Ya, I'm curious about this as well. I'm not a morning person, and certainly am always just-scraping-by until about 1 pm. But is this some mild autism? Or is this just how I am? Or is there even a sensible distinction between those two phrases?
Everyone seems to self-diagnose as slightly autistic these days. “I’ve noticed that I have personal quirks. Must be autism. Couldn’t be that everyone has their own personal stuff to deal with.”
I think this is maybe related to imposter syndrome. “There are people who can easily do this thing that I struggle with. Maybe I’m not qualified./Maybe I’m autistic.”. This thought process assumes others aren’t struggling and also tends to look to those who excel rather than the average so it’s biased anyway.
Ya, I tend to agree. In fact, even if I _do_ have something, I think I'd rather not know. Whatever it is, it isn't too severe, so a diagnosis would mostly be helpful for getting medication. I have my own coping strategies and am able to navigate through life pretty much like everyone else, imperfectly but still making it. Having a diagnosis would not help me in this situation. I know some people feel that having a diagnosis can make a difference, and perhaps it is more important if you have something in an extreme form. But idk if I have something, and even if I do, I don't think the label would help me
> “I’ve noticed that I have personal quirks. Must be autism. Couldn’t be that everyone has their own personal stuff to deal with.”
I would love to live in a society in which everyone is allowed to have personal quirks and their own personal stuff to deal with without being judged for it and without needing a label like “autism” to excuse it.
"If it doesn't have a tail it's not a monkey, even if it has a monkey-kind-of shape. It if doesn't have a tail it's not a monkey; if it doesn't have a tail it's not a monkey: it's an ape."
Do I understand correctly that you don’t believe in dinosaurs? If so that’s super interesting! Can you say more about what you believe? What do you think of fossils?
Likely a dumb troll, but there are some fundamental Christians that believe the world is 6k years old and Satan put fossils into the world to make you question your faith.
Where "some" is, according to polling data, actually a crazy large amount of Americans.
>“Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals.” About 46% of the American public consistently agree with that option, about the same number who back the middle option in Gallup’s surveys.
If you let the question trigger the right religion call and response, 44% of americans choose to say that god created humans as they are now sometime within the past 10k years.
If you get esoteric to try and lean on how crazy the real fundies get, you ask people about continental drift. 10% of Americans outright deny continental drift being a process that occurs over millions of years.
30 million Americans is the lower bound to the amount of people who hold outright insanely false views on reality expressly for religious reasons. These are people who are desperately looking for reasons to believe that all of modern science is a conspiracy meant to keep them docile or unbelieving or some bullshit or other, and think science as an institution has been perverting the world for, uh, satan.
I was (previously) one of the fundamental Christians who didn't believe in evolution, but I certainly never doubted that dinosaurs were real. I think "dinosaurs weren't real" is incredibly niche, I don't know anyone personally that believes that, even though I know people that believe in flat earth, lizard people, etc. Definitely plenty of weirdness in the fundamental Christian groups, but I think "dinosaurs never existed" is weird even for that. For example, many (most?) fundamental Christians believe the leviathan is a type of dinosaur, so it would be weird to doubt they ever existed.
But I do still agree with your main point -- fundamentalist religions encourage the kind of belief that persists _in spite of_ evidence, leading to some very strange (and sometimes dangerous) beliefs.
fwiw, here are some interesting and mostly-harmless beliefs that my "cohort" held
- Men have one less rib than women
- Noah's ark is still somewhere on Mt. Ararat, we just haven't found it yet
- If you dredge up the Red Sea, you'll find Egyptian chariots from when they chased the Jewish people fleeing Egypt. Evidence to the contrary be damned!
- Pokemon, DnD, and Harry Potter have real-world evil power. We were not allowed to read / play / watch these things as kids. But LOTR and Chronicles of Narnia are ok, because the authors were Christian, and the stories are basically the Bible in a trenchcoat.
- All languages departed from a single common tongue around 6k years ago, near Babylon
- The first humans lived _super long_, like 300+ years. It's only recently that lifespan is reduced to the sub-100 range. There was serious discussion that this effect is because there was a layer of water high in the atmosphere that was drained during Noah's flood (ie, the "waters above"). With that protective layer drained, human lifespans were cut short. I guess the implication is that the sun's rays are somehow super damaging in all sorts of nefarious ways? Just don't think about it too hard lol
I'm not an expert in the space, but I'm guessing that graphics cards have only been a non-thin-margin-business for like 5 years. If that's true, the Joel's prediction about graphics cards may even still turn out true on net -- it could still go back and stabilize at low-margin.
