That's going to fall under clean language. There are some written examples on the aforementioned Clean Language wikipedia article[1] under the examples section.
The point I take away from it is the following question, "Who's doing the framing here?" If you're supporting the other person in framing things themselves, then it leans toward clean language. If you're interjecting your own framing, then it leans away from clean language. Personally, I struggle the most with trying to avoid labeling something as "good" or "bad" for the other person. They're full human beings with their own ability to decide how they feel about something and the best way, in my experience, to decide how you feel about something is to put it into words and notice the feelings that come up as the words are said.
If someone is interjecting their own takes, it gets in the way of that noticing.
I'm really curious what you think about manipulation when you envision yourself listening this way.
A lot of times I use what I think you term as unclean language to inject some energy into the conversation. Without it I feel like the conversation dies, so I relate with my own story, or pass a half-judgement, do something to fire them up.
I don't know, it doesn't feel like the best solution, but it's the one I use, any thoughts?
Like many skills, learning to be aware is 80% of the work, 10% is the actual skill, and the remaining 10% is knowing when it's appropriate.
That's what works for me too. My experience tells me that just being aware of how much clean language I'm using and when I should and shouldn't be using it gets me to where I want to be. Being unaware, or trying to use as much as possible are, for reasons you mentioned, not the best approach.
Maybe the most interesting things about clean language is how little of it you actually need for it to be wildly effective. Applying just a bit when you sense someone opening up or being vulnerable is, in my experience, a loving way to receive that message gracefully.
Caring enough to listen, then communicating that you actually did listen by repeating some of the words they said back to them. How is that manipulation?
In this context, wouldn't manipulation be where you don't listen then say some words which try to (falsely) communicate that you did listen?
(Contrast: not listening, and showing that with "I ain't reading all that. I'm happy for u tho. Or sorry that happened". Contrast: actually did listen but they think you didn't, leading to "I'm so angry about X!" / "How come X is bothering you?" / "I am not bothered by it, I am angry about it!, weren't you listening?!" poor communication. Where "what about X is making you angry?" instead reflects the feelings they said, showing you heard what they said, but does not seem manipulative).
There is a nuanced, but important point to make here regarding responsibility.
One of resources I watched (a therapist) described therapy as 90% active listening. It's important to be aware of that proportion and the tendency of people to really open up when someone is truly listening.
For example, I was at a bar talking to a stranger when they had to take a break. They were on the brink of tears because they were talking about something that was so deeply meaningful to them[1]. I missed the flag and will always think back to my responsibility - just to pick up on those signs and ask the person if they're doing ok. There's a vulnerability index which I like to reference that conceptualizes some of this.
The difference between open inquiry and probing/drilling is an important distinction to keep in mind when listening too. Laying some of these skills on too thickly can come across as more of an interview than a conversation.
Statements like these are only a momentary snapshot. As soon as sufficiently money is at stake the board might change their tune overnight. The whole Altman-fired-from-OpenAI-then-reinstated drama should be warning enough.
In my opinion, Altman's permanent departure would have been the death of OpenAI. After the majority of the staff threatened their resignation from OpenAI, Altman became the one holding all the leverage. I'd rather guess that OpenAI's board made him a once-in-a-lifetime offer to persuade him to come back.
What are OP's own thoughts on the nature of their procrastination after watching and reading articles, blogs and videos?
Did they address any of the identified reasons, and if so, in which way?
Personally, I think the core of my own procrastinating is a misguided sense of perfectionism.
I want the tasks that I'm working on to be simultaneously easy, stimulating and myself to deliver perfect work. If any of these dimensions is missing or unlikely, I will procrastinate without end.
I've arrived at a point where I've come to accept complete failure on almost all endeavours and feeling like a permanent loser, I won't even try any more.
So far I found it impossible to become okay with delivering imperfect work, since, at work or in private life, I'm objectively being judged on the quality of it and my reputation hinges on it as well.
Japan is a country that is expensive to live in. Having minimum salary requirements already filters out the type of 'digital nomad' who would otherwise become a burden on society or those who merely seek immigration from Africa or South Asia under the disguise of the 'digital nomad'.
$68k about the median household income in the USA - and higher than the median in a lot of states. One could live a comfortable life in many parts of the USA for that salary.
Particularly if you’re not living in Tokyo, Fukuoka for instance is significantly cheaper despite also being a densely populated city with the usual amenities.
So this thing is essentially an IR blaster with a temperature sensor + other sensors?
Generally, I'd recommend capturing the cloud traffic while you still can. Including the procedure that joins it to your Wi-Fi network!
This will make things much much easier for you.
Check if it is encrypted at all. If not and if there is no magic authentication mechanism that uses secrets on the device, you might be able to mock the cloud quite easily.
If it is, check if it's implemented properly. Does it use HTTP? Is it HTTPS? if so, does it validate certificates correctly? Can you just give it something else? A self-signed one? A valid one for a different domain?
Does it use something self-built with static keys?
If that fails, the next thing to do would be to take a look at the hardware.
The Ambi Climate Mini 2 looks the most hackable of their products as it comes with an ESP32 and tooling for that is readily available. Maybe it could run Tasmota?
As a person of normal weight, I tried a keto diet a couple of times but just couldn't get it working under vegetarian/vegan dietary restrictions for a daily work + workout schedule.
I got either underfed to the point of fainting, had to rely on expensive restaurant meals and questionable supplements, or had to spent an enormous amount of time on meal preparation.
