Everything religious has a reason until you point out why that doesn't make sense, and then the response is, "it's a metaphor, don't take it seriously".
I'm going to extend that pattern to it's logical conclusion and conclude that none of it makes sense and nobody should take any of it seriously.
In addition, work doesn't need to consume the majority of waking hours. If you have a high-paying job at a company with a nice culture you can spend ~4 hours a day or less working, with the rest of the time spent reading articles on the internet, browsing hacker news, occasionally replying to Slack messages etc.
Are there any chefs who unify veganism with traditional cuisines that use lots of animal products, e.g. french or chinese? I would love to be vegetarian but I'm lucky in that my partner makes fantastic traditional food and I don't want to give it up.
Vegan modifications along the lines of 'substitute the meat in your burger for mushroom' seem depressing, like they're unengaged with the balance of flavours in the dish.
For chinese food I would imagine there is a lot of traditional vegan food. Tofu for example originated in China. For lots of chinese dishes with meat, something like Tempeh or Seitan make great traditional foods that can substitute meat.
The thing to keep in mind is that veganism is very common in parts of the world where the right crops grow well. So indian food is full of vegan and vegetarian options like dal (lentils).
One of the things you can do is just get to know the traditional plant proteins like lentils, tempeh, seitan, and tofu. Go find some tempeh at the store, unmarinated. Slice it in to long thin fries, and pan fry them in some olive oil. Brown them on all sides, then add salt. Some super tasty fries that will make you want more. Now next time you cook tempeh do the same thing but cut it in to small cubes. You can add that on top of anything in place of meat and it will be very satisfying.
Then learn to cook tofu and seitan. Eventually you will become familiar enough with them to plan dishes with them.
And for me I found that adding peanut sauce is an easy way to make things tastier. So experiment with that!
Specifically with Chinese you rarely actually need to prepare a dish with meat in it. The savory/fat elements can be brought in via other means, and that often leaves just the sauce that’s very flexible to be used on any number of veggies and great tofu variety.
Remember the vast majority of China was extremely poor until just recently. No ones affording meat. The most traditional cuisines can function entirely without meat.
The parent obviously means standard in the statistical sense not the bureaucratic sense.
The standard definition is more or less "someone who posts glamorous shots of themselves on social media to build an audience they can influence and then monetize". A non-standard definition would be one which most people would find misleading or not fitting for the term.
I also wonder what the poll looked like, I find it hard to believe people over 30 would want to become influencers unless it was worded something like "Would you like to make millions of dollars if it meant becoming an influencer?"
Don't overthink it. People read this question as, do you want people to give you money because you are popular? And they responded with a resounding, "I guess".
There isn't a "real" standard as per an international organization, but there is already an emergent consensus in marketing around tiers of influencers based on number of followers. For one instance: https://www.tribegroup.co/blog/influencer-followers
"Nano" influencers, according to this particular company, are people with 1000-3000 followers, Micro are 1,000-100,000, Macro are 100,000+, etc. Here's another example with slightly different values: https://www.cmswire.com/digital-marketing/social-media-influ...
Because this is now big business, I'd expect convergence on a common definition some time relatively soon.
It’s too simple to classify social media count at such small numbers in nano and too wide of an amount in micro.
Different social media apps and then non social media like blogs or podcasts all have different thresholds for what is considered “big”.
With smaller counts, usually if someone is following 4K and is followed by 3K, they aren’t any more “influential” than an active liked person with a couple hundred followers.
Still not perfect but looking at basic interaction metrics will help a lot more as well: likes/favs/bookmarks, reposts, replies/comments. There are overlapping metrics like embedded or referenced count outside the social media app itself. Add in trajectory, history especially to verify this isn’t a BS blip of bought interactions and followers.
Further than that, getting a general view of the cohort of followers like how many are active, how many have profile pics, how many are bots or only on to market their own stuff, etc
Don't know, but putting numerical values on follower count is not likely to be that useful cross-platform due to differences in engagement level, demographics etc.
Agreed. Tik Tok users are worth less on average than other social media. It’s going to be both the social media platform and the niche you are in that affects money to be made. The amount of posting also matters.
This is not including the important and elusive count of true influence. The basic ways are usually like/bookmark, repost, replies/comments. An overlap can also be if your posts get referenced outside the social media network a lot too.
Counting a couple thousand followers as categorization is meaningless since they could be barely interacting to really interacting. And at such a small follower count, low interaction could mean someone with a couple hundred followers is more of an influencer in terms of literal influence than someone with 10x followers.
Probably anyone who has more than a couple thousand followers and made $5 last year from youtube/instagram video profits considers themselves and influencer, and since there is no regulating body of the definition they wouldn't necessarily be wrong.
I can only pair effectively if I feel fully comfortable with the person I'm pairing with, and I would not feel uncomfortable disclosing who meets or does not meet that criteria at work.
Software engineers tend to be less comfortable socially so I imagine other people share this perspective.
That seems like it could be an interpretation problem where the definition of sex changes to only include penetrative sex in the context of the safe sex question.
My recipe finding tip: google translate the thing you want to cook into the language of the cuisine you want, then search the result in youtube for an authentic recipe.
I learn by reading, but when cooking videos seem to work best.
