He’s assuming some knowledge and experience on the part of the reader; that’s how it appears to me.
Upon reflection it seems like he went overly broad with the scope of this article.
If you’ve already interacted with things like the Enneagram test, you’ll already have the context to deal with his comments.
I learned a ton from this post, perhaps it’s because I’ve had a lot of experience interacting with all the problems and challenges he lists out. I got a lot of nuggets from it in terms of insights into problems I have faced and will continue to face.
Perhaps for the less experienced, this is less helpful, as they would miss this context.
I doubt I’m the only one a bit surprised by this post.
Do you live with your partner? How do you split shared or somewhat-shared expenses? Are your incomes equal? Who has the role of managing expenses? If you go out to dinner, who pays? What if you share a dessert? (.. etc - you get my point.)
I hope you’re willing to expand given your enthusiasm for your lifestyle, but more context will help.
Compound has no negative connotations, but is not really used in this context either.
Typically one would just say - the school, or perhaps the grounds. Campus is also common; but generally in the context where the school has multiple campuses.
I’m so surprised to read this. My only interpretation is that your sense of smell might be diminished. Your Big Mac can be smelt from around 3-4 rows away in both directions. It’s really unpleasant to sit there for a period of time smelling that, but people aren’t going to say that to a complete stranger.
I’ll have sympathy for them when they start paying victims of crime for the ads they sell right next to the articles detailing their pain.
Drumming up changes in Prime Ministers just to increase their ratings. These companies are NOT champions of the people. They’re just as greedy as Google and far less ethical.
Disingenuous. Google News doesn’t provide massive, moderated discussion so that you can figure out the gist of the article without opening it. (I haven’t opened this article, to take one example.)
The Age doesn’t pay the State Parliament to talk about politics. It doesn’t pay restaurants to talk about their restaurants (besides paying for their meal when it’s a review, of course.) It doesn’t pay the AFL to talk about footy. Nor do they pay the families of murder victims whose deaths they monetise.
These news organisations are asking Google to pay for something; forgetting that their entire business is based on monetising news events which they do not pay for.
To expect Google to pay them for the privilege of sending traffic which they can’t figure out how to monetise is ridiculous.
Especially so when all traffic to the Herald Sun, for example, runs directly into a pay wall.
It’s on THEM to figure out their business model. Google is literally teeing up thousands of possible customers for them on a daily basis. What more do they have any right to ask for?