So either I approached this in a completely wrong way or keto just isn't for "normal" folks like myself with busy schedules.
Vegan is decidedly not "normal" if we define normal in the sense that it is common. Only 0.5% of the American adult population is vegan (only 2% vegeterian).[1]
Not that there's anything wrong with being vegan! But it definitely a minority position.
Let's just say, that every once in a while I go vegan for a couple of days or weeks. That's slightly different from the "accidentally vegan" meal.
If it was possible to combine keto, a meat-free diet, and intermittent fasting, without breaking the bank or breaking the body, that would be the dream.
Sure, eating meat and vegetables avoiding processes cereals is not normal, but eating only plants with no animal proteins and fat is? A diet that literally is harmful to human children, and to adults without B12 supplementation?
Some people have negative knowledge on diets and how the body metabolises foods, yet are ready to share advice on the internet.
Yeah Keto when you can't have dairy or eggs (food sensitivities) is really, really difficult to do. I'm in that boat too and my weight got dangerously low when I was trying to keto.
Yes, because there's also no scientific evidence to support these fad diets. Of course, somebody who has been eating like shit and then switches to a "keto" diet will lose weight and might feel better.
Scientific evidence is clear that a whole food, plant-based is the best diet. I mean, it also makes common sense to eat a balanced diet to get all the different macro and micro nutritients, minerals and vitamins.
The "carb is bad!" line is just wrong. Eating one or two slices if fresh, whole weat bread is not unhealthy, it's healthy! It contains a lot of fiber, protein, vitamins and minerals. But of course, eating frozen pizza is unhealthy because it contains jackshit. Carbs != Carbs.
So why do these intermittent fasting, keto and what not diets work? Well, because people just live a silver bullet and quick fix. And many companies and people make a lot of money by selling these alleged quick fixes to people in the form of ready-made meals, books, coachings and what not.
Nobody is getting rich if people would just eat fresh vegetables.
this is completely undifferentiated. whole wheat bread may work well for you but it completely fucks me up. a few slices a day for a few days and i'll start being at risk for throwing up at random times. nutrition is a hightly emotional laden topic and criticizing someone's diet often means criticizing their core values, but that doesn't mean medical experts can't bring their patient's dietary preferences into question.
while you are _probably_ correct that a whole food-plant based, balanced diet is the best way, it just does not work for everyone the same way. some might have allergies and intolerances, some might have a microbial gut biome that doesn't do well on certain foods, some might have other medical conditions (i.e. diabetes) which influences things. for all of them, having a "balanced diet" that doesn't fuck them up means different things.
many of those "fad diets" are actually nothing but tricks to actually introduce something that resembles a balanced diet into the lives of people whose diets are critically off. keto doesn't work because people believe in quick fixes, it PROBABLY works because you can't subsist on dougnuts, frozen pizza and beer anymore. suddenly it's water, spinach, broccoli, carrots and nuts for snacking. for those people, "carbs are ok" doesn't just open the door to bread but also to cake.
furthermore, keto wasn't invented by a snake oil salesman to get rich quick, it's been used as a medical intervention for at least a hundred years.
if you had actually read the article it's precisely about the scientific support for "this fad diet" keto for its effects, which actually aren't well understood. it's clearly stated that there are actually benefits for some people suffering from certain mental illnesses. don't just discard that.
i have the impression nutrition is a bit like religion. the right way, i.e. what a "balanced diet" means is heavily depends on the country you grew up in and how your parents did it. either this or you join a cult and swear by the one diet ... religulously.
thus critizicing one's diet is like saying: "your religion is trash", which is, not surprisingly, usually not taken well be the other.
in my experience, a healthy diet is mostly about two things:
* restricting calories to reach a balanced CI-CO for a bodyweight in the healthy range
* allowing caloric restriction without going insane
so it's technically less about the quality of the food (i.e. how healthy your meal ingredients are) and more about feeling satiated long enough to not go crazy from hunger pangs between meals. in practice, those two overlap a great deal: if your meals lack in certain nutrients you tend to become "hungry" - for those missing nutrients, but people on a "bad" diet just eat more of the usual stuff.
apart from that, people have different motives and preferences: there are bodybuilders who can happily scarf down the same prepared meals day in and out and would subsist on cardboard if possible as long as the macros are right. there are the foodies who'd rather starve than eat a meal that's not delicious. women may need other ingredients than men due to different hormone profiles. some people love the simplicity of drinkable meals that contain all the nutrients and don't care for solid food at all anymore, while for others that would be hell on earth.
the potato diet will not work for a gourmand. a low fat diet may not work for women who need certain essential fats more than men. a low carb diet might not work well for an athlete. etc.
> so it's technically less about the quality of the food (i.e. how healthy your meal ingredients are) and more about feeling satiated long enough to not go crazy from hunger pangs between meals.
This is clearly not backed by science. It's clear that humans need a certain set and quantity of micro nutrients, macro nutrients, minerals and vitamins.
Now, of course, food is not the only factor determining your health. So there are people who only eat french fries and smoke and live to be a hundred, and there are people who eat a balanced diet, work out every day and then die from cancer with 40. But it's all about probabilities. Eating a balanced, whole food diet decreaes your all-cause mortality. And this is not religion, this is science.
Now, of course, every body is different and not nutrition is complicated and not that well-understood on an individual level. And yes, if you have a allergies or other types of reactions to certain foods that are considered healthy in general, you should not eat them.
Both currently don't apply to state-of-the-art LLMs.