tyjen

ADHD medication is an excellent example illustrating the potential "wiggle room" differences between generics and brand drugs. The composition is similar enough to meet FDA generic drug standards, but the rate at which the generic drug mechanisms distribute the drug differs and potentially decreases treatment efficacy for many patients.

Though, I do wonder if Vyvanse becoming a generic brand will help solve this dilemma, because the release mechanism is tied closer to the individuals metabolism via hydrolysis of an amino acid rather than relying on release rates set by minor manufacturing differences.

The New Yorker is in lockstep with their owner ideologues, Advance Publications. If you look at the media assets they own, they push the same types of ideas and messages in each, but catered to different audiences. This degree of media control is problematic for everyone that isn't of the Newhouse class.

Yep, dang is amazing.

Most people don't know how to evaluate a market and are more short-sighted than they want to admit to themselves. It's reflected within entrepreneurship too, with ~50 percent failure within 5 years.

Seattle: Severely limited land area mass surrounded by water with robust business sector. Single-family homes will become rarer across time with local pushes to develop multi-family domiciles. And, if you buy waterfront, your security increases substantially.

Colorado Springs: Mountains impede development slightly with large military presence, but you can build suburban developments for as far as the eye can see in most directions.

Prior to a slowdown, people see prices increasing and apply it too strongly to future results. But, one of these areas will be far more insulated from price fluctuations than the other.

House price fluctuation is still local market dependent. People who purchased overpriced, new mass developer homes in saturated newer markets may suffer a contraction. Areas with supporting high demand, low inventory, and inability to develop newer properties will maintain increasing valuation, but not at the same rate. A savvy home flipper can still make money, it's just harder to do so with increased competition in that area.

This isn't a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis, in which financial institutions overloaded on mortgage-backed securities fueled by easy access mortgage loans without thorough loan application vetting. The deluge of foreclosures isn't likely to occur and people are likely to hold onto their houses and maintain firmer home prices during this slowdown.

The state I occupy doesn't allow accelerated programs for students to help them advance to a higher level math than originally projected, they only allow it for students to catch up. This is the opposite of what the previous state I lived in which allowed motivated students to advance, but they're also turning gifted programs into lotteries versus achievement.

My daughter is in the high school math club, so she frequently talks with math teachers and they reveal what state or county school districts are intending for future high school students. Earlier this week, a teacher was ranting to the club about new guideline goals that either the state/county was pushing, that all (most) incoming 9th graders take Algebra 1.

I understand they're attempting to narrow the achievement bandwidth in public schools on the basis of race, but this appears to be creating societal inefficiencies and decreasing equity overall. Sort of like, how someone could have a PhD in physics and working as a middle school science teacher, they'd effectively be underemployed or underutilized in society due to lack of demand for particle physicists; however, unlike limited particle physicist positions, in the students case, they don't have to be limited or underachieving in classes. Further, the additional problem this push for public school equity is decreasing equity, without imposing the same limitations on private school, homeschool, or charter school students, this mechanism is increasing the divide between the haves and have-nots. Either lens you evaluate this from, either equity or utilitarian perspective, this is a poorly executed plan that isn't going to achieve success in equity; unless, equity strictly means racial categories and doesn't include wealth/income inequality.

Cannot vouch for Eero Pro 6E, but I can for the Eero Pro 6. I no longer wanted to waste time troubleshooting network issues at home for insignificant performance gains concerning my use, so I purchased several Eero Pro 6s to cover my house and property perimeter. I bought them in Dec. 2020 and have had zero problems. No more long trouble shooting sessions putting a damper on my day.

Collective action, studies and lawsuits.

The difficult part for men, is maintaining appropriate targeting and not supporting or even providing the appearance of supporting causes that could be easily construed as chauvinistic or patriarchal. The sooner collective action begins, the less damage current policies will inflict on the population in the long-term. The problem is as you described, it's tricky to navigate for fear of retribution of going against the current flow of interpretation. Special interest groups who benefit from current policies will ardently work against them to maintain their sort of market share of resources and political power.

