Was sugar consumption halving every year for over a decade? Whatever the mechanism (seemingly up for debate), a halving post-tax is an outsized change.
In many cases, you need to understand the concepts to conceive of applying them beneficially to a problem at hand, whether you apply them or outsource the application.
Assuming this is sarcastic, it will never be realistic to pursue less bloodshed by allowing bloodthirsty conquerors to go about their business without opposition.
But there’s no AI that can do your hobby either. If your hobby is painting… are you painting for those who are now paying Chatgpt for their painting needs? Have you been robbed of your hobby? No. The scenario is as imaginary as Dishwashgpt remains.
Personally I loathe it. I have a client that insists I communicate with them using their channel. The UI is overwhelming and finding past references or info is not nearly as easy as it should be. I have no idea why some projects use it as their primary community platform (looking at you Svelte). Slack is not much better in many regards.
Yeah, I’ve long felt his PR game outshines his interestingness and insightfulness. He gets quoted and referenced reverently by media often, but then you read his takes and they’re either eye-rolling hype or stifled-laughter obviousness.
That’s an awesome policy. Compare to car share services (in SF.. apples to apples) such as Gig Car and Getaround which allow unsupervised general access (i.e. no driver there to witness car treatment)… those are generally pigsties. Blunt ash all over the dashboard, used kleenexes in the door handles and cupholders, trash on the floor. It always blew my mind that the perpetrators weren’t fined into the dirt. Good for Waymo.
Considering that I’m in a social bubble of considerate people all of whom wouldn’t leave a single bottle cap in a car, this makes me despair at how people must be outside of my bubble.
I'd say the vast majority of people don't litter or trash things, but the few that do ruin things for everyone. It only takes a few bad apples (on in this case trashy people) to ruin something for everyone else.
Its like living with 4 roommates, but one of them leaves their shit everywhere. It could make the whole place look unkept for everyone else.
And because we generally don't want to pick up after other peoples shit/mess things may be left trashy for a long time before anything gets cleaned.
There’s a surprising amount of vocabulary difference across Czech and Slovak, in addition to the pronunciation differences you mention. Pre-split everyone on both sides grew up hearing bilingual broadcasts, so they picked up the differences ambiently. I’ve heard that it’s a lot less of a given whether the younger generations presumptively understand each other these days. But I’ve also seen evidence that many still choose to engage with people / content / opportunities on the other side enough to get to solid working familiarity anyway.
This comes from limited first-hand experience and more extensive second-hand cross-generational experience. Take it as you will.
Slovak children usually grow up with Czech narrated cartoons, so they are able to understand Czech more easily. I heard that Czech children does not receive this language training for Slovak, so they have a harder time understanding Slovak language. I never "learned" Czech in school but I watched a lot of cartoons as a child (born '93) and read books in Czech so I have no problem understanding Czech language as a Slovak. I have a hard time understanding Polish though, never clicked for me.
I can confirm this is true. Czech republic is cca 2x the population size of Slovakia and its historically more developed part, so during one state union a lot of media were in czech language and it became our second language without thinking about it. Also Czechs did get a decent exposure to slovakian language.
But if there is no exposure, its becomes visible how grammar is very similar, but most words are just a bit different (very few are completely different), and pronunciation varies so much across whole region (even within given country) that its not easy or even possible to understand each other out of blue, without prior exposure.
I got some exposure to Polish TV during 80s, since commies couldn't put together more than 2-3 channels on TV and those were anyway pretty bland. I can cca understand it, but can't say a single sentence well enough. If I read polish text, I have to read it loud in my head and then I grok it easily, otherwise too much 'cz', 'w', words are too long etc and I lose meaning very quickly.
But in general Polish is a bit further away from either Slovak or Czech languages. We were and still are literal brothers (CZ and SK), extremely similar in so many regards, still see no good rational reason why we split up (of course I know real reasons, but those are nasty as are the people responsible for the split).
“I understand that you believe” …that questioning diagnostic clarity is associated with some nebulous conversational or clinical scenarios that make you uncomfortable. But sticking your head in the epistemological sand and chastising people for being “extremely insulting” (based on your own extrapolated associations with their position) is extremely …condescending argument-by-assertion.
I have skin in the game on this one and in my own experience sloppy diagnostics have caused way more suffering than stigma. I was nodding along with gp’s entire point. Your confidently dismissive chastisement is what feels out of line.
