Had a lot of feedback about the copy so I've made a bunch of changes. Keeping in mind "you" and "developers" etc has really helped me better understand the goals of the copy so thank you!
I think you changed the word "features" to "benefits," but didn't change the list of features to benefits. To get to the benefit, ask "why?" two or three times in a row:
- Why do devs want "simplified development?"
- Why is that?... And why is that?
(It seems your first level "why's" are are under the headers. Again, the simple fix is to change the order: make the benefit the header, then write your feature below that^^)
Each time "why?" is asked will get you to a bigger benefit/desire. (You're doing the work you want your reader to do in their head for them.)
Hi all,
I've written my first ever blog post and would love to get some feedback on how I can improve it along with how I can make future posts better.
The post is about Wyckoff accumulation schematics in trading (not the most interesting topic to most :P).
Any and all feedback is much appreciated, thanks!
You minimise it as "being in a book". The book is: "a publication by the American Psychiatric Association for the classification of mental disorders". Are you part of the psychiatric field?
OP very clearly writes that they "don't think it's transphobic to push back on trans activists" who, unlike him, "demand the world accommodate".
Again, the only 'accommodation' that is asked is to just let them live. Seems like not a hard thing to do, and not something one would have to go out of their way of to 'push back against'.
If you don't like the thought of buttfucking, don't. If you don't like the thought of people who identify differently from their biological sex, don't. If you don't like the thought of eating kale, don't. It's simple, it costs you nothing. Nothing at all.
> Again, the only 'accommodation' that is asked is to just let them live. Seems like not a hard thing to do, and not something one would have to go out of their way of to 'push back against'.
But OP is letting them live. Unless you are alleging OP is running around killing trans people??
Your comment, like speech in general I admit, doesn't tell the whole truth.
"Again, the only 'accommodation' that is asked is to just let them live."
This isn't true as they are asking that comedians to not make jokes about them. Dave Chapelle nor any comedian that I know of go around saying trans people should not be allowed to live. Or have I missed something?
Shifting goalposts, are we, after your 'clearly' comment did not even contain a grain of truth about what OP posted?
And yes, you are missing something. Go ahead and watch Chapelle. The issue isn't that he makes a joke about trans people. Sure, I'd assume people in general may not like having jokes made at their expense, but that's not the issue. The issue is that Chapelle dedicates a whole special to argue that their cause isn't worthy to be supported. As much as I like Chapelle and his amazing ability to do hour-long stand-ups where he doesn't even tell jokes and yet you're mesmerized, I'll have to side with the 'punching down' argument. This campaign of his will not age well.
I understand his frustration, and, in his words, jealousy, to see how far LGBTQ+ rights have come compared to the much older issue of Black rights, but that's a really poor justification to rant against the former.
Just imagine that same setup to watch someone rant for an hour against women suffrage, or gay or Black rights, etc. Sure, some will like this.
> The issue is that Chapelle dedicates a whole special to argue that their cause isn't worthy to be supported.
Why is that an issue?
Their cause is to enact a redefinition of "woman" and "man" (and in some contexts, "female" and "male") in terms of so-called gender identity, rather than sex.
This is a sweeping, fundamental change to how most people understand those terms, and there is growing evidence of some very negative outcomes of doing so.
Of course there will be pushback on this. And it's not a bad thing to do so.
If we learned anything in the last two years, we learned some number of people will seek and follow medical advice from anyone except medical professionals.
you may believe that your positions are worth more than their current price but the reality is that they aren't otherwise they would be selling at the higher price. the price of an asset is its true value
If you can buy 1 share at $1, that means that yes.
But a controlling interest in something almost always requires more than 1 share. It may require millions or billions of shares.
And once folks figure out that they’re the couple percent that will block that controlling interest, their own prices tend to change.
That volume of shares also means you can't just buy from the person who is happy to sell right now, you need to convince folks who don't plan to sell ever, or aren't in a hurry, or don't need money right now. Their prices tend to be different too.
And just like buying a tank of gas is different than buying an oil field, the value propositions and likely price discussions are different.
If you can buy an oil field of gas one tank at a time, more power to you - but you’ll likely quickly discover it doesn’t scale the way you want.
your comment about the price being $70 a year ago seems off to me. that's not the value now so why should it be seen as such? if you were buying a house worth $400,000 and made an offer of $540,000 but were told no, this house was worth $700,000 a year ago the value of this fictional house now is still $400,000
