It's disgusting that polygraphs are still in use and their results taken seriously, especially in modern and developed countries like Canada and the US ... Call me next time and I'll flip a coin for you instead
As a person who was moved from zero small talk ability to some, I've found that it works quite well to sort of repeat what the other person is saying when responding. I'm not telling you to parrot them, but if person A says "I really like being in my garden because it's relaxing and lot of fresh air". I respond "Yes, I also find myself being more calm when digging my hands into a vegetable patch", instead of just saying "I agree.", if the case is that you like gardening, you shouldn't lie of course.
That being said, I still don't really enjoy small talk but it still feels more comfortable to mee if I notice that the other person is receiving the response they expected. I know that in my example above, both responses says the same thing, but most people tend to continue talking and feel more comfortable if I respond in more verbose manners rather than "Yes." "I agree".
I can confirm this as I used to work as a developer for a media company. We basically begged our advertisment executive for permission to get rid of that horrible box of semi- to unrelated content which appeared beneath every article. His answer was "No, it genereates too much revenue".
Strange how no one talks anymore about how much more efficient and more suited diesel engines are when it comes to everyday traffic than petrol engines. It's become all about particles, and yes, diesel is more dangerous to humans if not filtered correctly. But at the same time, diesel engines are using less fuel and there is no reason why we shouldn't use DPF when they are available. I switched to a diesel car not long ago, and I can safely say that as long diesel cars are being manufactured, I'll never go back to petrol.
> I'm not so sure I understand the literature on antibiotic use in livestock and I happily eat meat without thinking about what drugs the animals were given.
It's the same principle. Feed the livestock with antibiotics, be it for treating a disease or making them grow faster, and you'll eventually end up with multidrug resistant bacteria like salmonella and e coli in your food.
For me, the whole "rate product/experience by X amount of stars" system has always been broken. Especially when it seems to be taken much more seriously than it was originally meant. Ok, I'm not a UX expert or a data analyst, but as far as I know, the statistics that are drawn from these star reviews were originally only meant to be some sort of rough pointer to approximately evaluate how good a product is. And the result should in its turn, determine if a product needs to be further reviewed. But on the other hand I get why almost everyone who offers a product or a service utilises this system, it's easy. Is this product good or bad? 1 or 5 stars? Yes or no? The web isn't really compatible for maybes, yes buts, and no howevers.