PuppyTailWags

This refers to this paper: "Socioeconomic roots of academic faculty" https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-022-01425-4

I'm just saying that "well everyone I met who is vegan looks sick" is shoddy reasoning to proclaim eating meat is the healthy behavior. That's it. I already clearly said I have no opinion on veganism itself, nor am I pestering you with a claim that any one diet is healthy.

I think it's important, as people who eat meat, to fully acknowledge the deep and societal harms that meat causes. It is well-studied that slaughterhouses are uniquely bad for a community and uniquely bad for the people who work there. Meat as a food can sometimes be bad for people, but meat as an industry is definitely bad for people. Knowing this can allow us to make more responsible choices even if we still end up eating meat, such as selecting for small, ethical farmers that also limit the trauma of themselves/those who do the slaughtering of their stock.

> In fact the amount of vegans I've met in life who didn't look like they were suffering from some illness has been very rare, only solidifying my position on this.

I would push against this sort of anecdotal view. The circle of people we eat with (and therefore know the dietary restrictions of) tend to be quite low compared to all the people we meet with on a day to day. Additionally, "looking sick" is a vague enough assessment that simply knowing someone is a vegan may very easily cause you to be much more critical of their appearance, and vice versa you may see someone who looks sick to you and then pay more attention to their dietary habits than you ordinarily would. Another thing to note is that all dietary restriction lifestyles is subject to a noticeably higher rate of disordered eating or intestinal issue that leads to the person participating in the dietary change and therefore it may be important to first determine if the disordered eating or gut issue caused veganism vs the other way around.

That is to say: even though I am neutral towards veganism itself, your logic as to why meat is good reads to me as quite flawed and poorly reasoned around.

> Enough to have kids at age 18-20, and help their kids raise their own for 2-5 years when they reached that same age. Evolution didn't equip us to live much longer than that.

Huh? Humans can live upwards of 3 generations worth of humans. It's not uncommon for humans to remain functional enough to raise their grandchildren!

I'm always curious: what is the effect of noise on the noise producers? As much as I have a disdain for leafblowers, and as much as I absolutely despise people who play bass-heavy music at night, why don't they suffer the same ill effects and heart issues as the people they subject noise to?

An important but gentle pushback against things like this (tracking how much time you "have left"): if stuff like this isn't helping you, it isn't worth the reminder either. For some people the scarcity mindset is a motivating factor, for others it's a paralyzing one and for the latter I would encourage to consider this sort of conversation utterly meaningless and therefore wholly dismissable, not even worth the time in clicks.

This is assuming that more opportunities are being created in certain roles... Unfortunately there aren't being more house representatives, senators, etc. Professorships are increasingly rare. While you can argue that, roundaboutly, boomer executives and boomer equity owners (e.g. partners in law offices) can invest in more companies that will create new executive rooms and new partnership positions, the reality is we are actually seeing more and more corporate mergers which means less positions for upwards mobility.

Sorry, I don't mean to blame the author of the blog post. If anything I'd like to know why their friends didn't step in for them, nor that they never came across the potential long-term consequences in even a casual research step prior to taking LSD. I'm wondering if the hallucinogen community isn't upfront enough about not taking hallucinogens under certain circumstances and that's something we can glean from this anecdote.

Yes; I think someone claiming a drug helped them is also a useful anecdote. I do think HN as a community tends to weigh positive anecdotes more than negative ones [when it comes to hallucinogens], and wanted to point out that this particular negative anecdote suggests there exists at least some amount of greater or more systemic concerns about how such an experience came about to begin with.

I think it's useful to consider this blog post as an anecdotal experience of someone who had a significant, traumatic experience with LSD for which they were entirely socially unprepared for even when those those experiences seemed to be known among those who take LSD (no one expressed surprise or confusion at their condition in their group). There is plenty of questions to ask here: why didn't this person's friends refuse to give them LSD, given their previous experience with shrooms? Why was this person so blindsided by HPPD? What is going on in the cultural millieu of hallucinogenic drugs where someone can have a bad experience with one hallucinogen and then, knowing this, willingly take even more without seriously being warned against by friends or online resources?

Seriously, if I had a friend who couldn't handle alcohol, I would stop drinking with them and I would certainly refuse to take harder stuff with them. When I first had anxiety from smoking weed, my friends promptly told me weed is probably just not a drug for me to take and to take lower doses or to abstain from it entirely in the future-- and anxiety was a well-known (to me) possible consequence from weed.

