Are you wishing that the current usage of the word (the title you linked to) would stop, and that usage would revert to the older Latin meaning? Unfortunately that's not how language develops.
I am wishing that articles about history are more precise in their usage, since it can be difficult to tell which sense they mean of the word (historical, at the time of the material they are writing about, current meaning applied to back then).
This seems to be an advertorial. Even when it talks about what's missing it shrugs it off like an unrealistic demand:
> The one feature I really find lacking in Music is the ability to make playlists, but I know that when it comes to music services I’m hungry for power features that don’t necessarily appeal to the masses
This article is an ad, not a review or analysis of the service.
It really seems pointless when I've been using Google All Music Access for over a year and have access to all the music I know and love, all cached on my phone for offline use.
I've not read the article, but it makes sense to remember that 'payment' can come in various forms, not just cash. Access, favors, special privileges granted, etc.
This isn't my purview, per se, but I know there is some concern about this sort of thing, particularly in political reporting which has become much less adversarial compared to the not so distant past.
You're of course unlikely to find many of these concerns voiced very loudly in the 'press.'
Sure, but that applies to basically all articles (especially political ones, as you note). Every single reporter is balancing their interest in preserving access with their goals of accuracy in publishing.
Advertisement is a specific term and applying it to all articles that you don't agree with undermines its usefulness.
> Another warning: data-harvesting-services-removal.bat will be flagged as malware, since it tries to automatically alter the hosts file. You can either allow it, or add the hosts manually via the data-harvesting-hosts.txt file.
> lazy people can get in the trap to become trapped in a lazy for ever state
Do you have any evidence for the existence of these lazy people, and in any significant number? The literature and actual experiments done with basic income shows that people are not lazy, but rather they lack opportunities, or a safety net for small risks, or any of a number of other things.
Thanks for asking for real data about this. I was only giving my very humble opinion about what could happen, I would like to know some links to literature and actual experiments with basic income. I think that laziness is learned and you need to be kicked strongly to move in a doers direction. In a weak economy with no expectations for people to progress laziness and hopeless bloom, if basic income is a step in the right direction it should be along with a way to foster better expectations. Your are not in an asylum for live.
Basically, people who were working out of desperation worked less, otherwise people used the money to ensure food safety, invest in businesses or improving their lives.
I really don't think "lazy" is a valuable label. It tends to be applied when there are underlying causes for the supposed "laziness". When those causes are repaired the laziness tends to go away. For example: illness, precarity, hopelessness (as you mentioned), a lack of opportunities. I'd suggest doing away with the overly simplistic "lazy" and using more accurate words which express the underlying causes.
> You're not Google's product, you're their supplier; one of their many millions of suppliers.
Their product is your personal information, which you supply to them in exchange for their services. The fact that you are one of many millions of suppliers (each dealing in microtransactions) means you don't have a lot of weight when you need to get help from them.
The best counter to the lazy Google meme is to think of all the companies where you are indisputably the customer and you also get awful incompetent support.
Internet service providers? Every ISP I've ever used I had to navigate their awful customer service infrastructure on multiple occasions and none of them were what I would call competent.
I would disagree that they are soft questions and just say that they're just bad and useless questions. The expectation tends to be that the candidate takes whatever is thrown at them, and in practice it does make a little sense: once you're in the interview, you're in the interview. But here, commenting on a forum, I'd rather push back and ask interviewers to stop asking questions that don't achieve anything useful, and won't achieve the insights they might imagine.
So instead of soft questions asking about hobbies, and excluding all the many examples of people families, why not talk about interesting on-the-job experiences? As one example. Interviewing well is a tough gig, but that's no excuse for continuing to do it poorly.
There is a lovely quote that I think might apply here: "Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers". You're presenting a simple answer to a complex, multi-faceted problem and presenting it without any evidence besides your experience. This problem is also deeply personal and challenging to many people (sometimes life-endingly challenging), but your suggestions are coming off as flippant.
If you want to be heard I would suggest presenting scientific evidence, and presenting it gently.
Lithium salts are most commonly prescribed in pill form. Their therapeutic range is quite narrow, and the toxic range follows quickly beyond that, so blood levels need to be monitored on a regular basis.
