Easy, do I get a sense of achievement with this job? Is it part of my identity in a healthy way? Then, raise
Do I just do the job because I need a way to pay the bills? Then, simplify. Less stress has a massive health impact
Am I desperate to pay bills and debts? Probably raise and side hustles and overtime I don’t know
Not sure I’m following your point. If someone doesn’t give me a raise, doesn’t cut hours but I get my job simplified- what’s the problem with that? The only caveat I could see is if you have a job that you liked because of the challenge, and having it easier now equals it is unfulfilling. Similarly if you see an easier job as future reduced opportunities. But, if you just have a job to survive or that you are ambivalent about, I don’t see where the problem is.
Watermarking never meant to be a legitimate way of telling this stuff apart. Anyone slightly savvy could run a generator locally and produce images without watermarking, if they really meant to fool others. You are right in that the watermarking makes it (or did) more difficult for the average joe, but yeah. This is a never was kind of scenario
Chill, happens more often than you think. I work at a mall and there is one level in which the male and female toilets are switched compared to every other floor, the one closest to the lifts is women’s, the next is men’s but in the other levels it’s the opposite. I’ve walked into the wrong one more than once
Not sure if this applies to you but maybe you have heard a phrase about you that doesn’t make sense fully. In my case, it was “you’re intimidating” and that took me a long long time to understand because as a woman who has a lot of insecurities and can’t physically fight this is absolutely ridiculous. Then one day I was watching some relationship guru video clip and the guy said “if you’re told you’re intimidating and can’t make sense of it, it means you are hard to impress”. That clicked. At least, within dating contexts. I don’t know. I think most of the honest feedback I’ve gotten from potential dates, from boyfriends, from family members (though that required always a difficult argument beforehand and getting feedback was never the goal) and also from teachers who get fed up with your bullshit occasionally. It’s never going to come to you from a comfortable source, but you shouldn’t be asking your enemies either, because they’ll lie too.
It doesn’t sound fair to me. Why don’t they sell the info of the management and higher ups only ,if that’s the case? But no. As always, those who are most vulnerable always get hit the hardest and first.
Yes I understand “good enough” and that it could just be out of whimsical preference by sexual partners. But what if not? The best answer I found here was that greasy long hair, in those cold climates, was somewhat water repellant. Nobody wants to get wet in the cold.
You aren’t subject to every pressure every hominid ancestor ever was. Bald today still gets you laid, congrats! And you got hats to keep warm and look fabulous. :) I believe long hair must have presented some kind of advantage at some point though, there are some interesting comments here.
Yes, I understand this and it is in my post as part of the question: is it just a showoff feature like peacock’s feathers? I also understand traits that don’t impact fitness won’t be selected against.
But I have the nagging feeling that the body does spend a fair amount of extra resources creating long hair when it could make do with just a fraction. Use it or lose it is a popular trend in the animal kingdom. You can have a very showy coat using a lot less resources, if we’re talking about health markers only.
But, fear not, there are theories that support long hair as having an actual practical function that impacts fitness, and people in the comments have posted some.
What I like about these theories is that they aren’t mutually exclusive. You can have a variety of factors that mildly favor the same trait, it’s not always one single factor exerting clear pressure on things.
Aha, this answer is satisfactory. You introduce the concept of greasy long hair. At first I thought, well why not just greasy fur then? Why only on the head? But then I remember humans and probably early hominids like to wrap themselves with things like other creatures pelts and the head is probably the only place you can actually grow hair from. And if greasy it’s like a sort of raincoat thing.
I can sleep now thanks
Heh that’s an interesting consideration. I also wondered about this. It’s not mutually exclusive with other theories, so…
That’s an interesting take, agreed. But it doesn’t explain why the length… You can still shave hair that doesn’t grow too long. And look dangerous to fuck with
Yes, that’s very interesting, and I also read about similar studies which explain pubic hair texture as having moisture isolating capabilities. However this doesn’t address my question, which is about the apparently excessive length of head hair regardless of texture.
Alright, that’s true with the history since long hairs stay for years, good point. I’m not sure I follow with shearing and technological capacity, mind explaining that a little bit more please?
Well… More to my point… That means it’s a liability, right ?because that’s all fine and dandy when consensual but over the course of history more people have died as a consequence of getting caught by the hair than the offspring such long hair ever facilitated. I mean most military forces cut their hair for a reason. But I’m neither a scientist or a soldier so, I could be wrong too.
Why do we get an advantage from hairs longer than 60cm? 20cm already does the job, it even covers your neck.
Oof you’re going to have to start reposting them elsewhere then
But but but poor Elon. Would anyone think of the trillionaires? They are so few! How brash of you, giving minorities the cold shoulder.
I consider rage bait anything that purposefully riles people up without any productive outcomes. Say, you can have a heated argument with someone because you have an interest in the topic and/or seeing other people’s points of view (even if you strongly disagree), but if your purpose is just for the sake of getting reactions, well, that’s ragebaiting.
It overlaps with trolling, but trolling is more broad- you can troll to make people confused, shocked, to mock someone in particular, etc. Trolling includes also getting people into gotcha moments, engaging in a heated argument just to be annoying to one person in particular, trolls like to see people make fools out of themselves. Ragebaiting doesn’t necessarily have that, it’s more about getting the crowd to express their annoyance at something, not necessarily your actions.