I think using an example of {x} where x is an academic subject matter, and the complaint was that it was used in an academic setting, and is used as an example of a bad behavior involving academic institutions, it's worth inquiring if that example is valid! If I presented a mathematical proof in a math paper in a math journal, my proof being incorrect is kind of a big deal.

> I don’t care what CRT is academically

Wut? Aren't you explicitly talking about an academic context? Wouldn't that matter a heck of a lot what class your brother was getting taught? Like, hypothetically I can disagree with feminism but I'm just being stupid if I go to a feminism 101 class and get mad the professor is teaching feminist theories.

The opportunity cost is still likely 100k/yr for the rest of your life, even with the FAANG salary to assistant professors.

consider this: You can be a new grad, get hired at Apple, and earn an entry-level salary[0]. Let's say we won't include the bonus and you get 130k/yr. You colleague is a new grad and goes to a PhD program at Duke University[1] where they earn 33k/yr.

In your first year, your PhD program colleague earns 97k less than you.

From years 1-3, your average base pay will be 138k, and your PhD colleague earns the same wage. They now earn 105k less than you for each of those years. Your colleague is in the hole over 400k opportunity wise.

In your 4th and 5th year, you can expect to earn 141k on average. Your colleague, still making 33k/yr, is now making 108k/yr less than you. At the end of 5 years, your colleague has completed their PhD and is in the hole over 600k in opportunity cost.

Now your colleague gets an associate professorship position. This assumes your colleague is extremely lucky and does not go into a post-doc. They earn 115k [2] base at NYU. In your 6th year at apple you're still making that 141k. You're still out-earning them by 26k. Your colleague is on the tenure track, which can take 6 or 7 years. [3]. All that time you're getting more and more YoE, while their pay band stays relatively the same during this time. Let's say the opportunity cost is 26k over 6 years, so an additional 156k to their over 600k.

At full professorship at NYU, your colleague is earning 162k [4] after 5 years PhD + 6 years tenure track. You, an Apple engineer (probably senior at this point), with 11 YoE are earning 165k/yr [5] at this point. Your colleague has cost themselves 750k in opportunity cost, and you're still earning a bit more than them! A full professor may never catch up to the opportunity cost of academic track, salary wise.

tl;dr: EVEN IF you get paid 160k base as a full professor, your years of phd + tenure track associate professor salary will mean you will likely never, ever catch up with someone who new-graded at a FAANG and never left that circle.

0. https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Apple-Software-Engineer-New... 1. https://gradschool.duke.edu/financial-support/tuition-fees-a... 2. https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/NYU-New-York-University-Ass... 3. https://www.beyondphdcoaching.com/academic-career/how-long-d... 4. https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/NYU-New-York-University-Pro... 5. https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Apple-Senior-Software-Engin...

Please re-read my post that I said from China specifically. Gyokuro, a green tea primarily of japanese make and style, does not apply to what I said. I'm thinking of gan lu or mao jian style teas.

I would disagree but only, specifically, academia's already broken system. Tenure takes the heat off an academic such that they can deeply, deeply study a system. Academia's still stuck in lines-of-code style measuring sticks of performance so the rush to tenure is often pumping out salami slices worth of papers to secure future funds.

It depends on the green, though. Good-quality green tea from China can often withstand higher temperatures or long brewing, to the point where it's normal to just pinch some tea in a mug and refill with hot water throughout the day.

> we need professors who avoid politics entirely but strongly encourage their students to vote, then educate them such that we repeal the bullshit drug laws Nixon passed back during Vietnam as a way to coerce those who wouldn't fight in that travesty.

I don't understand, because encouraging students to vote and educating them to be anti-strict drug law are both political positions.

I think America is too vast and diverse to be described that way. Your description doesn't at all describe the no-gaudiness humble-behavior expected in most white, mid-western communities. Utilitarian individualism doesn't at all describe the vast swarth of America's most religious peoples. E.g. The Amish, the Johovah's Witness, Fundamentalists, Mormons, etc.

I think the idea of compromise rarely survives actual scrutiny when it comes to specific values. I don't know what a compromise on the death penalty is to an anti-death penalty stance. I don't know what a compromise on abortion is to an "abortion is murder" stance. Even if I fully understand with and sympathize with someone I disagree with, I may not be at all willing to budge from specific positions I've taken because I believe there is no acceptable compromise. (e.g. I don't think I could budge from being against sex trafficking.)

