cc81

Do you think they are more similar to the Holocaust than the US internment camps?

I'm not defending China at all, they have tons of shitty policies. I'm just saying it is nothing like the holocaust and it is pretty absurd when people do those kind of comparisons. It reminds me of just before the Iraq invasion when the propaganda was at it's highest (Freedom fries and Dixie Chicks).

If I again compare with the US as an example even if people don't like that. You have had many hundred if not thousands of suicide bombers that have stated that they sacrifice their life to strike against targets because of US imperialistic ways. Imagine the circumstances that lead to that.

Like how the world dealt with the US after Snowden's reveals?

It is also difficult to assess because as someone with a chronic illness I also know that there a lot of people who think they are more knowledgeable than doctors while they in reality most likely are overestimating single studies or don't have the full picture.

Teams has some UI issues (please make the chat more compact) but they have a pretty powerful tool for normal users who are already in the Office landscape.

The fact that you can create a group with some channels, add your files there and edit them together, have a wiki, have a (not very good) kanban board etc. makes it a pretty complete experience. Some of the tools they release needs more polish and some tools are by themselves much worse than stand alone competitors but having everything in one is pretty nice.

There are many ways to implement "safe environments". I'm a person who easily speaks up and is pretty assertive but back when I worked in Scrum I really liked the retrospectives where people first silently wrote down their thoughts on post its, then each and everyone went and put them up; explaining what it meant. During this you were not allowed to disagree with but you could ask for clarification. Then you would vote on what seemed most important and go into deeper discussions.

I always felt that those sessions were more productive than just going around the table or people just speaking up.

Some colleagues you spend a lot of time with and and there is still a bond even if you are not real friends that would spend time together outside of work.

Sometimes my colleague needs to went about a project that is going bad or a person that is making their life difficult and sometimes I might do that as well. You listen and sometimes you discuss solutions but sometimes it just venting about a situation you both know is shitty.

Just don't become they guy/girl who is always negative or talking shit about people though.

It is for both but rehabilitation and punishment. But in this case I do agree but let us say he had panicked shot and killed someone during that robbery.

Even though he would have lived his life the same most people would probably feel uneasy about a completely suspended prison sentence even if the man and his actions afterwards might have been exactly the same and that he would be no smaller risk to society after going to prison, possibly the opposite.

But we (or I at least) would not feel it was not fair unless he was punished by prison.

>Not only is your advice based on assumptions that do not hold ("it will usually work out better", "enjoying the serotonin", "brain will be back on topic") but it's actively dangerous since it introduces non-deterministic outside inputs that experienced psychonauts _all agree_ can be devastatingly hard to deal with.

Except that is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that you should be in a set and setting that you are really comfortable with. I.e. a lot of people love watching sitcoms for example and feel very comfortable doing that. Their mind will react very predictable because the set and setting is insanely familiar. It will guide your mind through a very predictable trip.

Trying to meditate when you are not used to it when doing psychedelics for the first time? That is a non-predictable setting and then when people start worry because they feel bad they are also thinking about why their parents never really hugged them and start spiraling.

I would say bad trips are pretty rare in practice but I would say almost all I have noticed among people or people have written about have been:

Chaotic outside influence like people behaving badly, them being in an unfamiliar environment or becoming scared because they feel ill.

or

People in perfectly fine settings sitting down and start spiraling because they suddenly think they are not doing well in life, are not liked or whatever. That usually starts by them seeking depth or thinking about things to get more out of a trip. Which is perfectly fine but it is not the best way to avoid a bad trip.

>Doing psychedelics at a party is playing russian roulette with your sanity, fullstop.

I did not say that you should do psychedelics at a party even if I think that roughly the same case of bad trips as trying to "be deep" when tripping.

No, listen to what I am saying. I'm saying that the person should be in a place and state of mind where they are as safe and comfortable as possible.

For most people that is NOT being alone with their own thoughts while listening to music they usually do not listen to. If you usually meditate and listen to ambient music, go a head and try it. If you never do that then do something you are comfortable with, if you love watching old episodes of The Office you will love it even more and be even happier if tripping. You will not have a bad trip and if you start to feel uneasy you will snap out of it easily.

Because your state of mind is where you want it to be and you are where you are comfortable, watching a for example a tv-show.

"You won't learn"? Learn what?