Society is in the fuzzy space where discriminatory pressure men face exceeds the perceived privilege in many areas of society. When discrimination continues in excess of actual privilege (not perceived privilege), it's no longer about equality or equity and turns into corruption, because equality or equity would turn to support men in these cases of disparity.

For example, women are heavily overrepresented in the veterinarian field, in some cases representing 90 percent of current veterinarian students. When an Australian university decided to offer a single scholarship with preferences for rural and male students to try to balance representation. The female vet students were absolutely shocked and horrified, despite several female scholarships existing concurrently.

Privilege as an absolute, ubiquitous, end-all and be-all trait pegged to immutable characteristics is turning into a mythological construct to justify continued discriminatory practices benefiting groups allowed to collectively act in their favor. Even many of the numerous articles or studies supporting discriminatory behavior are often specious at best.

In reality, privilege is a holistic measurement that changes with localized community composition. Applying discriminatory policies with broad strokes at this point is unjustified and negatively discriminatory. Society could do better, but it's deciding not to.

Eh, it's referring to base pair variations. The title is on the sensationalistic side when you consider how most lay people will interpret it.

The cool stuff people imagine about in response to the title won't happen until researchers finish figuring out regulatory regions in the DNA; and, how DNA interacts with itself and environment, both spatially and temporally. Regulatory regions are promoters, enhancers, silencers, and insulators, and impact gene expression and regulation.

Corruption is a human tendency and will never not be a problem. Even with anti-corruption policies in place, without proactive measures to continually undermine corruption efforts, those policies attenuate across time. This is due to people figuring out how to circumvent the current rules of law or a degradation in integrity when following the the rule of law.

Once anti-corruption institutions put in-place to investigate and prosecute corruption themselves become corrupted, then the system will rapidly degrade to cover up the favored de facto political power corruption. Depending on the system in place, this can occur either top-down or bottom-up. In the US, it appears to be occurring top-down.

Political party loyalism always leads to corruption, which is why it's absolutely critical to have a multiple party system with strong de jure political powers to keep the de facto political power in-check. There are numerous historical accounts depicting what happens when you do not. In the US, both parties should be split up and serve as more representative components to their constituencies, and to keep each other in balance more so than what's transpiring today.

Exact is too hard, but I can take an estimated guess. Off the top of my head here, but a combination of institutional differences, proximal exposure to supporting institutional systems, strong national identity, and sustained economic growth (shared). I don't have much time and this is will be exceedingly reductionist, but...

It worked for Western Germany, not for Eastern Germany. The West was rebuilt by an Allied council and the East by a Soviet Bloc. After the economic collapse of the USSR and reunification of Germany, Western Germany extensively prepared for the transition process. Another example of this is North and South Korea, prior to Korean War North Korea was the dominant economy. North has not collapse due to Chinese support.

Japan was also rebuilt with the US's help under the condition of democratic reforms. Japan saw immense economic growth afterward under that system.

The Middle East is difficult due to a lack of cohesive national identities in the countries stemming from longstanding tribalistic tendencies, without proximally supporting liberal institutions. Well, except Israel, but that's an obvious conflict of interest. Autocrats and monarchies overcome culture barriers with force and threat of force.

As for China, they were handed a MASSIVE economic opportunity for reestablishing diplomatic relations--lopsided exchange in China's favor IMO. This is also why the US has the "Rust Belt" and other economic dead zones throughout middle America that were once manufacturing towns. It may even help explain, the roaring-80s. The US did not anticipate an economic transfer as fast as it occurred. Different topic... Rapid Chinese economic growth empowered the CCP to maintain its status as a champion of the people for improving the quality of life across the nation as a product of the CCPs policies, which occurred at the rate and ease that it did largely thanks to Kissinger coaxing Nixon to made a "great deal" with Mao. And, this isn't meant to dismiss the Chinese population's agency fostering the growth, only that it wouldn't have happened anywhere near as fast as it did without the US trade deal.

As for much, not all, of Eastern Europe, and, including Russia. Soviet corruption remained and didn't see enough economic growth to justify embracing liberal democracy. Many people think or are lead to believe that life was better under Soviet rule, even though the mechanism of economic growth it implemented was doomed to fail in the long-run.

