten between meals. The way I think about it, that is the only distinction between a meal and a snack. That “in between meals”.
This, as far as weight goes, carries with it an inherent quality that makes regulating weight harder. If not impossible, depending on your sleep patterns (the etymology of the term breakfast indicates exactly how this is relevant to what I am saying here). It’s nearly impossible to find snacks that have zero insulin response in your body. Insulin not only promotes energy storage, but it also prevents the body from using energy already stored. Making a habit of doing that, even when you don’t face weight problems (which are related to health issues), is essentially making a habit of preventing your metabolism of using energy already stored from previous meals.
This is also probably the most important reason why people speak highly of intermittent fasting or low carb diets. Most of them, through these two approaches, regardless of the other positive/negative aspects, completely eliminate the habit of constantly spiking their insulin levels, effectively allowing the body to regulate energy levels through both the energy still available from a meal and the energy stored from previous meals.