BlackXanthus

So, yes official. Don't message your X

This is definately a problem with an unlicensed sector. Take 30 second with your favourite search engine and see how much snake oil is out there, most of it American.

There are good coaches out there, and a good one will have some form of qualification. However, finding them amongst the snake-oil salespeople can be tough. The number of 'life coaches' selling courses for stupid money is bananas. What's maddening, to me, is people pay it.

There are things you can do to help find a good life coach.

1. Check out their socials. If they are selling the 'work harder, get benefit' model, that are likely snake-oil. Life Coaching is about taking a client where they are, and to help them article their goals, and work towards them. Not everyone's goal is to be rich
2. Life Coaches that say they can make your rich. It's a lie. You can't 'coach' your way out of poverty
3. They have developed a 'guranteed course' that all one-to-one clients follow. That's not life coaching, that's reading from a book. Life Coaching is bespoke, and works with where the client is at. You'd be better off buying a self-help book and using what sticks.
4. They offer a quick fix.
5. They market themselves as some form of Therapist. Life Coaching is not therapy. Similar skills, different game.
6. A life coach won't sell 'woo-woo'. They won't suddenly suggest 'taint sunning' as a cure for depression.
7. A good life coach will offer a free first session, and no tie-in. While you can often get discount prices for block booking, they are not required to access the service.

Life coaches in my country mostly operate as part of the mental-health and wellness movement. With clear lines, and clear limitations. They have clear ethical Frameworks, and work within them.

The people above saying a 'life coach is a therapist that doesn't listen' are people who've met the bad life coaches. A good life coach is interested in their work, shares their knowledge, and is genuinely working from a place of care.

I believe in what I do. I've seen the changes it has made in people. It has not worked for everyone.

I believe so much in what I do, that I offer my services with a minimum cost of minim wage in my country, but with an option to pay as you feel. If you think I've made a difference, great. But there's no pressure too it. I've felt the the high cost of life coaching was a barrier to those who need it - those often lacking a way to articulate their goals in life, much less with towards them.

A good life coach is not a scam. Sadly, not all life coaches are good.

Life Coach. Would love to turn it into my main hustle, but I like doing the work cheap/free so that it actually helps people rather than makes the rich feel good about themselves.

Edit: I charge 'Pay as you feel'.

Why do big companies always mark you as spam, and why is it always Hotmail?

My experience is that I have to remove myself from spamhouse once every couple of months, because Hotmail decided that my 5 emails to different accounts was spam. TBF, it's better than silently failing which is annoying as hell.

The problem with email is the same is always been: antiquated software.

The email protocol was never designed for an internet with bad actors and bots. It's from the early hopeful days. We absolutely need a better email system - however, it's simple use, the fact anyone can run one, it's simplicity, is what made it so useful.

The difference with Lemmy(et. al.) Is that the protocol is designed in the modern age, and isn't required to also keep up with bad actors for legacy reasons. If Meta decide to join and fill it full of bad actors, Lemmy has a choice email never had. Lemmy can choose to add verification, peer-conversation, trust keys.

It however still has the same basic problem: to be useful for everyone, it has to work with everyone. The discussions and decisions about how that happen are not just technological, but also moral and ideal-based.

Meta, then, in this context, is the first spam email server. How Lemmy/the community/etc respond will be the challenge.

TBF, Pinterest seems almost made to be federated...

I think it is very much a case of developers building, or expanding apps. It's easy to forget that many of these apps are in their developments infancy, because so (technically speaking) is the server software.

There will also, inevitably, be an interplay between app developer and server developer. Work arounds producing accepted items that other apps need to include (for those that remember, think text colour codes on IRC, mostly driven by mIRC (short have history, YMMV, etc etc)

Mind you, I'm wondering if all this federation will bring people back to IRC..

'self-hosting' for 4 users is very much a hammer to crack a nut.

There's a question here about whether or not /c require a community. You might be the only one interested in whatever, or your /c might just not be of interest.

I say this as someone who on other site had a simple /r where I just reposted things I found interesting to my friends, (all 4 of them) who mostly lurked with the occasional upvote.

I think that in creating 'rules' or 'guidelines' like this, we've got to be flexible enough to allow for very, very small communities to exist without requiring a level of community interaction.

It may be better to have a 'minim effort' level? Like, fill out sidebar, have one post every X months, something like that?

A lot of this issue can be fixed with technology advancements, and improvements in Lemmy itself. I think a lot of people 'forget' how things have improved over the years. Twitter improving the character limit, Reddit improving search...

Lemmy may not be there yet, but neither were the others.

I see no reason why ads can't be 'opt in' at a client or app level (IE, the ap or other website shows apps, pays the server the user chooses). Same with 'paid' apps giving a share to their favourite insurance etc. The issue needs to be one of ease of payment - as with most business models.

Have you looked at something like :

https://letsencrypt.org/

It offers a free CA for self-hosted stuff. It does TLS certs, and others. It's very useful for avoiding the high fees

I have to say this is quite a worrying abuse. Both of software, and of privacy.

It's being deployed for something it's not meant for, and being used to remove liberties for it. Of course, much of this will be lost to media circles as in CSA cases, the presumption is guilt in the public's mind.

Whatever the truth of the original conviction, the use of this software as a condition of bail should be banned, and abhorrent to anyone who values justice.

That is not to say the software doesn't have it's uses - especially in cases of porn addiction. However, the software is nowhere near good enough to be used in legal cases. It says so itself. It errs, intentionally, on gathering more data, on being more conservative, simply because it's not good enough to make the judgement on its own.

That's before we look at the unintentional consequences of impinging on the freedom of an innocent person ('Hannah'), and the way in which the software is not 'intelligent' enough to make judgements on whether or not it should take a photo of emails. It also led to fear of accessing help (and an inability to access help).

Use of this software in this way is an abuse.

Are...are you okay? Do we need to get you anything?... Blink twice if your in danger...