"Hard to understand?" Is a question more complex than it might appear on the surface. There are obvious examples of ambiguity in speech which lead to complete misunderstanding.
But "hard to understand?" may also satisfy the criteria of "effort to understand". Just because a message was understood does not mean the audience was able to hear it effortlessly. And that boils down to consideration.
It's a two way street. Correcting mistakes because of apparent lack of effort is probably not warranted, but a speaker is not entitled to a happy audience either
As with many online feuds, I think a lot of these problems typically arise because of a lack of operating under the assumption others are acting in good faith.
I think there is a very fine line between prescribing language because of a world view that insists on conformity, and correcting grammer and vocabulary because being clear and understood is kinda the point of language.
You are not totally wrong, but I think if you were totally right, the internet as a world-changing technology would have never come to be in the first place. An internet operated by a single company is basically just a cable service. I think right now there certainly is apathy in the public consciousness towards the value add of keeping the internet decentralized, because it is taken for granted. But I think this is temporary, human society has always been reactionary in that way, we let things back slide, until it gets bad, and we only do something about it when we feel the pain.
Who the f. has time to manage all these bills, apps, accounts... What's next, 2FA to sit around for an app to update, so you can sit through a "what's new" tutorial to unlock a pen just so you can write something down, all for the "convenience" of not having to run out of ink?
You know what people with money and no time do? They buy 20 dumb pens and then just toss one in the trash when it runs out.
The intersection between people who have money to burn and patience to deal with tech bullshit is extremely small.
Eating healthier is not nearly as complicated as this post makes it sound, unless you have unusual underlying medical issues or are aiming to sculpt your body in a very specific way.
To lose weight, eat about 5-10% less than your daily caloric requirement (there are tons of free calculators and counters online). Water helps to feel full. Increasing exercise can help if changing dietary habits is a struggle.
To eat healthier overall, eat less processed foods, more fresh stuff.
That's it. This is all the advice most people realistically need to lose weight/eat better. The hard part is being disciplined about it. Now, discipline, on the other hand, that's a very personal matter.
I don't know about elsewhere in Canada, but here, Bell and Rogers compete directly in the mobile space, and Bell competes directly with cable, and all of those options have multiple resellers at half the price, thanks to CRTC.
Are the prices the lowest in the world? No. Can you tell a company to fuck off? Yes, you can.
I don't know. The Canada described by OP might be a foreign land compared to the part of Canada I know.
Yes and no. I'm sure there is an argument to be made that a house can be too big. Bigger houses require more maintenance, cleaning, higher taxes. Downsizing a house is also a retirement strategy.
and whether it's a game or real life people stop cooperating once they think they are competing for something
Capitalism has a lot of problems, but the "competing" part ain't it. Competition is the natural order of things, a large reason our biosphere exists and is self-sustainable. In the natural world, species and individuals compete with each other to ensure only the most adapted consume the limited resources efficiently. This is natural selection at play. Collaboration/symbiotism is the exception, virtually exclusively where species do not consume ressources.
In economic theory, competition is an important driver of innovation, and a source of bargaining power for labour.
If you want to expose the flaws of capitalism, I would start with unregulated capitalism, which brings antitrust/uncompetitive practices, worker exploitation (usually also because of uncompetitive hiring practices), and myriad issues around income inequality and equity.
Just give em the benefit of the doubt that they are really just conservatives, who may be misguided, but who are generally still operating in good faith, unlike the Trumpists simply looking to seize power and abuse it.
Let's not confuse conservatives with Trump supporters. "Republican" is an outdated label.
Although I don't agree with a lot of "conservative" policies, I respect people with conservative views who advocate for those views respectfully and in good faith, where their only crime is to be a bit misguided.
The Trump movement, meanwhile, is just a naked power grab by everyone involved. Absolutely nothing redeeming there.
Trump supporters just have small minds; it's why they have been conned by trump to begin with. Concepts such as "liberty" and "civil rights" are too complex to explain and champion to them. Instead they understand only primitive things, like "weird" and "ugly".
"Hard to understand?" Is a question more complex than it might appear on the surface. There are obvious examples of ambiguity in speech which lead to complete misunderstanding.
But "hard to understand?" may also satisfy the criteria of "effort to understand". Just because a message was understood does not mean the audience was able to hear it effortlessly. And that boils down to consideration.
It's a two way street. Correcting mistakes because of apparent lack of effort is probably not warranted, but a speaker is not entitled to a happy audience either
As with many online feuds, I think a lot of these problems typically arise because of a lack of operating under the assumption others are acting in good faith.