top of page

Where the wild noms grow

Hm? Did my immediate, intermediate, and long-term noms not show earlier? The radish dish may go more quickly than I estimated, even without the sugar. And why does it sound like advertising's keyword of the moment is "fearless?"

It's interesting to see new editions making reading decisions for all readers now and in the future.

You well know who you sound like.

Good thing there's some funny reading material to counteract such desecration.

It helps me gather the wherewithal to collect information that interests me. (Not my words, and yet I can find ways to use them. Oh, exercise! 不是我的话. Bit more exercise - if I understood my earlier studies correctly, 也 doesn't start a sentence. Therefore, 这不是我的话; 你们的著作也不是你们的话. How many have read it?) (That corporate culture is only occasionally by name what it cultivates by nature.)

Adding these here to account for formatting and to note that it took a couple weeks after the video's upload for Finger The Mirror to deal with the water issue. After what, a year of restrictions? Do I understand correctly that during that year, restrictions prevented farmers from redirecting floodwaters to their fields, after those farmers having to pay extra for any amount above their allotted water supply in order to keep food crops alive because the allotment isn't enough? Or is it a longer time frame of circumstances that cheer folks against Big Farmer, though those circumstances hit all farmers? Because I'm inclined to favor the farmers over those who set policies that cause mass exodus.

This ties into what I've already read about why the process is looking for a more expansive reach, but what doesn't feel right is that, considering such heavy reliance on media usage, I wonder if Dorian considered the reporters who've already had their information accessed. Or is that consideration reserved for reporters who support her 'feels right?' (Fairness to Dorian would be to check a transcript, but I'm not putting myself at risk for a politician who's willing to risk others' information and choice of content to promote a political ideology she shares with another 政权.)

Also noting a recollection about ill-suited questions during the recent hearing, specifically something along the lines of "does it track your eyes?" If I remember correctly, there's a bit of tech that uses the movement of one's gaze (the pupils, I think) to check what one is looking at onscreen. (Mindreading pizza. Emoji test 🍕 boo-yah.) Was that context mentioned in the portion I missed? Because the portion I caught included a mention of experience from current users (60-minute alert), so the panel isn't just asking questions to be hostile. (Though of course they're hostile, and the "let me get back to you" stonewalling didn't help.) If it's that sort of question that prompts a reaction of out-of-touch elderly politician, the question sounds familiar.

Ending with this because experiment?

Featured Posts
Recent Posts
Search By Tags
Follow Us
  • Facebook Classic
  • Twitter Classic
  • Google Classic
bottom of page