Lots of practice.

For me it works like an elaborate pattern recognition tree.

e.g. This face in this context means x thing 75% of the time so far.

Then it's "strong opinions held weakly", you now have a working hypothesis but it's just that, a hypothesis.

Every facial/body/word/etc change could be a modifier to the previous assumption. You could also match some newly remembered memory to the situation that also changes the impression of what is going on.

It's exhausting, but it becomes easier with practice.

It's gets more refined the more you are around the same people, as you get a 'feel' for their patterns.

You also start to build up a library of 'shortcuts' that you can sometimes apply to unfamiliar situations/people.

At some point it starts to become 'muscle memory' and the energy required to do it is greatly reduced.

YMMV however, I've no idea if this will work for anyone else in the way I have described.

I'd also say to remember that everyone is guessing to some degree or another it's just that your guesses might require a bit more intention, whichever method (s) you settle on.

You do what you can with what you have, that is the best that can be reasonably expected of anyone.

The overview had no mention of a lack of support for "not transitioning" it's certainly possible I'm missing it or it's in the full report (which I'll read when I get a few minutes).

One mention of the need for corresponding levels of support for de-transitioning and some mentions of increased support for other issues alongside the gender based ones.

It sounds like OP had a specific section/sections in mind, if this is indeed the report they were referencing I'd appreciate some indication to which part they were referencing specifically.

"The overview didn't mention it, but its somewhere in this 232 page report" isn't the most useful when trying to understand where someone is coming from.

The UK has recently done research on the matter and realised that children were not getting the support required for not transitioning.

Citation?

Also levels for fecal matter in most things that come from agriculture.

Milk is weird, I don't disagree, but governmental regulations on levels of "safe contamination" isn't a milk only thing.

it's Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes

I don't know about the fairness of this particular company but by that rationale nothing can ever be fair, just by existing we increase the suffering. Its how the world is.

Think headphones jacks don't cause suffering at some point in the chain?

Not that I'm disagreeing, just not sure how things would get named under this specific scheme.

Does it assume that it's generally understood that everything is a little harmful in some way, so as long as you don't claim otherwise, it's cool or would everything need to be measured on some sort of average harmfulness scale and then include the rating in the title.

Like "Horrendously harmful Apple" or "Mildly harmful Colgate"

A bit hyperbolic perhaps.

Genuinely not trying to start a fight, actually interested in what you think would be a good way of doing this, as I've occasionally pondered it myself and never come up with a good answer.

Incidentally, this is one of the core plotlines to later seasons of "The good place"

Are you genuinely struggling to understand why people who think he's actively saying hateful shit about trans people wouldn't necessarily want to increase his presence in the general Zeitgeist?

Or did you just want to slip in the "stereotypical white guy" dog whistle?

If you are actually struggling, i can probably help.

imagine a person saying horrible shit about you, specifically.

Now imagine they have a platform where they say this hateful shit to lots of people, enough that you sometimes run across these people and they also say hateful shit to you, perhaps worse.

Now imagine an unrelated meme is made with this persons face on it and you see it 5,10,15 times a week.

Now imagine that the comments on most of these memes feature a whole bunch of people defending this person and agreeing with the hateful shit they said about you.

I'd imagine that's why some people care.

Genuine question though, what would be the right thing to give the energy/importance to in this scenario?

Sure, but I'd wager that pales in comparison to the gain from being able to conveniently 'default' users to the options that grant MS access to the largest amount of data.

In addition, a somewhat plausible excuse to then hide away the ability to turn off all of this 'guidance' under the pretense of looking out for the end users.

This is the telemetry and monetisation equivalent of "we have to ban encryption to stop the criminals and terrorists, won't somebody please think of the children" only much more successful

A quick perusal of comment history makes it seem more like a "day ending in y" kind of deal

I think it did a reasonable job of responding by pointing out a bias that I also think is evident. There was a choice to use certain phrases in the way they were used.

I just think the level of bias in that direction isn't as large as it seemed because he is a politician, speaking about a situation with politics in mind. As such , details that potentially add context to the politics of the situation are relevant, that's not necessarily bias as much as relevant context.

I don't personally think him being a failed presidential candidate has much bearing past the possible bitterness he might be bringing to proceedings but actively choosing to appear with what could be considered an extremist group, for me, absolutely speaks to political and personal character, for good or ill ( a negative to me personally ).

The additions only serve to further alienate the reader from DeSantis and DeSantis supporters. It's clearly biased against him.

Potentially, but that doesn't make them inherently bias, for some that probably looks like a show of power.

That you personally think it's a negative speaks more to your own bias than the inclusion of the details. That goes for me as well.

Choosing not to include those details could just as easily be considered bias.

If a person can't see how that article is biased it says a lot about them.

If you mean me specifically then I'd answer that I do in fact think there's a bias, i wasn't arguing for the absence of bias,i was arguing that the specific bias you mentioned wasn't the only possible kind that should be considered and that in light of the additional kinds it might move the needle of where the bias might be falling.

I'm assuming (possibly incorrectly) that you think that the included details can only be taken negatively, what does that say about your own bias?

To clarify , there is an aurora client for f-droid. https://gitlab.com/AuroraOSS/auroradroid

The OP mentions aurora store by name so they are probably not talking about the f-droid wrapper. Also if f-droid breaks rule 4 AuroraDroid almost certainly does.

i'd imagine a part of the problem is that at least some of them do in fact see those things as "traditional american values" so from their perspective they are conserving their version of reality.

Genuine question as i don't actually know the answer, is conservatism considered to be the conservation specifically of "traditional" values. Like, is there an agreed upon timeframe in which these traditional values were held or is it more of a moving target sort of thing ?