chiefalchemist

Yes, buy NPD *is* in the DSM. While I'm not a mental health professional (read: I can't diagnose with any authority), I would still say that Mullenweg consistenly exhubits many / most of the symptoms of classic NPD.

NPD = Narcissistic Personality Disorder

You’re going to love… These are not baskets of plants.

But yeah, typically HN. Make a pointless comment instead of something like “Yeah, the article was thin on facts and details.”

Sure, mock me. While CNN turns what’s left of your thinking into mashed potatoes. But yeah, you’re thinking hanging plants are similar.

So people are just going to hang them out windows? Perhaps many stories up? What about severe weather? I wonder how long before you’ll need a license to install one of these?

That aside, thanks for filling me in. We’ll have to see how it goes

Unfortunately, the article makes no mention of (approx) how many rental units there are in NJ. A step further would be, of those, how many have balconies. And finally, how many face south (or close).

I live in Central NJ. This bill certainly can’t hurt. But is the impact significant? Anecdotally, it doesn’t feel that way. The (new) governor still has a campaign promise to fulfill.

> but it’s free to use

This is false. Nothing is free.

We watch ads. We are tracked like animals. That time, attention and loss of privacy *is* payment. For this, it’s reasonable to expect a service that aspires to rise above shit-show.

Let me rephrase:

The most important Science [1] in the history of Science and history of The World… is no science at all. It’s consensus. Nothing more.

Let that ^^^ sink in.

I might consent, as a matter of caution. But I do so reluctantly and with skepticism. Most importantly, I’m not fooling myself and thinking I’m believing in something that is. Not. There. That is, Science. I’m not mindlessly parroting a narrative [2] - like a bad version of kindergarten telephone - because I’m afraid of asking obvious, worthy, and intelligent questions. I’m not a victim of my biases.

We’re done here.

1 - Please note, the upper case S.

2 - Examples given, there are others.

I’ve looked at it. I’ve seen it before. I saw it when it was initially published. It’s why I said: the planet has been warmer, and it’s been cooler. There is no normal.

So when I hear “climate scientists” make big brush statements about the last 100 yrs, 500 yr, or even 1000 yrs, I laugh. When they make a proclamation about “since records were kept” I laugh again.

I laugh because I’ve seen that graph and I know they evidently haven’t seen it, or are for some reason pretending otherwise. I presume they’re trying to be funny. They’re certainly not being scientific serious.

The climate has risen before, and there were no humans around. None. And what then explains that increase.

I’m not arguing against climate change. All I’m asking for is scientific proof that isn’t correlation, hearsay, parroting, etc.

This is the last time I’m going to say this… FFS…

consensus === Science.

In fact the repetition of consensus is a classic tool of propaganda. “I’ve heard it a bunch of times… it must be true.” And if you don’t think scientists aren’t subject to the same influence, you’re naive.

Stop waving your finger.

Thanks for proving my point.

Read the reference articles. All perfectly legit sources. All are examples of how corruptible “The Science” can be.

Maybe that’s not the case with climate? Yet, not a single shared link pointing to science-based proof.

This thread is a perfect example of the type of human behavior that leads to false consensus.

You’re assuming. Dedicating their career doesn’t mean they’ve remained dedicated to The Science. They have egos, careers, reputations, etc.

Read the articles in my Original comment.

Add this (book) to the list:

https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2025/05/05/children-pandemic-vi...

You said all you said and yet didn’t site anything. How is that? But this is exactly the problem. People take a position, bias kicks in. They double down. More bias. There’s no turning back.

Thank you. You’ve proven my point.

Why do you think “the experts” are any different? They’re likely worse, as they have more to lose.

Look at the climate record, what leads you to believe this isn’t natural and we should have a chance to “reverse” it.

Simple enough… share links to the science that thoroughly proves what you’re saying. “Al Gore said it, it must be true,” isn’t going to cut it.

As for the “never ever”, that’s another assumption. The climate record over the looooong term simply is not that accurate.

Of course, there is a fair amount of correlation and circumstantial evidence, but parroting that as absolute fact and causation does make it scientific. There is a lot of “telephone” on this issue. Those using hundreds of years or even thousands should be met with skepticism.

To clarify: I agree 100% that the climate is changing. It always have. Unfortunately, the rabbit hole of proof is not that deep. Most of “proof” is based on consensus and groupthink dictated by “the experts.”

My understanding is three-fold

- The climate has *always* changed. It’s been warmer. And yes, it’s been cooler. There is nothing abnormal about the climate changing.

- There is actually very little scientific proof that the current up tick, is human-made. Yes, there’s correlation with the Industrial Revolution, but that’s all it is atm, correlation. There’s little verifiable proof. It’s speculative. It’s a theory. Yes, there’s overwhelming consensus, but that’s still doesn’t make it fact. And consensus has been off target plenty of times in the past.

- “The science” isn’t always as fact / truth based as it would like us to believe. Scientists are human too. Egos, career aspirations, groupthink, jealousy, etc. The scientific method is a stunning standard. Unfortunately, it’s implemented / executed by humans, flawed humans.