I don’t really disagree with you other than to say that if your issue is with my tone and not my point, I don’t really have anything to say. Nothing I’ve said has been far off and I am speaking from a lot of experience here as a former admin of multiple large private mental health support groups. These arguments are all very much the same, and serving a very specific subtle purpose that does not actually advance discussion on this topic, and that is to cast doubt onto people suffering whethering they are “actually” suffering from whatever and therefore, in this hypercapitalist healthcare system (speaking of the USA specifically here), whether or not it is “worthy” of care, especially in the eyes of doctors that should know, who frequently have a high amount of control in these situations wrt to what care you are deemed “worthy” to receive.
Thus the result of these situations is many people cannot afford (or even if they can, sometimes no) proper care necessary to them. Gatekeeping types of arguments like these do not make that better.
What Ive seen from these support communities like /r/Adhd is admins gatekeeping their interpretations with this guise of knowing whats best for everyone.
The admins there for example have decided that 1. The word "neurotypical" is banned, 2. One cannot say adhd isnt a disorder / adhd might have benefits. 3. Discussing negatives of medication seems to be removed
ADHD forums are notorious for this. I do not personally moderate this way. Everyone’s opinions should be valid if they respect others. No one’s problems are any more special than anyone else’s, and if someone is displaying that type of behavior, they probably don’t belong in a support group.
ADHD in particular is further complicated by the fact that there are many, many drug seekers that game the system and even fool themselves. Even worse these drug seekers have collectively done alot to create scarcity in a limited supply of a class of drugs that many people think they need to survive - (i am making no comment about the efficacy of
adhd meds) - so strong violent opinions are evoked (understandably). That is why these rules are in place. People simply cannot discuss the subject rationally. I do not try to involve myself in those communities, but many of the Autism spectrum disorder communities and depression support groups don’t suffer similar issues and people that try to gatekeep are promptly scolded. I do acknowledge adhd forums are a unique place for the reasons I mentioned above.
This gets to the quick of one half of the matter, and in another post you acknowledge the other half too -- the incentive that exists for healthy people to "game the system" (whether it be to get access to stimulants, or "just" sympathy).
I agree with almost everything you've written here, and have the same sympathies, except that I don't think it's legitimate to criticise the style of argument you criticise just because it's often used to subtly question whether people are "actually" suffering (and I agree that it is often used that way).
Why blame people skeptical of psychiatry for affordability issues when you could just blame big pharma? Wouldn't that actually make sense? The fact that you mention the former but not the latter makes you lose a lot of credibility
Or I guess, if you have skin in the game, it does make sense to criticize the people criticizing the game instead of the people perpetuating it
> in this hypercapitalist healthcare system (speaking of the USA specifically here), whether or not it is “worthy” of care
What's more hypercapitalist than this "ask your doctor" shit?
If I was a pharmaceutical company, it would be in my financial best interest to deem as many people eligible as possible. If I was an admin at some mental health thing somewhere, it would be in my financial best interest to make sure as many people buy into it as possible
I never advocated “ask your doctor shit”, whatever that means, and I think you have severely misunderstood the post you are responding to.
Regarding big pharma, they are certainly to blame, but you don’t really see similar types of discussions regarding purely physical ailments like cancer.
As I said in my comments I am approaching this as a moderator for mental health groups where this type of discussion frequently arises and to point out a line of reasoning I frequently have to deal with.
There's plenty of skepticism of corporate influence in health care. I am skeptical of anything where money is involved.
Cancer is an extreme example here because being 1. Based on hard physical evidence and 2. having a huge liability for misdiagnosis, doctors/hospitals would be in huge trouble if they diagnosed you with cancer and gave you chemo when you did not have it. This serves as a check against pharmaceutical interests.
Mental diagnoses/treatment on the other hand is mostly done in independent offices, private practices, and in prisons/institutions on committed people, and it carries very little risk if misdiagnosed. With adhd its even worse, because its often a diagnosis a patient seeks.
I really don't understand where you're coming from. It seems you don't want people to criticize psychiatry because it makes some people feel bad not having the validation of these disorders being a totally legit, agreed upon science?
I think that's taking the completely wrong angle, like I said I am diagnosed and I don't feel bad about it one bit despite all my opinions here.
