Yes, yes it is

I don’t know that i have the patience to do that more than once per person, i end up analyzing their thought patterns to sus out the root cause of the failure to adapt to new thinking. This kind of thing might be based on family culture or inappropriately reinforced assumptions about basic concepts that did not got caught by earlier educators. I will explore their cultural and family backgrounds to figure out how assumptions from there affect these failures to adapt to more dynamic environments.

A new model can be planted over inappropriate beliefs for the context of the new environment (here at work, generalizing is not only okay but necessary), and then it has to be reinforced over many months to keep the previously dominant mindset from reverting and help them build comfort with the new way of thinking.

The great part about this is that people who learn the adaptations this way will naturally teach others with the same maladaptions, and much more effectively. The terrible part is that it is slow and tedious and almost always includes religion or trauma

Are you arguing for or against mass incarceration?

Maybe he is insinuating that women are demons

I mean, the whole “startups are doing x” is really code for “venture dollars have been made available for entrepreneurs to explore x”. Startups these days are chasing fields which have investment dollars, so this means the rich are starting to invest in the tech a little more earnestly

I’m torn on how to approach this, i’m left with a couple of options:

A) so Trump would somehow be even less self defeating?

B) are you suggesting we should all spontaneously rise up and overthrow the military industrial complex?

C) if you think this world view is self defeating then:

C.1) you owe some clarifying thoughts as to how you see a measured response to the existing democratic systems as self defeating

C.2) you appear to be making yourself out as someone who idealizes violence and oppression

C.3) you appear to be using contrarian language with the explicit purpose of dragging down the mood of the conversation. Quit that shit

This is why i refuse to use self check out. If they wont trust me to do the job my way i wont do it for free.

But if the child is well bonded, how will he grow up to be an insecure, dependable consumer?

Way to dehumanize the homeless, buddy

The problem is their behavior and rhetoric towards Palestine resembles a sentiment shared by the OG Nazis

You have a product that needs to be sold just as much as google needed to sell gmail. This is where the technical rubber meets the social road. It is a given that not everyone will want to host their services, so to get the network effect people need to use your instance.

With that in mind, first and foremost you should treat your services you host almost like a product: you do need to sell it, it needs to be maintained it, and if other people get onboard you can’t just get bored of it and put it down. Your product is niche and competes with the largest corporate entities out there, but you have the advantage that you can genuinely personally know your customers and your customers can personally and genuinely know you.

I spend considerable thought on this, unless you are talking about household members or other people who trust you borderline absolutely, there is just no way to get a stranger or acquaintance to meaningfully use your hosted services.

For the stuff i host that i can share from my hosted services i make it apparent to the users that the data is subject to my whims. think this helps a little as it puts the otherwise unstated in the open, it would be awkward for a friend to have to ask me how safe their data is, i can acknowledge their data is as safe as their relationship with me is, and honestly that’s the best that can be done without structuring.

Now structuring: if you genuinely want members of your communities to be able to buy in, become consistent and stable with your services operations, a d make a legal entity. Use the entity to provide what you have as a service to have the legal structures in place to protect you and your users. If you think this is bullshit, i don’t recommend because i think the structures will protect anything, i recommend because the structures indicate trustworthiness to the type of people who don’t make themselves concerned with matters they are instructed to not bother with. You would be able to make an appeal to a more personal business relationship.

Now that highlights the effort, as the privacy advocate i functionally have to operate a business to maintain my digital infrastructure; if i want others to join my network i should commit and run a privacy-centric business. There is opportunity here for standard operational models to be documented so that power users can quickly bootstrap and present an adoptable platform to their communities; however, i am not there yet myself.

The Onion has never been much of one to boot-lick. The only way to believe this is a justifiable military response to terrorism to ignore historical context or believe one of the groups is inherently less valuable than the other; Both perspectives are anti-human.