Yep and this is also a problem due to "birth tourism." Particularly, when you consider it's mostly rich Chinese and Russians who are capitalizing on it to obtain US citizenship for their children.

Doesn't take a genius to see the potential long-term negative implications this creates. It's clearly not going to liberalize China or Chinese diaspora temporarily living abroad at large, let's not make that catastrophic error again. It was just a couple days ago that a Chinese student in the US stabbed a Tiananmen activist Chinese defector to death, in public. Thanks Henry Kissinger.

It's kind of time to take this stuff seriously before it catches us by surprise more than it already has.

I'd like to reference the classical economist's answer: it depends.

It's obvious that without leaving this planet that we're limited to the resources on it, so economic growth is limited barring any massively revolutionary technology allowing us to skirt that seemingly hardcoded ceiling limit. Even including stuff like the Metaverse as economic growth, physical servers are necessary for them to operate.

It's entirely possible we reach a global steady-state economy point, but that shouldn't stall lateral growth due to obsolete sectors shrinking and disappearing to make room for newer advancing sectors. Total growth wouldn't be the goal in this case.

It depends on a lot of factors that are difficult to take into account, but I do agree with the underlying premise of the article: humanity needs to start figuring out how to "best" use the finite resources that we do have. But, that's an incredibly sensitive topic, I mean this is an issue that has arguably started most violent conflicts in our history. Without going down the all the potential rabbit holes this topic creates, it depends on a lot of which is uncertain. Notably, what sort of values we want to apply moving forward, which is difficult to coalesce to say the least.

Like most cities, criminality is highly dependent on where you are and what time it is. The rampant homelessness issue is clearly evident and the only city from my experience that rivals Seattle's homeless rate is Honolulu. Honolulu also imposed stricter criminal laws at the time I lived there.

We did not encounter any direct criminality against us while we lived there, although my wife had a close call. She stayed late to finish up work and left her internal office door unlocked to grab food. Within that 15 minute window, someone hopped a fencing structure, gained entry to the building, and managed to steal anything he thought was important. It was one of the few offices unlocked. Thankfully she did not surprise him in the act.

Camera recordings provided a clear description of the perpetrator and police found him within 20 minutes at a local homeless encampment. A 19-year-old kid high on meth with a long criminal history including rape. Police recovered everything and returned it after holding it as evidence. It's an incredibly sad situation all around.

I'm currently on a goal and motivation research reading interest, so I think I can add value to this.

School pedagogical approaches are weird and appears broadly to be testing a student's ability to endure forcing themselves to learn material they may not find interesting. Obviously, this divides the student population and people with better executive functioning, or stricter parents, float to the top. It's what we've done for so long, we're anchored around the concept. From a motivational standpoint, for many students this can kill curiosity and desire for learning.

Goal attainment research consensus clearly demonstrates specific and sufficiently difficult tasks lead to better performance. It's even more ideal when the individual sets the goal or at the very least is involved in developing the organizational goal. This goes against the grain in schools. Sometimes teachers are incredibly vague, others specific. And, unless the student is in a highly individualized learning environment, like working on a capstone project, they do not play a role in course goal setting.

You start to see the potential problems when research demonstrates, the highest individual performance occurs when individuals are provided a specific and sufficiently difficult goal with a learning oriented approach and decreased emphasis on performance (tests and grades). On the other hand, when an individual already possesses skills and knowledge for assigned goals, then a performance approach, not a learning approach, yields an overall higher performance rating. Also, by far, the worst goal orientation, among the aforementioned, is performance avoidance, that is performing to avoid negative consequences.

Students are in school, they're in the process of obtaining skills and knowledge for a career they may not even have solidified yet. Students are largely falling into the performance avoidance category, then the performance approach category, and, finally, for the luckier few, the learning approach category. Add in the teacher quality variable, whether they assign specific or vague and easy or sufficiently difficult assignments, and you start to see how this creates problems for students and for society.

I speak from experience. I failed miserably during school, even dropping out of high school, for a variety of reasons outside of my control and am extremely fortunate to be where I am today.

