@pratik The idea that these emotions or affections be captured as verbs in the software, that is near the lowest end of the attention spectrum, in my book anyway. It is not engagement at all.

Ignore, gesture, comment, discuss; only then do you get close to engagement. But simpleton greedheads would rather have something to count.

Actual engagement requires prolonged focused attention, difficult in any circumstances, but near impossible for many wandering around the information circus.

@jack I agree. ‘Prescriptionists’ abound and are reliably annoying. Aggregated behaviors just have a different, hard to manage gravity. So obviously shit goes sideways often and then it‘s no fun or good or value for anyone. Bleh.

And, to all really, conversation is important and not always easy, so thx!

@pratik I would argue that it is not engagement at all.

@moonmehta mouthy desert rat here!

@matti “...wait...that's...yeah—that's crunchy water...ohhhh!“

@kev Even if they do give permission, your restraint is admirable. 

@pdxmph Simpleton information economy logic. Information is valuable so more information is more valuable. T’were it only so simple!

@cheesemaker great job being lucky! 🥹😳🤪 Sry you and yours had to deal with that bullshit.

@gregmoore Put you hands up for Detroit! ❤︎

@JohnPhilpin Exactly. Brilliant show, btw, for so so many reasons. and Ohhhh headslap, I didnt understand the point to be about offending typography or some other complaining.

I think it will be non-ironically entertaining to catch whiff of self-incinerating brain caps, long poisoned by the cognitive equivalent of dangerous metals, to finally ignite in indignation. “huff sob well, huff sniff—you cant get one because i don wanna!!! sob sniff”

When are these wizards going to puzzle out what inalienable is all about?