mnowicki

good for you, I managed to write fizzbuzz

I always say "Money doesn't buy happiness, but a severe enough lack of money can certainly cause unhappiness"

What we're Nietzsche's opinions on politics/women? I'm not surprised based on the bit of his work that I read that he has some unappealing thoughts on women, but am surprised to here his politics may be problematic as well(aside from the whole nazi affiliation thing - which as I understand is a misrepresentation of his work by his sister and her Nazi husband).

again, I got the vaccine and I'm not anti-vax, but why are people getting downvoted for making valid points just because they aren't following the popular narrative. Did this website become reddit?

You can acknowledge someone made a decent point and incorporate it into your own views while still getting & encouraging vaccines - engaging in honest discussion will do more to prevent creating more anti-vaxxers than ignoring any points that you don't want to deal with. Disregarding valid points only reinforces the narrative that everyone is brainwashed by big pharma and we can't trust vaccines or whatever the narrative is - almost starting to agree with them on the first point.

I know most reasonable people disagree with this persons views, but why are they getting downvoted? They made a reasonable point and provided a source from the CDC. I'd much rather see a rebuttal than downvotes and no response.

Definitely gave me something to think about - not about to become anti-vax or anything but not worth instantly writing off either. For me the bottom line is that the vaccine is proven to prevent a disease that's killing millions, and not getting it will literally translate to more deaths, but that doesn't mean I'm going to disregard opposing views - if I still disagree then it doesn't matter, and if I don't disagree then I'm glad I listened because it'd have to be something massively significant to make me change my mind. And I fully believe mocking or ignoring anyone who goes against the grain on vaccines is causing more 'real' anti-vaxxers and making the ones who are just wary about the Covid vaccine more extreme. I highly doubt anyone is being mocked into abandoning their beliefs on this.

yeah, I'm very far from being right-wing or anti-vaccine or anything like that, but I've been unsettled by this whole thing. I don't think there are microchips in the vaccine, and it's probably a good idea to get the vaccine, but this level of control + lack of responsibility is a perfect recipe for negligence-caused disaster. Or even intentional disaster. Plus it seems quite a bit like it could be one of those slippery-slope situations.

Ideally, companies would create a vaccine as fast as possible(but safely, without being immune from lawsuits - especially if negligence or malice can be 'proven', why make someone immune from consequence then?) because that's always going to a profitable endeavor anyway. And people would be smart enough to get the vaccine and take precautions about spreading dangerous diseases. I don't know what the right solution is, given that we don't live in such a reasonable world

I have to assume there's a decent chance that the designer started this suit to gain some attention and attract homophobic customers, and contribute to their christian marriage web dev companies brand. Could be wrong, they could just really want a fight, but with how common and easy it is to grift bigots these days it's always my first guess

You lept straight from "Sometimes these mental tools produce correct results" (which is true) to "These tools are the only way to produce correct results" (a ridiculous distortion).

Those aren't mutually exclusive. Something can do something only sometimes, and also be the only way to do that thing. If he/she is wrong, It should be easy to prove that their claim is incorrect though by thinking of a counterexample

I'm guessing based on his business practices and attitude in interviews/statements. I don't claim to be an expert though, that's why I qualified my post stating that's it's purely my speculation, just like the authors post

Good point, maybe he could stop actively hurting people before thinking about helping them. I always overlook that somehow

maybe I'll write a short story about Bezos and Musk both wanting to become the savior of earth and competing to save humanity first/better to feed their own egos, to the point where they start sabotaging each others efforts to gain an advantage. Then neither of them are able to save us because they were more worried about being seen as the one to save the planet than actual saving the planet, and we all die

This is just my own speculation, equally as invalid as the authors, but at most I'd say Bezos thinks his goals are entirely genuine, but it's entirely based on narcissism and wanting to be the only one smart/powerful enough to save us.

If it came to the point where he had to sacrifice things he actually cares about to help others with no benefit to himself or his ego I would bet Bezos net worth that he wouldn't lift a finger. Maybe convincing himself he's working to save humanity is how he justifies not doing something really useful with his wealth, like saving tens of thousands of people from suffering and dieing of starvation, instead of playing billionaire space games.

yeah true. I think it'd be best for others if they stopped being liberals.

(\s btw)

~18-25 IIRC is the normal age for prodromal schizophrenia to occur(the early phase where symptoms begin to manifest) so that makes sense. If you don't get it by that age it's extremely unlikely to start experiencing symptoms at an older age, there are younger children with schizophrenia but it's still much less common than people first noticing it around their early 20s.