Same situation, I maintain a strict eating schedule and meet daily water goals. It´s very easy for me to discount the benefits of eating and drinking water, and opt to focus on whatever I´m working on instead.

When I have rest periods, I naturally gravitate toward intermittent fasting because I don't like spending time preparing and eating food. I didn't know what it was until it became trendy.

Most of the time, I'm engaging in 4-5 hours of intense aerobic activity and three days of weight training per week. Unfortunately, if I attempt intermittent fasting, I am fighting fatigue and more prone to injury.

Learned about this phenomenon when considering buying a home built prior to 1978.

The highest blood lead levels are seen in children living in denser population areas at or below poverty thresholds. Homes in these largely urban, low-income areas are disproportionately built before 1978 and subject inhabiting children to a significantly higher lead exposure risk. In 2014, it was estimated that 90 percent of all DC homes were built before 1978.

Despite Baltimore leading the charge to inform the public concerning the risks of environmental exposure to lead by banning lead-based paint (but not plumbing or other construction products) in 1951 following a clinical study from Johns Hopkins University, many Baltimoreans, primarily Black, continue to face excessive exposure to lead. The US would not follow Baltimore's example and ban lead-based paint until 1978, because lead lobbyists continued to disrupt regulation efforts.

Lead remediation is an expensive process and even with programs that help or completely cover the costs, many people may not be aware of the programs to take advantage of them.

You can start to see why the problem disproportionately impacts the Black population.

I don't think so.

Any music can stimulate the release of dopamine and I would argue that white noise would be on the lower end of that comparison. Plus, the amount of dopamine released from listening to music or white noise would be trivial compared to drugs, alcohol, binge eating, nicotine, video games, or binge-watching TV. And, the tricky thing about addictions is that they're easier to replace than to simply stop, so it's important to find a healthier replacement and then try to taper the newer behavior. I don't see white noise helping directly with addictions because of how imbalanced they are as stimulation sources.

Noise in general helps in several area in my life:

  - Working out, pump up music for motivation. 
  - Cleaning or chores, enjoyable music or podcasts for motivation or filling space.
  - Light, shallow work, lo-fi to upbeat chill without vocals for motivation and masking environmental noise.
  - Deep, concentrated work, white or pink noise for masking environmental noise. Depending on the task, I will opt for silence.

To further explain white or pink noise use benefits in my case, they provide subtle stimulation and are minor distractions if I concentrate on them. However, the utility gained from masking environmental noise exceeds the utility loss in the rare moments that I shift focus to the white or pink noise, so I think it's a net positive for me.

China, Russia, and US are involved in frequent cyberattacks against each other without leading to physical escalation. Plus, NATO CCDCOE accepting Ukraine into the fold appears to be a knowledge sharing relationship to enhance cyber security and resilience without an offensive orientation.

Unfortunately, many people from privileged backgrounds love to lie about their background by creating a "struggle story." They repeat the story enough that they genuinely believe that they faced adversity equivalent to people who literally lived through those circumstances.

A frequent "struggle story" I´ve heard, is claiming to be a high school dropout, then attending attending a 60k a year an elite liberal arts college. They didn't dropout due to poor life conditions interfering with school, but they claim the association for credibility. Then it bleeds into, "Well, if I could do it, why can't they?" It's really an extreme form of mental gymnastics.

I'd like to call this behavior, "poorfishing."

This comment chain made me envision a potentially terrible future direction.

Imagine a future where websites force people to consent to allowing them use your device to mine cryptocurrency while you use its services or browse its content instead of ads.

The whole taxonomical system classifying people in the US requires significant overhaul, it's incredibly inaccurate and imprecise. Given our level of technology and knowledge, this shouldn't be a problem; however, I think a sunk cost fallacy significantly bogs down progress on this front. Reasons for this include, but aren't limited to, academic reputations, political capital and strategies, and wealth invested into the current taxonomical system. People who are heavily invested in it do not want to give it up or acknowledge its faults, especially if they're benefiting from it.

