OneOrTheOtherDontAskMe

Please and thank you don't violate barriers. It does not allow someone into your space, you don't have to give anything of yourself to say them, and if you're a good person you probably mean them. A better example for what you're looking for would be handshakes. It's common in most western cultures at several social functions, and it can be considered rather rude to refuse one, it got a lot of folks angry during covid apparently. That's where two parties acknowledge the social bindings that call for a physical touch establishing a mutual respect. I never miss saying a please and thank you, but best believe I'm still doing the 'covid shrug' when I turn down handshakes.

So, you'd tell your child that "yes, you have autonomy in this, but your feelings regarding your need for personal space matter less than your grandmother's want for a hug" is what I'm gathering? Do you educate your mother on the child's wants/needs? There's a reason why people are educated that, as far as physical touch is concerned, nobody else's feelings should be taken into account. If someone can't love a child without hugs, then I don't think they really understand the concept or application of love.

I'm not saying this is your case, the next bit is an extreme but important to the overall argument, I think. People have identified that exact thinking pattern in why they didn't report sexual assault from a family member. Because they weren't taught how to properly say no and why the right to refuse touch is important, it was that much easier to abuse them.

I dont like my picture on the internet. So I refuse all photos where possible. I have family, they take pictures, they're aware of this and so I'm never the direct focus of the shot (you might see me in the background).

OP said they don't want to take pictures with people, they shouldn't have to take pictures with someone. Instead, you should be teaching your son to stand up for their boundaries, even in the face of 'tradition'. If your kid says "I don't like hugging grandma", are you making them give hugs or are you encouraging them to tell people in their life, who they trust, how they feel?

Your link states Israel says they're a Hamas operative. Al Jazeera says that isn't true.

I'm gonna err on the side of the journalists that Israel is actively targeting instead.

Yeah, if the share price goes down due to change in public sentiment and buying habits, the stock buyback essentialh wasted money.

But if the price remains steady or goes up in any nominal way, the stock buy back nets them tons of cash. If steady, not tons of cash but plenty of 'control' of corporate direction.

This is hands down one of the most depressing articles I've read in recent memory.

Not that worse things haven't happened recently, just that the people in this article are despicable in a way that leaves me feeling defeated. Christ, not a single woman who needed help in that article got help, and the people put in place to help them told them "don't show off your shoulders, slut" and then intentionally filed it away in a manner that shows as "no sexual harassment complaints since 2001". Fuckinf hell

And that's what I think they're failing to measure. I think they're unable to accurately divorce the increase in sales from other incentives/market forces, and so they're just doing what they've been doing regardless of actual merit, or the merit is being improperly evaluated

I was just talking about this the other day. I think Coke and some companies have reached a saturation point that makes advertisements useless.

I dont know if we have any data to model off of, but I'd love to see if their profits dip by any meaningful amount if they stopped advertising for 3 months straight. Let the movie theaters, and the restaurants, and the culturally embedded soft drink preferences do their thing and see if the dial moves.

I think we're still missing the mark because it's tax payer money.

Rip immunity from that fucker and let it come out of his pension (if he's got one) or garnish his wages like everybody else.

For the most part, all anti virus software I've found that is pretty "mainstream" are bad or have backdoors built for bad people.

Macafee -absolute Spyware, delete it Kaspersky - Russian ties apparently - but I don't believe reports from Just the US, and they've been pretty integral to the security space for businesses for years. I'm not sold on them being 'bad' yet. Norton - not malware, but not good and going the Macafee route

I hear good things about BitDefender, and Windows Defender is mostly good enough for the average person + an adblocker and you're good to go.

I mean, we can summarize it in "republican representative pours water on the property of her Democrat colleague from the same district, lies about origin and reason"

There's just never been evidence to suggest (in any meaningful way) a doctor made a decision compromising the life of the organ donor to make use in other patients, that would be medical malpractice and the first people looking to sue you after a loved one dies are the ones signing the papers giving permission.

Calling the opinion moronic may not be nice, but the idea is something I'd say is foolish. Like if you went through life thinking vaccines are some kind of conspiracy for profit, the evidence just isn't there and there's enough of it on the contrary that to suggest it would be foolishness.