> the post-apocalyptical dystopia where teenagers are being oppressed by old people and the teenagers have to overturn the old ruling class

I don't think this is a Last Decade thing... This describes Evangelion quite well, and evangelion is way older than a decade. Wolf's Rain is literally a bunch of teenagers (who are also wolves) remaking the world in the post apocalypse, also older than a decade. Arguably this is also full metal alchemist.

Inquiry: small class sizes doesn't work? Could you show me sources/papers/studies/etc? It's is unintuitive, so I'd like to be educated on the factors at play here.

I'm not writing a several thousand word essay about the best friend who murdered his fiance in a psychotic episode as an example of how psychotic patients should be forcibly institutionalized. I'm merely pointing out the essay doesn't address that institutionalization may make them worse because there isn't enough oversight to ensure the institutions are giving quality healthcare.

Question: if a non-psychotic psychiatric patient cannot be trusted to perform first-hand accounts of their own abuse, and psychiatric wards are tightly controlled such that lawyers and patient advocates can only be allowed in when deemed reasonable by the hospital, how does a sexually assaulted patient navigate reporting their abuse?

Believing that all patients, regardless of their exact illness, cannot be trusted to accurately describe abuse done to them is precisely what enables abuse in the first place. Suicidal thoughts is not a condition where you cannot tell if you're being taken out of bed in the middle of sleep. Suicidal thoughts is not a condition where you cannot understand someone is threatening you.

You might benefit from looking at personal experiences of what a psych ward is like. There's a furry comic called Fresh Meat about the partially fictionalized experiences of a teenaged girl in for attempted suicide, where one of the beginning sections she is forced out of bed from a dead sleep in order to be transferred to another ward by being shoved out of bed and then when she's asked not to be touched the nurse tells her there's much worse that can be done to her besides touching. She is also withheld food and water until she signs a consent form that allows her to be kept indefinitely, but also she cannot leave the facility on her own will because she's in a psychiatric hold.

But I never agreed with impeding the forceful solution. I merely said I find it sympathetic and understandable to do so. You're misunderstanding me in the exact way where I think I'm in some crazy land where I think everyone is acting sympathetically but no one else seems to be capable of believing this. I firmly understand the absolute need for the community to try and protect its housed people, but I also acknowledge the very same community is doing so because it has no protection for its unhoused people.

Counter anecdote: my personal experience is that the site is less entertaining. I've encountered technical bugs more, such as replies not loading without refreshing multiple times. The "for you" page doesn't show me anything I want to see. The checkmark thing remains super confusing to me. The quality of the ads I've been served have noticeably decreased/gotten more skuzzy.

You see I feel like I'm some bizarre moderate where I can understand both the people who want Echo park cleared and also the people who are protesting the clearing of Echo park. It's not safe for the rest of the community for them to be there, but neither has the community provided any reasonable other option for them! I've heard of stories where people have tried to get housing only to be told they wouldn't be allowed unless they got rid of their PTSD-specific service animal or some other nonsense that is most definitely illegal but they're fucking homeless dude, where are they going to get any legal rep or otherwise to fight it? But at the same time they literally shouldn't be allowed to collectively endanger the community by accosting others or anything like that. It's a bad situation all around and I think I'm living some kind of crazy town where I sympathize with everyone and think there should be a solution that benefits all parties.

> I know "Free Britney!" is all the rage, but the Court does not order conservatorships lightly.

This is an assumption, and there's very limited oversight to this. That's the problem. The reason with Brittney was originally freed was that it was found she was inappropriately in conservatorship for years longer than she needed to be, and that all of the parties that should've been advocating for her were actually paid for by her estate through her parents, effectively making it so that anyone who advocated too hard for her wellbeing was eliminated from her circle. It's unknown how many more people are in this situation and, perhaps worse, we don't even know how many conservatorships exist!

I never said anything at all to disagree with what you said. People who are mentally unstable should be treated as if they're undergoing a health crisis like diabetic shock or sepsis or something like this. I am merely pointing out that the article has a major blindspot that weakens it, in that it doesn't adequately acknowledge that the healthcare system might actually be causing more harm to already unstable people due to the medical staff abusing them, and there needs to be additional guardrails or something similar to prevent further harm.