And in your first sentence, do you mean you get psychosis or hallucinations from smoking pot? Or literal schizophrenia? Interestingly, around 19-22 years old when I smoked a lot, I had some psychosis-like symptoms, mostly auditory hallucinations. They weren't very disruptive or paranoid-feeling though, it was always the sound of a group of people at a party or backyard barbecue or something standing around laughing & talking, and I could only actually make out like 1/5 words. It felt very real though, I looked out my window countless times to see if my neighbors were having a 2am party in their back yard.

also it's 2% "of diagnosis" connected to marijuana use. So the difference would be if marijuana use is more commonly known/reported, regardless of whether they have 100 or 10000 diagnosis

I have literally seen an article before that said prodromal(pre/early onset) schizophrenia leads to Marijuana use, and I remember wondering at the time how they knew which way the causation went.

I'm also not sure if it's journalists wanting to push one narrative over the other, or just a lack of understanding.

regardless of whether it's technically correct(or who even gets to decide that) - the point of using language is to communicate, if you are communicating what you want then you're accomplishing your goal.

Sometimes you might want to speak more formally or 'proper' - but that's just another example of communicating effectively, by using word choice to convey the right level of formality. Or to be perceived a certain way.

Of course it's fine people are pointing out that they use the word a different way. Just saying I think the author used a clear word choice to effectively communicate what he meant to the largest number of people - even the people who are pointing out that he used the word wrong know what he was trying to communicate(otherwise they wouldn't realize he was using it 'incorrectly').

That's kind of expected though right?

"Cutting off the network of people that moderates my views and is making my views less moderate."

I understand that people can be harsh nowadays, presumably because they often find the views of others particularly harsh and feel a proportional response is necessary, but not wanting to face that isn't an excuse - it essentially amounts to "The criticism that's supposed to keep my views grounded isn't working and my views are getting more extreme, because I don't want to deal with the criticism of my extreme views". And to be fair I'm making it sound simpler than it is, it's a totally human response to avoid sharing those opinions if it has negative consequences. My only point is to remember it's not the crowds fault if you end up with extremist views, it was your decision. We all have to deal with the fact that the crowd doesn't care about our feelings, only their own views, but we do it, and if our differing opinions are important enough to us then we deal with the consequences.

They don't have to believe in their own destruction. There are several minority youtubers who are ver successful who support the far-right for their own benefit, to gain support and notoriety to support their grift. And the far-right loves tokenizing these minorities to 'prove' they aren't racist.

A lack of evidence(especially for something as unprovable as a specific individuals personal beliefs) doesn't prove a lie any more than it proves a truth. You seem extremely convinced that these claims are false, enough to insult people who disagree, despite the fact that you don't have any proof of your position either.

I don't know the specifics of Ngo, but at best I can assume you're being disingenuous or intentionally misleading based on the kind of logic you're using to find your conclusions here

If trying to come up with one of these ideas anyway, that is a good way to find one.

Ask yourself, if there is one thing that I might be able to think of, that almost nobody else in the world can, what would it be? What unique combination of experiences, perspectives, talents, etc do I have that is extremely uncommon and what unique ideas can I think of because of this?

Not super practical in this case since the odds of success are still pretty low(but not 0), but looking at things this way can be useful in other scenarios as well. It's kind of similar to how I often spin negative experiences into a positive in my head, they're still experiences and experiences can always be useful, especially if they're unique

Is it reasonable to say the universe might be superdeterministic, but in the example of choosing measurements for an experiment(or almost any other example imaginable), it might as well be truly random as the causal links affecting the instruments isn't likely to be 'conspiring' in some way to impact the results of the experiment?

e.g Anything could be predicted with absolute knowledge of the starting state of the universe, and infinite computing power, but in most practical cases the causal connections between seemingly unrelated objects is irrelevant and as good as random?

I've had the same issue, and out of the many therapists I've seen only 1 was effective. Many people have trouble finding decent therapists, and I could go on for hours about bad ones - e.g one who went through the DSM, starting with the 'A's, trying to find a diagnosis that fit well enough.

The one who I had some success with also said I needed 'coaching' moreso than therapy, and taught me about cognitive-behavioral therapy. Which is a simple process of conditioning your own thought processes to be more productive and healthy.

