Even though you are being down voted, I agree with the sentiment, perhaps it could have been put more diplomatically.
I really don't understand why someone would publicly admit that they don't have control of their own money. I see people admitting to it regularly as if it's something that can't be helped, but it just makes them look weak. Like they are lowering their social standing on purpose.
It's mostly a male, working class dominated genre in terms of audience, so it's ignored and ridiculed for not being glamorous enough to fit mainstream media's mindset.
That's a good thing because they would slowly change it if they got their hands on it. Sony buying Century was disappointing but there's alternative labels. Metal should stay underground to protect itself from the people who see it as 'weird'.
Being able to swap the battery has been a feature in mobile phones for decades, I wouldn't buy a phone without it. Same with laptops. My current Apple laptop is eight years old and still going fine purely because I was able to remove the battery when it started ballooning.
There's two things non-technology people don't seem to know about TED when they mention it to me.
First that TEDx events have little to do with TED. Second the prices for proper events are in the elitist levels of society. It's no surprise when you start to notice the audience members are more famous than the speakers.
There's also services like Blogger, which I don't think have advertising, but since Google is probably the biggest player in the ad industry then I guess its existence relies on ads. Even web browsers like Firefox indirectly rely on ad money.
It's not just some markets and some people. They're a VC backed multinational that moves into markets and offers big discounts over local businesses. They are getting a taste of their own medicine with an improved flavour.
I think it's better to enjoy life than worry about nutritional guidelines, which might extend our time in some retirement home. Especially something that's been in our diet for a long time. Just don't overdo it.
To me it seems like a mindset issue rather than a predisposition - having gone through it.
Employment is mostly about taking on the burden of someone else's stress and handling it. When your stress becomes too much the employer hires peers and perhaps gives you some minions to make things better.
If you were never taught how to manage stress and your family hasn't ingrained stoic values into you (because they themselves were never taught them) then the body is going to become overwhelmed, give up and switch into protective mode, also known as burnout, anxiety, depression, breakdowns etc.
I left Twitter last year when it looked like the 'professionally offended' were becoming too influential. They didn't affect me as I keep a low profile, but it was like seeing an omen and noticing friends were buying into their hype.
The way Twitter is now pandering to this lot with the recently announced Orwellian-style group, and other odd behaviour suggests that they approve of the current momentum.
I'm just glad to no longer have its weight on my shoulders. Life is great without social media, but it must be difficult for public figures who stick with it for the free promotion.
The Daily Mail (and The Sun for that matter) know the profits come from customers who are least likely to use the internet. That's why the Daily Mail differs so much between the internet and newspaper versions.
My main issue with Twitter is it grew out of the weird environment that is San Francisco and has all the baggage of people who live within that. That wouldn't be a problem if the service was a normal startup, but it's a platform for influencing public opinion that delves into journalism and politics. For that reason, I wouldn't want it to be considered a public service, never mind one that serves the world.
Before Twitter there was a phase where journalists would monitor discussion forums (think vBulletin). I know this because I would take part in speculative discussions and the next day it turned into front page news stories. No sources but obviously came from the discussion. It spooked me and made me realise that modern journalism was already becoming lazy.
Amazon Prime reminds me of how the telecommunications industry sell services. They have customers signed up to a bundle of services like: landline, mobile, cable/satellite TV and broadband.
If the customers don't want TV they are put on a free tier rather than being cancelled, so they are still officially a TV subscriber and can boost the viewing figures for the service.
It's useful to be vague if you are in a dying industry or your competitors are better established.
I really don't understand why someone would publicly admit that they don't have control of their own money. I see people admitting to it regularly as if it's something that can't be helped, but it just makes them look weak. Like they are lowering their social standing on purpose.