0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MareNostrum_4_supercomput...

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche

    YOU ARE IN A MAZE OF TWISTY LITTLE PASSAGES, ALL DIFFERENT.
    YOU ARE IN A LITTLE MAZE OF TWISTING PASSAGES, ALL DIFFERENT.

    YOU ARE IN A MAZE OF TWISTY LITTLE PASSAGES, ALL ALIKE.

however, my statement about entitlements of the performer being non existant along with the listener having no obligation to pay the performer because they stayed for some amount of time, was made on an moral level. i also believe it is a morally 'good' thing to compensate the performer if they provide you with entertainment, i just do not believe there is any obligation placed on you to do this by the performer. like you say, it is for me alone as the listener to decide. i objected to the use of the word 'owe' in the advice, basically.

hopefully that's a bit clearer...

for example, if they have recently made the decision to stop smoking cigarettes, thereby making a positive change in their lifestyle and health, this shows strength of character. it also demonstrates their ability to question past poor decisions rather than give in to the sunk cost fallacy, and then take steps to correct them. and of course, it also tends to make you put on weight [0] ... although not much more that 10 lb or 5 kg it seems, so interviewer beware, i guess ;)

0. <https://medlineplus.gov/ency/patientinstructions/000811.htm>

i think i actually have a similar problem about asccusations of lying that often get thrown around in arguments etc. when the peoson accused has simply made an error in good faith...

if i am a child, with no money, or am un- or underemployed with very little money in the form of disposable income, then this advice is not actually actionable.

not to mention that it is also wrong - you do not owe the street performer anything, no matter how long you stop and listen for. they are not entitled to anything just because they made a choice to perform in a public place. and this is not to suggest i have never, or will not in future, donate to buskers etc. - but it is always an active choice...

most kids want a combination of 1.) approval from parent(s) and 2.) stuff that makes them happy and when 2 conflicts with 1 there can be issues, and it is a rare child that seeks only approval from their parents in all circumstances, as you also point out.

now, they may have previously ignored breaches of this contract, but that didn't stop them being breaches. you are well within your rights to cancel your contract, all i point out is that it is unreasonable of you to be upset. this is business as usual, and to be expected, therefore a good thing.

lol, lmao, et cetera.

So you're upset that you are no longer able to freely breach a conract you agreed to, and have to pay for services you consume?

not really, there are essentially zero quantum dot based white light products commercially available right now, apart from some very niche offerings that are expensive and unreliable like osram/plt leds. and what does 'because Rec. 2020' even mean as a justification?

you know this research was published in 2006, and is based on earlier work (from the citations you can see papers from the early 1970s onwards) which suggests the ignorance might be more localised ;)

from the paper, which was published in 2006. and re a downstream comment, they euthanized the fish with a bath of anaesthetic, also in the paper.