There’s three sources exemplify #3, of course there are others.

https://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-has-there-been-so-littl...

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/09/dinosau...

https://longevity.stanford.edu/how-the-sugar-industry-shifte...

500 billion? That’s it? Given what’s in the balance, change the b to a t, and then some, and something like this becomes credible.

I don’t understand. There was a time when education outcomes were better than they are now. Mind you, yes, time change, of course. But don’t we go back to that era and work from there? There seem to be an obsession with reinvention of the edu wheel and it doesn’t seem to be working

Impressive. Until you realize we need the EV equivalent of a Volkswagen, not a rehash of a USA 70’s muscle car.

If China-made EVs eat the world, this Food project will be a “what was Ford thinking?” pin on the timeline plotting China’s conquest.

Yes. In short, Trump didn’t just happen. Plenty of incompetence and negligence preceded him. The red carpet was rolled out. The engine was primed. If it wasn’t Trump it would have been someone else. That’s not his fault.

There’s another book mentioned in the podcast called “Doctored.” The gist is: bogus “science” led to loads of money / research going in a direction that was effectively fiction.

People love to praise “the science” when they mean the scientific method. What they always seem to forget is that method is executed by humans. Imperfect, sometimes ego driven humans.

Exactly. They were so frustrated and disgusted by the status quo political mess that Don was still a viable choice. Twice!!!

And how did the system respond after the first win? It didn’t. It was same ol’ same ol’, and look what the led to.

Blaming Trump for the cluster fuck mess that gave him the opportunity to run and win… Sorry. Absolutely not his fault.

I don’t like the guy. But I’m not going to be foolish and blame him for winning. That’s not his fault.

If the status quo system was doing their job(s) there would be no DJT in the WH. Full stop. Not once. Certainly not twice.

But rather than own their failure, they work - hard - the “OMG it’s all his fault” narrative (read: deflection and distraction) and it works. So well, they keep doing it.

But repetition of a lie doesn’t make it true. Concession to buy into a lie, also doesn’t make it true.

No doubt DJT has his flaws. But he’s still a scapegoat. Why? Because no one is asking “How did we get here?”

Do what you gotta do to feel good. But giving a free pass to all the other contributors - the ones loudest about who is to blame - is foolish, at best. To each their own.

Put another way, in terms of the political status quo, what changed between his two term? Hint: not a damn thing. That ain’t his fault. Your bias has blinded you

Best I could tell, we were already there. DJT is simply a symptom. He’s what results after too many years of misrepresentation.

He gets blamed for being the cause because those who actually led us into the decline don’t want to own their role in the mess. The fact that he got reelected is proof the status quo had lost the plot.

Sure, he’s a scoundrel, but ultimately he’s a scapegoat.

Perhaps. But issue here is the guy doing the critique is the guy with A LOT of power. There is no “we,” not in the context of this type of rant.

Leader create more / new leaders. That isn’t happening. MM has only himself to blame

Typical, Matt “NPD” Mullenweg. Who’s surprised at this point?

We? It’s not we. When leadership speaks it should be accountable (<<< edit. Fixed autocorrect error) If not, by definition, that’s not leadership. This isn’t the first time - nor will it be the last - MM shamelessly shows his true colors.

Mullenweg has created a culture of groupthink. But that’s what cult leaders do… Surround themselves with “yes’ers.” He’s upset because his gaslighting has run its course and there’s a lack of new cult members willing to drink his Kool Aid. He’s upset cause he’s loved to beat the quantity drum (read: market share) and now the market is finding quality elsewhere.

Sadly, this won’t be his last rant.

Screen size is probably responsible for a vast majority of the homogeneous of the internet; but that a good thing. The space has matured and horrible experiences fewer. There’s a fine line between creativity and bullshit. Less bullshitting is a good thing.

p.s. Perhaps “quirky” is less because it’s simply not fulfilling? Too often it’s visual gaslighting pretending to be design?

And what of Pelosi and the like? The problem is, you’re not able to measure what you cannot see.

For example, the obvious… Epstein Files. That went on for how long? Involved hundreds if not thousands of (mostly) men of power. Bill Clinton comes to mind.

Just because you couldn’t see the corruption doesn’t mean it wasn’t there.

Your bias is blinding you. The System is corrupted. Full stop.

How do we know? Look who is in the WH. How can a fair and just system lead to that? You’re failing for the “OMG! Look at him!!” narrative. A narrative brought to you by the people whose incompetence and negligence led to Trump. A narrative that distracts from their failures. You should be asking: How did we get here? Who is accountable? But you’re not.

I have to giggle a bit. Isn’t CF7 the plugin that was notorious for enqueuing its scripts on every page, even the pages w/out a CF7 form? A known non-best practice that many would call a bug, yet was never fixed? In how many years??

So I guess this means that’s never going to be fix? Good to know.

What proof do you have that there is a difference between the Team Red and Team Blue, other than your not on the team you’re railing against.

For example, given Nancy Pelosi’s effectiveness as an investor, she was effectively a highly successful day trader with a side hustle as a representative of her constituents.

Framing this as a Left v Right, is at best, naive.