If I had to do it again, I personally wouldn't go through the trouble of trying to find a good therapist. Luckily I think cognitive-behavioral therapy is something a competent and self-aware person could absolutely learn and practice on their own(I'm sure I'm breaking some rule of psychology by saying that though).

I've watched Dr. K a few times, and one on hand I'm sure he helps a lot of people and he genuinely seems to care about his viewers/'patients', so overall he's a net positive in my mind.

But I do get very annoyed personally because it seems like he often makes a lot of assumptions/judgements early on and leads the person he's talking to into agreeing with his original assumption, as opposed to continuing to listen to the other person and keeping an open mind. He'll often ask the same question over and over with different wording until he gets the answer he's expecting, or will just put words in the 'patients' mouth until the patient half-heartedly agrees.

Again, therapy is very hard, and Dr. K is much more suited for it than the majority of therapists I've interacted with, from what I can tell. Some of the ones I've met just absolutely should not be allowed in that profession.

en croissant

But why come to for-profit company and demand that company to stop making profits? It does not make sense to me.

I agree this is foolish, but at the same time don't blame people for trying. I'm glad these companies have at least a few people applying pressure, potentially making it less profitable for companies to do the 'wrong' thing.

I imagine employees may say, we must fight climate change, so we must replace our trucks with electric trucks. This is definitely moral, but this might be not sustainable, and this might be a way to make a company bankrupt

At the point we are right now, I'd prefer the company go bankrupt if they can't afford to not destroy the environment. I know it sounds extreme and if this happened at all such companies could cause a considerable economic/societal collapse, but I'd prefer societal collapse over societal collapse and destroyed planet.

Moral reasons is a slippery slope. What is moral to one group or people is immoral to other group of people.

Overall I think I understand your point more now. I'm curious if you'd agree with the sentiment of the 2 points I just made in this post though. I do feel that just about any moral claim is debatable, but certain things like climate change I'm confident enough in my own beliefs to justify acting on them. The way I see it, we don't know anything 100% for sure, moral or not, so as humans we have to draw the line somewhere and act on the things we have the most conviction for. Other people might have opposing morals and I won't intentionally infringe on their rights but I'll still oppose them on whatever issues we disagree on. I don't claim to be the arbiter of truth but I'm also not going to disregard morality because other people have different views and I might be wrong anyway.

I view it as a more inconvenient, less effective(but still effective), but more obtainable(in many states) form of Suboxone.

It can stave off withdrawal, cravings, etc. And it can get you high and be it's own addiction. It's still an opiate, and can still be very potent(in high enough doses). The main limiting factor is the pure volume you'd need to ingest to get the potency of a fraction of a gram of other opiates

Basic principles of civilized society like respect of private property (which is the company which is owned by shareholders) and respect of contracts, and these principles are more important than employee wishes to play CEO.

This alone isn't enough to argue that it's not immoral because the company is their private property. What if Amazon bought up all the farmable land in the country/world and started charging prices that were unaffordable to 90% of people and causing starvation. This is comparable to what's happening, but instead of one company it's multiple companies and instead of food price it's employee conditions

edit: to be clear, I know my point isn't enough to prove it IS immoral either, just that the private property point isn't enough to prove that it isn't. I don't think I'm capable of arguing this argument all the way through, But my opinion probably falls closer to Marx than most people. The only thing I do know for sure is that what we have now isn't working, and if capitalists don't want socialism/communism to take over they better fix things soon.

I didn't know that there were no laws requiring companies to act in the interest of shareholders, I guess that's a common myth.

It still seems pretty evident that the power structure at larger companies necessitates that people do act in the interest of investors - as doing so is in their own best interest. I'm no expect and I'm sure more educated people could argue both sides of that though. In the end, I think the behavior of companies that exist is at the very least enough to suggest that the organization of companies in capitalism motivates profit above all else - to the point where horrible acts are committed frequently and are expected from larger corporations

I understand your individual points, but not your final conclusion. It gives me the sense that you think maximizing profits for shareholders is "the greater good", moreso than doing what(in the opinion of employees) is right.

I totally understand the logo anecdote and that makes sense, but it's different when the employees opinion differs for moral reasons, I'd say employees ARE more qualified to make those calls than those who are beholden to investors and motivated to maximize profits above all else - IF, that is, your goal is to be moral and not to maximize profits, which is where I'm feeling a disconnect with your posts.

Instructions unclear, now the largest e-commerce website is owned by some trees