Let's use a Middle Eastern person as an example. They're geographically from Asia, but aren't considered Asian, and have significantly differentiated cultures from what is traditionally considered "Asian" culture. Then, the US largely classifies them as white independent of how "white-passing" they are. I'm just baffled in general by it all at this point.

US racial categorizations are too fuzzy as concepts to warrant seriousness in defining people. Yet, despite this, people heavily invested in this want to perpetuate and solidify information like:

https://pyxis.nymag.com/v1/imgs/926/d5f/a334baf0d43cd480b3ea...

Which starts to explain why they want to discriminate against Asians for perceived cultural similarities with what they consider "white culture."

It's frustrating to watch unfold.

I'm a confused by the equity claim to justify discriminatory behavior with what seems like heavy emphasis on race. It seems difficult to achieve equity without transparent, and standardized methods emphasizing a holistic assessment covering visible and invisible, immutable and mutable characteristics--each of which impact individual outcomes.

I understand that tackling overrepresentation and underrepresentation is important; but, when emphasizing race to the degree that these academic institutions are, isn't this leading to representation disparities within the racial categories themselves? The racial categories are a very American centric and limited term, and arguably rooted largely as social constructs that loosely define the ethnic populations they cover. For example, and I don't mean any offense or to call any group out specifically, Koreans are overrepresented compared to Cambodians at the academic institutions listed in the article per their population proportion. This doesn't seem to be captured and accounted for under the current system. The same underlying disparity potentiality applies to whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, etc...

The interpretation being, that it's a sort of half-committed approach to equity that isn't really leading to equitable outcomes if that makes sense, and may even be exacerbating ethnic marginalization within the racial categories.

Another question is, if this isn't leading to genuine equity of outcomes and instead passing discriminatory behavior onto smaller, marginalized ethnic groups, what do you do then? Do you revisit implementing an improved meritocracy system, or implement an equity based system with greater accuracy and precision to prevent this?

This doesn't even begin to tackle the issues current racial categorization creates with multiracial people and the essence of "purism."

Exact situation for myself. I was a PIA customer until Kape Technologies acquired PIA, prompting me to switch to Mullvad. After reading the post's title, I recoiled a little and said, "Oh no, not again," but, thankfully I was surprised by the content of the statement. I'm happy to see Mullvad is not compromising the quality of their service for a payout and continuing to demonstrate their value system that lead me to become a loyal customer.

Yes, it's surprising to people outside the retreat meditation community. If I read this blog entry prior to folding meditation practice into my daily life, I'd be equally surprised. There is a lot of commercialization and Westernized metaphysical woo-woo stuff to sift through to discover the type of meditation discussed in Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, or Dhammapada, so the initial and superficial impression of meditation generally perceived from a Yoga class at the local strip mall or YouTube guided meditations are of different varietals. The perception being that meditation is terrific for destressing and wouldn't lead to a psychotic break.

When you start to peel back the conditioning layers that define you, the sensations that reveal themselves can become destabilizing if you choose to focus on those distractions instead of allowing them to pass and refocus on the meditation object. If you're not prepared for what lies ahead and/or do not have a devoted mentor, the strands that define you and serve as identity reference points can snap leaving you with an existential crisis.

Also, while many meditation retreats and programs are designed to separate yuppies from their money, the retreats I'm familiar with operate on a donation basis to remain open for everyone independent of financial status.

I'll keep this in mind when engaging in emotionally divisive topics in the future. Thanks.

I apologize for starting a stirring the pot, that was not my intent. It's more serious issue than people give it credit. Anyone who spent significant time in the Hawaiian islands may be able to speak to large herds of domestic cats roaming the islands.

The comment is not designed to take a thread into a flamewar, it's a legitimate grievance based on living in habitats destroyed by released domestic cats. I don't hate cats, I own an indoor cat. Removing them from a habitat they do not belong to is no different than government agencies encouraging the removal of snakehead fish from U.S. waterways. They're both destructive, predatory species hurting native species, the only underlying difference is that cats garner the irrational support of humans to exist in a feral/outdoor state and destroy with impunity (cuteness bias?).