That is just elitist talk about thinking there is a correct way to use those drugs. "Abusing drugs" while listening to calm music is not better than "abusing drugs" while watching a funny movie. There is no higher purpose and there is so much myth around these drugs that people say to make themselves feel good.

The best way to ensure a good trip is to be comfortable yes but to be alone with your thoughts listening to some calming music that they usually not listen to is not comfortable for a lot of people. That is how people end up thinking they must think about rough stuff, end up in negative thought loops and as they are not used to the drug it scares them and they cannot easily get out.

If they instead focus on just enjoying the serotonin and fun visuals while doing something that you almost certainly know you will love it will usually work out better. That could be watching a movie, listening to music they love, chat about fun memories, watch a tv-show that they have seen tons of time before but always gives them comfort.

If they then become uncomfortable their brain will be back on topic quickly because they are doing something that love. Meditation and shit like that can come later when they know how a trip is, know it will end, know how it can feel in their body and mind.

There are no proven benefits to micro dosing LSD either. But it is easier I guess.

There is a lot of what I feel is rose colored glasses when it comes to psychedelics and that people think they must have had some breakthrough or being able to think differently is just good for them.

I'm not going to argue that some people are not helped and I think there is a lot of interesting research.

But there seems to be a lot of people who think there must be some deeper meaning when you use psychedelics so they sit down and try and think about negative things to work them through, get stressed out and starting to spiral in a negative thought loop that is not really based in reality (like "my friends do not really like me, I suck").

Then they have a horrible trip and really did not learn from it because, your brain is often pretty stupid on psychedelics, but frame it as a positive experience on forums. It would be like people not handling alcohol saying "Yeah, sure I really went crazy and fought my dad, destroyed my car and ended up crying in a bush, but I really learned something about myself". No, the drugs made your brain think in a shitty way.

Maybe I'm just cynical but I'd say don't try to get deep with psychedelics until you are really used to them. Have fun and do the "abusing party drugs" part or watch a funny movie instead.

>AIPAC would pull all their campaign funding from the Repubs or Dems (whichever party's lackey did it) and they'd never get elected again.

This is a pretty interesting comment because AIPAC does not even contribute directly to any candidates but it is the center of MANY conspiracy theories. I'm not going to downplay the lobbying but let us actually look at the numbers, first individuals:

>Though AIPAC as an organization cannot contribute to campaigns, individuals who work for the organization have. In the 2018 election cycle, individuals affiliated with the organization donated just $21,350 to 14 different candidates, nine of whom were Democrats. No one associated with AIPAC gave any contributions to McCarthy.

Not that much and I doubt it would break any campaign if they stopped. But let's see how much the organization actually donated:

>AIPAC is a significant player in terms of lobbying, accounting for the vast majority of lobbying spending by pro-Israel groups, spending more than $3.5 million in 2018. The organization was staunchly opposed to the Iran Nuclear Deal in 2015, lobbied extensively against it and supported the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the agreement.

Ok, 3.5 million dollars is a lot of money but let us compare them to ...let's say Google who spent over 21 million that year or any of the top 20 or so it is small potatoes.

https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders?cy...

It is interesting how people seem to think them so powerful when they don't actually spend that much in comparison and that while of course they are successful a lot of politics align with very strong American groups (Evangelicals who are very strong Trump supporters want the embassy in Jerusalem, Neocons and other remains hate Iran etc.)

Sometimes it is budget or just needing someone to drive it through a heavy process.

It is also not always worth it if you cannot show a real business case. The thing might help you and it might be worth it if you hack something together yourself but if IT is suppose to build something that is available, has support, has disaster recovery, is patched etc. it might no longer be easy to find the business case for it.

>Not being able to do that while in high-security confinment.

Why would he not be able to do that? He had access to his lawyer, right? Or why would he not be even more upfront and straight up tell the prosecution that someone tried to kill him and that he would spill everything for protection?

So why didn't Epstein arrange so any attempt on his life would result on all the dirt on people being sent out?

Why didn't Epstein tell the prosecution "Holy fuck, people are trying to kill me, I want a protection and a deal and I will tell on everyone" after the first attempt?

Why do you think he would witness against anyone? He didn't do that last time as far as I know.

And IF people thought he had dirt on people then I would assume he would at least have a basic dead mans switch that would send out the dirt to the press in case of death; to prevent assassinations. Especially if there was an earlier attempt.

