Liz Fong-Jones (方禮真)
@lizthegrey.com
20K followers 2K following 49K posts
Technical Fellow, @honeycomb.io American by birth, Chinese by heritage, Australian by choice living on occupied and unceded Gadigal and Musqueam/Squamish/Tsleil-Waututh land she/it
![johnswentworth
The way I worded it until recently was that I'm turned on by a woman struggling. Just a couple days ago Aella used the phrase "deeply, primarily aroused by women in distress" (not describing me specifically), which might actually be a more accurate description of my sexuality than anything I've come up with.
So for instance, peak hotness for me is holding my partner's nose and mouth so she can't breath, pounding her until the haven't-breathed-in-a-while panic response kicks in for her, then holding her down and fucking her a little longer while she's panicking. Super-hot variations on that include:
The game "you can breathe when I'm satisfied"
Ordering her not to physically struggle, and then enjoying the mental dominance as she struggles against herself.
Other fun things which scratch the itch to various extents include choking (either from a hand around the neck or a cock in the throat), making her hold a certain position for a very long time (I usually go for 30 minutes to an hour per round not counting foreplay, so e.g. making her hold her legs for most of that time can do the trick), standard sadism (like hard biting or spanking), standard CNC, squeezing nerve clusters, or just holding/tying her body in a position where she's straining against it.
On a meta note: I think there's a lot of alpha in people talking online about stuff they don't usually share with anyone besides partners or very close friends, IF the person has the writing skills to not make the delivery too cringey AND can handle at least some less-than-maximally-positive responses. That's part of the motivation for this post and the empathy posts, and it's a big part of why I begged that particular question. I've been actively trying to lean more into baring my soul online.
And to be clear, I think the alpha in this is at least as much for the author as for the audience. Something feels healthy about just opening up to the world about everything [...]](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:i4tfenpfog244rxry5uz4vtk/bafkreic6ly3y6y6ecny6qmwjak3sirisqvhslp5i4rog7k4etxl3qeh6pm)
![Add automation label to account
This label lets the world know that this account is automated. If turned on, this label appears next to the account's name on their profile and posts. It can be turned on or off at any time.
Show automation label [ ]](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:i4tfenpfog244rxry5uz4vtk/bafkreig3ivx7ru53irkhdowp353yyi5xzsogja6vvyu44nk25kzcrsygge)
![[redacted so as to not give him the attention he wants]
204 followers
27m
Follow
Observability gave us metrics, logs, and dashboards—but dashboards don't fly the aircraft. When complex software systems degrade, most incidents don't fail because of missing signals; they fail because of cognitive failure during response.
Introducing The SRE Guide to Situational Awareness: Beyond Observability.
[redacted so as to not give him the attention he wants]… more
The SRE Guide to Situational Awareness | [redacted so as to not give him the attention he wants]
linkedin.com
0](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:i4tfenpfog244rxry5uz4vtk/bafkreidxv7f7tiok4de2bxsnlvnqjyivg2eawchnk7i374aqmcslzhd5zu)
![Left: A nested pie/sunburst chart titled "Global greenhouse gas emissions by sector". Subtitle: "This is shown for the year 2016 – global greenhouse gas emissions were 49.4 billion tonnes CO₂eq." The largest segment is Energy (73.2%), subdivided into: Energy use in Industry (24.2%), Transport (16.2%) including Road Transport (11.9%) and Aviation (highlighted with orange box), Energy use in buildings (17.5%) including Commercial (6.6%) and Residential buildings (10.9%), and other subcategories. Other top-level segments: Agriculture, Forestry & Land Use (18.4%), Industry (5.2%), Waste (3.2%), with further subdivisions labelled (many small and partially legible). Source: Our World In Data – Hannah Ritchie (CC-BY); Bureau of Meteorology.
Right: Screenshot of an academic paper. Journal: "Review". Title: "The real climate and transformative impact of ICT: A critique of estimates, trends, and regulations". Authors: Charlotte Freitag, Mike Berners-Lee, Kelly Widdicks, Bran Knowles, Gordon S. Blair, Adrian Friday. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2021.100340. Under a Creative Commons license. Open access. Published in Patterns, Volume 3, Issue 8, 12 August 2022, Pages 100576. Excerpt highlighted in orange: "global emissions from ICT are as high as 2.1%–3.9%". Surrounding text reads: "To avoid catastrophic consequences from climate change, all sectors of the global economy, including Information Communication Technology (ICT), must keep their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in line with the Paris Agreement. We examine peer-reviewed estimates of ICT's GHG emissions, which put ICT's share of global GHG emissions at 1.8%–2.8%. We find pronounced differences and much debate concerning the underlying assumptions behind the peer-reviewed studies, which could suggest that global emissions from ICT are as high as 2.1%–3.9%. All study analysts agree that ICT emissions will not reduce without major concerted political [text cut off]"
Sources: Our World In Data – Hannah Ritchie](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:i4tfenpfog244rxry5uz4vtk/bafkreib2hev3ttk6n3jm4bhxibf2y6s7c3a6myfp3jpmm5uqllvp73v2be)
