It's fun, but I have some pointers.

1. Try to follow NYT's cluing rules, like plural clues always have plural answers. I was tripped up by "Bark pieces soaked before scattering over coals (8)" having the answer WOODCHIP.

2. It's very difficult. I solve NYT pretty handily 7 days a week, and difficult crosswords in Swedish too, but I ended up using 21 hints, and not only because I rushed. The lack of crosses makes it a lot harder to get a lock on the grid.

3. There was some questionable cluing in general, like "Shredded cabbage side at every British barbecue (8)" for COLESLAW, which I would not consider a particularly British side, and "Shallow inflatable pool beside the barbecue (8)" for PADDLING. Omitting the noun for that type of compounded adjective-noun word is fine I guess but felt clunky.

I like the gimmick itself though!

> Thank you for your comments. We just wanted to confirm that all Moleskine notebook covers are created by our designers, while AI was used to enhance the background of these images. We hope The Lord of the Rings inspires you!

I started out writing a list of European countries with high quality public broadcasters, but the comment started looking silly since the list quickly grew very long.

> "The $27,000 wasn't decisive, but it was an omen that things would get better," Smith said about the gamble

> After his blackjack win, Smith was able to raise another $11 million, the magazine reported.

[1] https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/fred-smith-fedex-blackjack...

And the article itself describes the actual setup accurately in one of the opening paragraphs, so clearly the author knows the facts:

> The site lets visitors compile a mass email warning about the bill and send it...

And most of the other headlines on their current front page are quite boring and descriptive.

It feels good to see someone finally make this argument on the internet.

Where I differ from you in my take on this is that I also weigh what isn't there. He doesn't provide any form of alternate explanation. Nowhere does he say anything that comes close to "I don't believe that affirmations work this way" or anything of the like. I also don't agree that his hedges clarify anything, rather they muddy the waters.

He presents a thesis, presents other people's arguments for that thesis, presents no arguments against, and then explains that he lives his life in a way consistent with believing in that thesis. The hedges fill one function: to make it harder to argue against him. If the arguments aren't his, the chapter stands even if the arguments fall.

To me, that is basically arguing for the thesis, but in a roundabout and quite defensive way. What other point would you say that that chapter conveys?

> I don't know if there is one universe or many. If there are many, I don't know for certain that you can choose your path. And if you can choose your path, I don't know that affirmations are necessarily the way to do it. But I do know this: When I act as though affirmations can steer me, I consistently get good results.

I'm not the person you replied to, but I would say that "He basically argues that our thoughts can influence reality" is a fair description of these quotes and the rest of the chapter around it. Some of it is him referencing what other people told him, and he certainly hedges his statements a lot, but I certainly read it as him believing that his affirmations are directly influencing reality.

Calm Down—Your Phone Isn’t Listening to Your Conversations. It’s Just Tracking Everything You Type, Every App You Use, Every Website You Visit, and Everywhere You Go in the Physical World

https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/calm-down-your-phone-isn...

My post was truthful, useful for both me and the potential employers, and I know it's what linkedin is for. Objectively, I did nothing wrong. And still I was really embarrassed by it, and deleted it after I landed a job.

I just really don't like tooting my own horn. I was raised to prize humility, I guess it's quite common in Sweden.

Got me 3-4 offers. None of the offering companies had ads out for roles like this, so this was pretty much the only way.

This is only true if you see CORS as a tool only to prevent reading data. I personally find it to be a useful tool to prevent writes, because the Origin header fulfils several of the purposes of a CSRF token. But that requires work on the backend to not actually perform writes unless the CORS parameters are valid. That sort of security is not the default (which is probably good)