That said, I think your overall point isn't affected by my idea. Even a great mind can be wrong occasionally. He doesn't have to be right every time.
Thanks for the summary! I haven’t read tfa yet, so my apologies if this is answered in there, but: does this mean that we’ve already reduced the contribution from cholesterol to events? Or that cholesterol was simply associated and not causative? I imagine the truth is somewhere in between, perhaps we can guess that’s it’s 70% due to one and 30% due to the other?
It's more the former -- we've gotten so good at detecting high cholesterol and reducing it, that the majority of residual risk is now in the other factors.
(There are some people who dispute whether cholesterol is causative, but most cardiologists believe LDL cholesterol, or ApoB, causes heart attacks and strokes --based on both mechanistic evidence and randomized control trials.)
2. Having now read the article, i see that my question was indeed already addressed in the article — sorry for asking silly questions
3. Your good-natured, approachable response is great marketing for your company! I’m not the target audience, but I did click through your marketing material, and probably trust it more because of your response.
To be fair, there are many things which are enjoyable and have very low hazard, or perhaps even positive effects. Exercising and socializing with friends are the ones that most stick out to me.
I’ve seen this (“most successful businesses start in their 40s”) a couple times, but I always wonder if the people who start a successful business succeed in their 40s _because_ they’ve been trying since their 20s, and learned a bunch on the way. And if the secret isn’t some combination of business experience/connections/etc, then what is it about being 40+ that would make one intrinsically better at starting a business?
What's the difference? The message is "keep trying and don't give up just because you're 40". It's fairly dubious to say "You can feel free to start a new hobby/business at 40 and expect to succeed quickly", but it's in line with this thread to say "If you haven't felt the success you want by 40, it's ok, greatness comes as often as not after".
Ya, i think “keep trying” is absolutely the right message! But some people will read the statistic and say “i shouldn’t start yet!” — just trying to argue against that.
I'm not so crazy about "keep trying". I tried at my business for long after it was obvious to everyone that I should have quit. I wasted well over a decade of my life, and I learned no lessons other than "don't". But they won't be writing articles about me.
As the poster says, "Winners never quit and quitters never win. But those who don't win and don't quit are idiots." This idiot affirms that advice.
You're not incorrect, but this is the same sort of risk you take when buying an index fund, just that index funds have 100x more entries, so are much more diversified. Eg, we could rewrite this about an index fund like:
"Yeah, but imagine how bad a day you're having if all of those [stocks drop] at once, and then as a cherry on top you [enter a recession]."
I'm not saying this is exactly like buying an index fund. I'm very un-knowledgable about CAT bonds. I'm just saying that your criticism holds for _every_ diversified bundle of risks.
I was curious how much I would have to click around to reach some strange hallucinations. It turns out it didn't take long! This page on Entity‑relationship model has the following line [1]:
"Tools such as Oracle Designer, Microsoft Visio, and open‑source platforms generate ER diagrams to aid developers in visualizing schema structures and ensuring Sean Goedecke."
I love the idea of "ensuring Sean Goedecke", and that developers are actively working to do so, lol! Something something John Connor something something
The writer is clearly a good, loving parent, but this stuck out to me:
> It took weeks of careful discussion before she would try a combination of antibiotics. We didn’t yet tell her these antibiotics make some patients feel sicker.
Shouldn’t she be told the possible risks of her medication? If she was 7 i would understand, but I think she’s like 14 at this point? I guess it may be hard to determine when people can own their health decisions. But I’m upset when kids aren’t treated as “real people”, i remember being ignored because I was just a kid. I suspect that by high school almost everyone should be informed about their health decisions.
Informed, yes. Allowed to make critical choices as children? No.
I'm with you, people act like children don't exist when they're talking about serious matters. But you do have to remember that they lack critical reasoning (partly) and make bad choices based on hormones. Walking the line between autonomy and protection is very very very difficult as a parent. Most people struggle or fail at this, I believe.
