- DharmaPolice parentFrom personal experience alone these drugs feel fairly easy to start and stop taking. So taking them every third or fourth month (or similar) would seem like a straight-forward option, unless I'm missing something.
- Human assets doesn't seem that much worse than human resources (other than familiarity).
- While I'm happy to believe any/all of that might be true, accepting unsubstantiated stories like this isn't a great idea. You really need to start with the assumption that all stories like this are fake until some kind of evidence is provided.
If I was going to do some kind of exposé of my employers I'd at least include some semi-obfuscated screenshots to add some credibility to any claims I might make. Sure, things like that can be faked but it at least would require more effort to do all that (and make them appear credible) vs just a bunch of raw claims.
(I also don't think it's a great idea to judge claims based on how believable you personally find them. That often just leads to confirmation bias as you're just reinforcing your own biases).
- When people say "western" they often don't mean "western hemisphere" but the "first world". So Peru wouldn't be "western" by this definition but Australia might be.
- I think the key thing (which we used to understand but seem to have forgotten) is that restrictions (including censorship) should be based on conduct, not opinion. Someone spamming commercial links, crap flooding, posting child pornography, even constant off-topic posting etc can justifiably be censored on a platform based on their conduct. But as soon as you advocate for censoring someone purely based on an opinion then you're making it dramatically easier for someone who shares your opinion to be censored later on. Although if we're being intellectually honest, even if there hadn't been any banning of wrongthink in the past, this kind of thing might still have happened anyway given the current administration and their allies. But it's definitely made it easier.
I remember when Alex Jones (or someone of that ilk) was being "de-platformed" by Google, Facebook, etc. Not only were people cheering for it, they were denying that being banned from YouTube (for example) was censorship since "there are other video hosting platforms" (yeah, there are but also not really) and "it's only censorship when it's the government who legally restrict you from speech".
(And Alex Jones is a detestable piece of shit just in case you think I'm a fan. But to paraphrase an old saying, freedom of expression is only a principle if it applies to people you utterly despise).
- Those percentages are of total TV hours, which isn't quite what I was talking about. Still though if you include YouTube (I personally wouldn't as I don't think they're providing a directly comparable product) they're still below 25% which is interesting.
- Come work in Local Government - never mind growth, we're managing steady decline. Or mismanaging.
- The legal definition of monopoly in some jurisdictions means anyone with a large enough of a market share able to influence pricing, etc in a market. A market share as low as 25% can be called a monopoly. Does HBO+Netflix have a 25% share of the streaming market? I've no idea, but possibly.
- I'm sure there will be negative side effects but the main outcome of these drugs is that you eat less. Many of us have trained ourselves to eat at a frequency and volume way beyond what is really required to keep our body functioning. This leads to weight gain in most people and thus is the focus but even independent of weight there are effects of continuously eating poor quality foods which are unlikely to be good. So I'm not surprised that there are all these miraculous sounding positive side effects to drugs which prevent most people from putting their metabolic system under near constant load.
When the side effects are better understood I suspect for the average person, eating less would be a net benefit to their overall health - _even if they don't lose any weight_.
- Dementia seems a pretty awful outcome too. I hope my heart gives out before my brain.
- I got a pop up about selling my soul, I assume that was cookie related?
- While I'm sure this is criminal behaviour it seems debatable that this dude is a danger to the public. But there may be more to it I guess.
- It created an XLSX file, but the user selected the Google Drive button to open it there. If you're talking about the video.
- Because Google provides (or used to provide) a fast consistent interface for a lot of basic queries. Sure, if I'm researching etymology in depth then I'll go to a specialist site, but 90%+ of the time I'm just double checking the definition of a word or something like that.
In general, internet browsing is biased towards sites that you're familiar with and can be reasonably sure aren't going to do something annoying (it used to be popup adverts and auto playing music, now days it's popups about newsletters / memberships or aggressive notifications about cookies / privacy notices.). This is particularly true if you ever spent time browsing in an open plan office or similar public place. There's also a cognitive load of interacting with a new interface which isn't something you want to deal with if you're midflow and want to check a word.
This is not to say that those sites you mentioned are guilty of bad practices, but the point is I'm not a regular enough user of them to have them on my mental "generally trust" list.
- Every person I know who tried to give up smoking has the same story - they were successful for a while and then they encountered some stressful moment (exam, work deadline, etc) and they fell off the wagon. One explanation could simply be that normally we have food stresses which manifests in general stress which we relieve via video games or whatever else. If these drugs turn down the volume of hunger then maybe this has the benefit of reducing the need for stress relieving behaviours in general.
