Strong sexual terms are used in this post. Please don’t read if you don’t care for this type of language, but it is appropriate for the content, not used for the sake of using it. And this is NOT an April Fools Day joke, even if its content might seem to be one!
If you have to type the word public often, as I do working for government, also known as the public service or the public administration, may I recommend you remove pubic from your spell checker. If you don’t, your spell checker will never pick up on some potentially very embarrassing typos such as these words below in bold. For the fun of it, I made up definitions for them, in case you might actually find such terms to be useful in your vocabulary!
Facebook Newsfeed allows you to control some content that appear there. Primarily, it allows you to remove or minimize content by a person and/or a source that one or more people on your Newsfeed might share a lot of. However, I’m not finding that enough. Few of my Facebook friends share so much annoying stuff I have Unfollowed them. As for sources of links shared, there are so many few appear often enough for me to do something about it. What I’m finding is that neither serves to suit my needs to just remove stuff I absolutely don’t care to be seeing, like Donald Trump.
Wouldn’t it be nice if the Facebook Newsfeed allowed you to remove content that had certain key words in the title or any text that gets shared? That might not be the main body of an article, as it’s a link that’s shared, with some summary text, not a whole article usually. It also wouldn’t be fair to expect Facebook to know what’s in the article and what’s not by screening text on the other end of the link. I’m just talking about text shared like statuses, text with links, tags, embedded tags like in pictures, etc.
Word screening could be full words, but that would eventually work against the user, I think. It’d have to be some combination like “Donald+Trump” as a rule, not just “Donald” or “Trump”. If just either one, you could eliminate a whole bunch of content you might want to see. That accidental screening would be the main deterrent to people using the key word filter, or Facebook to administer it. I get that. However, let people use it at their own risk. It’s search engine results for stuff people aren’t even looking for! It’s not like guns and alcohol and cigarettes that carry a lot more risk which people are allowed to use all the time!
Man, what I wouldn’t give to screen out content on my Newsfeed like “Donald Trump” and the “Film Tax” given all the nonsense involved in it that appear on my Newsfeed!
C’mon man! Whaddaya say, Facebook?
Today was a great day for Canada as Justin Trudeau became Prime Minister, introduced a gender-balanced Cabinet, and showed Canadians so many ways as to how his government will be different from anything we have seen before. However, one thing that had not changed, but could in a small way with big visibility, was the “fashion”, or lack thereof, of most of the male politicians. They practically all wore ties with the traditional and boring Windsor knot.
So here’s my suggestion. What if they were to wear the beautiful and distinctly visible Trinity Knot in the picture at right?
Facebook had given users a “See First” option in July to let users determine what they want to see first from their Facebook “friends” rather than having to rely on Facebook algorithms. Or perhaps who to stalk, depending on the user and user intent that can always warp even the best of well-intended matters.
It’s a little harder to stalk on Pinterest given the lack of social bonding between most users with the way it’s used. People just follow others, in full or in part of select boards only. You have to make an effort to get to know somebody rather than just pictures of whatever they care about posted in your feed. There’s hardly any commenting done by most. You might as well be ordering pins related to themes, which you can rather than follow people, and have to put up with on the Picked for you feature Pinterest has. If they haven’t allowed an opt out to that, they should, but I’m here to talk about something else.
In North American football, the extra point is a single point short kick after a 6 point touchdown to give the full 7 point value a touchdown can give a team. The full 7 points also makes the touchdown more valuable than two field goals, at 3 points each, in not only concept but also score. Otherwise, the extra point is also a second chance to cheer loudly for the touchdown just scored if it were your team to have done so.
Once upon a time, the extra point used to require an actual effort so it was not a sure thing by any means. However, these days, it has a success rate of over 99% according to New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick. It has become too easy for the players playing to execute it that it not only becomes boring, it’s also a waste of time. Sports Illustrated’s Peter King feels the same way about it, calling it “the biggest waste of time in sports”. Nothing in sports should be that automatic, basically. What kind of competition is there if the outcome was the same more than 99% of the time?