This is because thats basically the upper limit for how tall a mountain can be on this planet.

My understanding is that google doesn't report that the review has been made, so developers justset a flag internally. Going to leave a review, then clicking back, should be sufficient

Yeah, this. I lean heavily into coaching, which is specifically helping them apply skills they already have to a problem.

I also draw clear lines between what I can help with and what I need to do for the company, and try my best to display when I am fighting for them and when I cannot. Building trust is a key part of the relationship, and having suspicion that you are two faced kills it dead.

With this and the other things mentioned, I too have only had peopae quit because of money, and in one instance he came to me to ask if he should do so (we talked it out without me giving any advice, just comparing opportunities)

Automation and process improvenent are key skills. The less time spent staying alive, the more time living

Show them the consequeces. You might scare a few people who are already anxious by showing data collected, but most people will be apathetic. Illustrate why its bad. Be systemic about it.

The stunt outlined elsewhere of texting someone with their info is good, but "we all know google isn't going to threaten us" is the prevailing attitude. Demonstrate what google is going to do and how it hurts people individualy and directly. Until there are personal consequences, peopae won't really care.

My least favorite is the feudalisn-with-extra-markets crowd who keep doing a fascist recuperation on anarchism. They ruined "libertarian" and now they keep trying to make "anarcho-capitalist" a thing, as if political compass was a real and healthy thing

Depends on the user is sort of the problem tho. sometimes they have a laugh with poe-level sarcasm, which I can identify in my friends, but not with internet strangers. So its scary

Isn't that 10 microns? 0.01mm?

Whats your goal in posting this here? Hexbear has already defederated blahaj. It seems like the only other actions are dogpiling on individual users.

Yes its bad programing. These restrictions suggest that the company is either doing improper storage and processing, or does not understand how to deal with passwords.

The proper password storage is a hash. This is a cryptographic function that is easy to do and imbossible to undo. The hash function operates on the underlying binary representation of your password, and doesn't card what letters or symbols are in it. A program should take your password, hash it, and compare the result to the hash they have in their detebase.

The current recomended hash algorythm is called 'bcrypt'. Depending on the implementation, the input is between 50 and 70 bytes (the spec was a little unclear so people defined the inputs diferently, but the algorithe is the same). This means a password should be able to take at least 50 normal keyboard characters, including letters, symbols, and spaces. Anything less than that indicates a poor practice on behalf of the website.

(a lot of this is simplified. There is some variation and nuance that I don't think affects the main idea)

Agreed. The function of the down vote is to deprioritize that post/comment. People should use the down vote when they want to deprioritize that post/comment.

Shipping can certainly be made much less impactful, if that's what you are thinking. A lot of shipping is overland trucking, and a lot of overland trucking can be replaced with trains, and a lot of trains can be replaced with electrified trains. That would make quite a bit of difference