It’s like a punch in the face. We bought 2 bottles, passed one around on my wedding night and most people hated it, it’s so strong, we didn’t even finish it. I ended up giving that one to a buddy, and I still have the other bottle, but I haven’t found a reason to crack it open yet.
I love Tom Cruise. The man is an amazing, committed actor. He doesn’t need flashy CGI or visual effects and he does insane stunts for our entertainment. Too bad he’s a fucking nutjob.
The problem with psychiatry is that it’s expected to have quick fixes like other schools of medicine. Often the conditions are chronic and the treatment is long term at best which makes it slow and expensive. Drugs can help in the short term but they’re often not able to be replaced by correct treatment due to funding.
I’m not an expert by any means but just happen to have some knowledge on the subject.
It really depends on the condition, how severe it is and if there are any compounding issues. Take something like depression as an example. In my country, UK, you’ll often end up on antidepressants, and get a referral to a specialist if you’re lucky. The specialist likely won’t have the funding or at least a huge backlog of patients to work through so they’ll be trying to get you out on your own as soon a possible, which means getting you to ‘good enough’. As a result you’ll likely remain on antidepressants when continued therapy would be much more beneficial and could take you off the medication. Drugs are cheap but time with a therapist is not.
It’s a statistical science. While other branches can be all like “splitting atoms will definitely give you an energetic reaction” psychology is like "this helps in 60% of cases so we’re gonna try it on you ".
To be fair here, technically throwing neutrons at matter has only some probability of causing it to fission, and statistics tells us how many do. It’s just that there are so many more neutrons and nuclei than there are people, so we can say with statistical confidence that under such and such conditions, y will occur when x happens.
Not that different. Just more samples and observations.
My mum has a severe bad back and she had to go on a fortnight physio retreat thing. There were a couple of people there that had a mild back problem, went to a chiropractor and ended up with severe chronic pain. Ill never forget that and have never been to one because I don’t see it as worth the risk
John Lennon was pure asshole. He abused his first wife, who he only married because his manager didn’t want one of these new starts to father and illegitimate child. And that child, he tormented and ignored. Second wife, second child, both wanted and given everything.
Not saying he’s a saint, but isn’t an alternative interpretation that he was young, inexperienced, and had a bad relationship, then grew up, learned some things, and had a better relationship later? Julian Lennon was on Bill Maher’s podcast recently and described a reconciliation between him and his dad right before he died.
Again, not trying to excuse all his bad behavior in his first marriage, but I also don’t think that a failed relationship is enough evidence to judge a whole life by, especially one that was under extraordinary pressure.
Iirc, while Beatles management did encourage Lennon and Cynthia Powell to get married, they were instructed to keep the marriage and child private for a
period of time. They were trying to lean into the “boy band” desirability, and they must have figured a married father isn’t someone young women feel comfortable pining over. Of course, Cynthia and Julian didn’t stay a secret forever though.
He himself admitted he was an abuser of people in his life. Both male and female. Sure, people see that as him atoning for those past abuses. But it is clear he wasn’t this nice person people think of when they think of his anti-war and peace stance in life.
Robert Heinlein. His works were all over the place, and it would be a mistake to assume that he believed in something just because he wrote it in a fiction novel, so on that front I think he gets a fair amount of undeserved heat. He was pushing the limits of progressivism for his time, tossing out and seemingly defending everything on all sides from fascism to anarchy to direct democracy.
If we discount his fiction, though, since it can be hard to tell from that what he actually believed, then he still falls pretty short by modern standards. A homophobe, almost certainly racist, and although he was practically a feminist by the standards of his time I would have to admit that he’s pretty misogynistic by our standards.
I wish this was more talked about, when people mention classic sci-fi. I’m an avid SF reader, particularly older stuff, and it could almost be a drinking game of how few pages it’ll take before you find an offensively outdated reference, no matter how great the book. But every time I’ve picked up a Heinlein, hoping to find more positive points in classic stuff, I’m left just…feeling ooky. An easy example being the lesser known Friday, with the “happy” part of the extremely unrealistic female protagonist’s journey: marrying one of her gang-rapists. I haven’t been able to make a dent in my stack of Heinlein’s since that nonsense. Too many other great and interesting authors that weren’t horrid shitbags.
Woodford Reserve. They make a Double Oaked you can find in most liquor stores. I’d try that first, but I don’t think they taste all that similar. The double double is much oakier in flavor, but the nose is similarly pleasant.
That simulation, so to appear believable from the inside, would have to be based on the real universe, or would look to simplistic//trivial from the outside. So, this pushes the question to a more complex situation, but doesn’t seem to help to resolve it. Right ?
That simulation, so to appear believable from the inside, would have to be based on the real universe,
Would it? What if the real universe is nothing like the simulation? Couldn’t a completely unknown species have created the simulation and just imagined a fantasy world inhabited by strange little creatures called humans?
From my viewpoint it is very difficult to imagine an alternate universe encompassing cosmological observables widely different from ours which would lead to such deep scientific theories and controversies as we have inside of it. On the other hand if there was such a complex and rich universe, where all this would be trivial to imagine//make//simulate, then, making it would not seem to be worth a simulation. Finally, this simulated universe theory was often cited for the purpose of some advance archaeological work (implying fidelity to the original). So, I am not saying your hypothesis is impossible, only I view it as improbable.
On the other hand if there was such a complex and rich universe, where all this would be trivial to imagine//make//simulate, then, making it would not seem to be worth a simulation.
I don’t get this, are you saying that if it’s so simple to do, why would anyone do it?
I don’t understand that conclusion at all.
Think of this scenario: an alien race had no concept of “Art” and they found a child’s scribbles. It’s completely blowing their mind because nobody had ever thought of doing that. Some other alien hearts about it and doesn’t believe it because, “if it was so easy for them to make Art, why would one waste good talents on scribbles?”
What if designing simulated universes is just something kids do for science projects, and we are the result of the imagination of a particularly demented one?
Still possible, but now I will just say that I don’t like it. Maybe you wouldn’t like it yourself. Oh yes, there is also Occam’s rasor saying the simplest explanation, etc…
asklemmy
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.