- I get on many buses and 90% of the time the message is played about "Evening out the service" it's because the drivers shift is about to end and he/she doesn't want to wait at the driver changeover stop too long.
- Certainly with buses people have been burned where they are told that another bus will be along in 2 minutes only for that to evaporate and the next bus actually takes 15+ minutes. If that happens to you then you'll squeeze onto the first bus you can physically fit.
It takes quite a long period of good service to undo one bad interaction.
- Threads don't get closed due to age on Reddit (they used to be archived but this stopped a while back). Mods can lock threads but this is used to moderate content.
And which subreddit locked your thread because a similar question was asked six months ago? I find that difficult to believe.
- I think this is more likely to be talking about https://www.spinnakersupport.com/
And I don't think this involves moving anything other than support responsibilities.
- >What if they're the same levels of mental health issues as before?
Maybe but this raises the question of how on Earth we'd ever know we were on the right track when it comes to mental health. With physical diseases it's pretty easy to show that overall public health systems in the developed world have been broadly successful over the last 100 years. Less people die young, dramatically less children die in infancy and survival rates for a lot of diseases are much improved. Obesity is clearly a major problem, but even allowing for that the average person is likely to live longer than their great-grandparents.
It seems inherently harder to know whether the mental health industry is achieving the same level of success. If we massively expand access to therapy and everyone is still anxious/miserable/etc at what point will we be able to say "Maybe this isn't working".
- >Bob Vylan at glasto calling for death of people... is that really what we want?
Yes, I want people to be able to say "Death to the IDF" (or death to Hamas for that matter).
- These signs (if phrased in this way) are slightly misleading. I doubt anyone is ever prosecuted for just being insulting. What happens is you'll be asked to leave if you're aggressively rude and if you refuse to leave then eventually the police might be called.
- This matches my experience, with email in particular every organisation I've worked for it's been normalised that it's OK to not read every email, particularly if it's long or detailed. Clearly if the CEO emails you alone about something important that doesn't hold but for the vast majority of emails it was seen as acceptable to not read them and to even openly admit that. I remember being phoned by a department head once asking what an email was about - they weren't going to read it until I explained why they should.
It's a side effect of the information noise we're all subjected to, if we all received 6 messages a day we'd probably read them all but as we often get hundreds (thousands if you're getting automated messages) it's "OK" to miss a few.
- I agree. I've often thought about this via a thought experiment : How much money would it take for you to agree not to consume any new instance of a particular media type? In other words, you're offered fifty thousand dollars (or some other non-trivial but not outrageous amount of money) and in agreement you won't read a book released after June 2025.
Clearly this is going to vary from person to person but I might accept $50k to not read any new fiction title, but wouldn't accept the same deal for video games as it's likely new technology will result in some new classics in the coming years - the amount of money you'd need to offer would need to be much higher. Movies are somewhere in the middle.
This effect is self-reinforcing since at least part of the value in watching a movie / reading a book / etc is the ability to discuss it with other people. Not seeing any new movies would reduce my ability to participate in discussions with people. As less people watch new things, this becomes less of an issue.
- OK, perhaps lying is the wrong word but someone who repeatedly fabricated information would be treated the same as a liar in most contexts.
- If a junior developer lies about something important, they can be fired and you can try to find someone else who wouldn't do the same thing. At the very least you could warn the person not to lie again or they're gone. It's not clear that you can do the same thing with an LLM as they don't know they've lied.
- There are quite a lot of people who write/talk about video games or movies who are openly negative about much of what is produced.
Although I agree there is probably a heavier slant towards negativity when discussing tech. I share some of the skepticism about AI but it's still potentially very exciting which you don't get from a lot of commentators.
- As someone who works for a local government bureaucracy - not caring is a coping mechanism because if you let every sub-optimal thing bother you then you'd just burn out. Very few jobs are structured in a way that those directly involved can determine how things are done so there is no real value in caring about how long a process takes. Where people have some agency you might be surprised how much people do care even in relatively low paying bureaucratic jobs.
In a similar way, many of us walk past multiple homeless people every day. Do you not care about them? Well, in an abstract sense yes of course but as there's not a lot you can do about it right now you evolve an indifference to it.
- Even if it was only 30% of people had a problem that's still millions of unhappy users. Not great for a time sensitive event.
Also, from lurking in various threads on the topic Netflix's in app messages added to people's irritation by suggesting that they check their WiFi/internet was working. Presumably that's the default error message but perhaps that could have been adjusted in advance somehow.
- Have you tried mouth tape?