We have to trust that parents generally make the best decisions they can for their kids. Society has gone too far towards prescribing what a parent must or must not do. We’re in a world now where in many places a parent can’t let their kids walk to school by themselves, or can’t let them sit in a car for 5 minutes while they run into a store to pick something up. Sometimes it is better for a parent to shield a child from something that would scare them, and it should be up to the parent to decide where that line is.
> or can’t let them sit in a car for 5 minutes while they run into a store to pick something up
Unfortunately, you get headlines like "child / dog died or sustained serious injury because they were forgotten in a car" pretty damn frequently, and the frequency is increasing.
The reasons are manifold IMHO. For one, way more people are always on edge, working multiple jobs and highly stressed, which makes errors and mistakes much more likely. Then you got the "working homeless" crowd that just can't afford housing any more, and yes, way too often that includes children. And then, cars have gotten smarter and "safer" as well. Your old 90s era car likely still had manual window rolls and door locks. At least a child can be guided to open the door from the inside or can operate the window roller. Modern cars have electric window lifters that don't work without at least the basic car systems started, and (too many) parents disable the interior door unlocks on the rear doors.
According to this link https://www.kidsandcars.org/document_center/download/hot-car... (and I’m guessing any bias would be to overcount given the goals of the organization), 1125 kids have died in this way since 1990. That sounds like a lot, but compared to the hundreds of millions of people in the US, it’s vanishingly small.
Regulating this way leads to a straitjacket society where we are not allowed to take any risks whatsoever, no matter how minuscule. We’re not banning kids from being around kitchens, stairs or bicycles, which all present greater danger. Meanwhile, we are creating an environment where kids can only venture outside the home in highly regulated and supervised situations and wondering why things like social anxiety are rising off the charts.
If we wanted cars to be capable of letting kids out, car manufacturers would have to do it, much like they have to avoid creating all the other dangerous situations a car can create. The question is “should parents be given discretion to parent their kids”, saying no because car windows don’t roll down isn’t really engaging with that.
It's always the same in the end - the thing with a low-trust society vs a high-trust society.
When an ever increasing part of the population is cognitively impaired, (massively) under-educated themselves and/or doesn't have the time and money to properly take care of their children, a lot of implicit and explicit assumptions just go straight out of the window. The fact that car dependency and car centrism makes a whole lot of other assumptions (like, that you can let your child outside unattended because nothing will happen to them) go away as well doesn't help either.
And lawmakers and executive agencies like CPS? They only see that "numbers go up" or get blasted for high-profile cases where the shit really hit the fan, but as addressing the root causes goes far out of their scope (both legal and financial), each uses the tools at their disposal to try and keep up.
I don’t know if it’s quite a trust issue. Maybe it’s more a low- v high- responsibility society. It seems more like people want responsibility removed from people and given to the government. In my experience people become more competent when they have responsibility, so the removal of responsibility seems (to me at least) like it will train people into incompetence.
Well, European countries have (more or less) strong governments and strict regulations, but as a result of these, our children mostly can walk to their schools, and they certainly don't have to fear school shootings.
You’ve dodged the difficult question (“how to respect kids’ medical rights”) by presenting an elegant solution (“it’s always up to the parents, what they say goes” — I’m doing my best to paraphrase faithfully here). I _love_ elegant solutions to difficult problems, so your solution appeals to me! However, if you look at it more closely i think you’ll see that the elegant solution doesn’t work well enough in this case. Consider the following examples:
- what if the parents had decided that Molly should only receive treatment from their shaman healer? Should this decision be allowed?
- some parents don’t want their kids to be vaccinated. Should they be allowed to make this decision?
- some parents may want a sex change for their 1 year old, because it’s more fashionable to have a baby boy/girl/etc. Setting aside legal restrictions that presently exist, should this be allowed?
I bet you’d object to some of the above, as would I. Reasonable people can disagree over exactly what rights kids should have, how they are enforced, how they change with age, etc. Nobody will ever be fully happy with the laws we enact. But a solution which tries to be good is imo better than saying “anything goes, as long as the parents consent”.
To be honest I suspect that you never believed “ anything goes, as long as the parents consent”. I suspect your view is perhaps more like “parents can decide whether to accept novel treatments for children with life-limiting chronic illness”. Is that maybe closer to your view?
reply