What if it just was a suicide?

If he had dirt on people would he not arrange so it would be sent out in case of his death? Especially if there was a failed murder attempt just weeks before?

And what stops the victims of naming names now? And what would have stopped Epstein of just not talking and just denying?

I like Alex Honnold's answer to "Do all rock climbers live in vans?"

https://youtu.be/kDUeh8nyLT0?t=159

India does not surprise me after having been there. A lot of very poor people and infrastructure that has not grown with the population.

Like a 10 minute drive (I was not a driver) from the offices of pretty famous western companies one could see improvised disposal sites for trash; sometimes burning and people going through them and seeing what they can find.

There seemed to be way too little organized trash pickup so people just threw their trash somewhere and after a while either the government acted or people decide to burn it to get rid of it.

I assume if there is a river nearby many will take that option instead of burning it.

There are not as many as for example southern US but there are illegal immigrants. Usually people who smuggle themselves here but fail to get asylum but goes underground and works shitty jobs for very shitty pay. Or keep away to try to seek asylum again after some time.

You also have those that are in limbo as for example there are several countries that are not taking back their citizens if they are forced there. Afghanistan used to be one of those countries for Sweden so even if someone got a no on their asylum application they could still just say no and stay. However now Sweden has a deal with Afghanistan so people who are not leaving willingly are put on chartered planes down there.

Then there are those internally within EU like beggars who are officially not allowed to stay as long as they do but no one is checking of course.

I don't think you can say that they are dangerous more than you can say that for example vegan diets are extreme and dangerous. They CAN be dangerous but there are many who are successfully are eating that way and it is even a treatment against epilepsy seizures for some.

https://www.epilepsy.com/learn/treating-seizures-and-epileps....

That fits me, I just wrote a comment saying that while I feel very comfortable picking the standard 2-4 mushrooms in Sweden I would never try and pick a white one even if know we have some edible species.

I guess. But for many you learned from your parents or someone who knows and you usually pick a small subset that you are sure of

If you look at a page with our most poisonous mushrooms in Sweden: http://svampguiden.com/giftsvampar/lista/

and compare it with edible ones: http://svampguiden.com/matsvampar/lista/

As someone who rarely picks I would never pick a white mushroom for example because it is high risk even there are edible variants. However I'm sure when it comes to chanterelles and penny buns for example and those (+ one or two more) are plenty for me.

What type of position was it? I'm thinking it is perfectly reasonably if the position is within AI R&D or something like that but less reasonable if you are web designer.

Freelancing is one thing but a comparing it to owning a company with employees is very different.

I have no numbers but what I've seen from people owning businesses with employees (or even alone) in various fields none are stopping at 40 hours a week. That is in Sweden.

EDIT: Just for fun I googled some and found an article where they had made a poll in a magazine about small business owners. The distribution was:

Less than 30h 7,5% 31-35h 2,3% 36-40h 6,5% 41-45h 10,5% 46-50h 14,9% 51-55h 13,9% 56-60h 15,8% 61-65h 8,0% 66-70h 7,1% 71-75h 3,4% 76-80h 3,9% More than 80h 6,2%

https://www.foretagande.se/nyheter/sa-manga-timmar-jobbar-eg...

I don't think many who starts a company stops at 40h though.

>That is not true. Participation rates have been very high in some of the countries that are now low. Participation rates in some of those countries are currently high.

Yes, and my point is that when those women got more power, more choice, more money and more freedom they started to become less likely to choose software development and more likely to select other professions. Other professions that had historically been male dominated.

So it could be that if you are free to choose there are certain professions that will have a larger part male or female and that will amplify in a culture of freedom. You will choose what your friends choose.

For example I don't think that you would ever have 50% men/women that are interested in working in kindergarten. I think there is some biology in that and then it is amplified by most men not wanting it making it less likely for those that might want it to actually choose.

I don't think the problem is that they are leaving computer science, it is that they are not choosing it.

Participation used to be higher but now it is less; despite women getting more agency, doing better at school and getting high education than men. If you look at the most equal and rich countries where women are doing as well or in some areas better than men you don't have many who chooses software development as a career.

It could be just that fewer women want to be software developers and that is all that there is. And that more choice and more opportunities just makes other career paths more alluring.

Of course there can still be sexism and discrimination in certain cases but it is also very possible that it does not affect the number of women in tech much at all.