I have had two tests, both for diagnostic purposes. One as an adolescent, and one as an adult. Both were a result of my mental health issues (because of my age and the benefit of hindsight I can understand where the problems I was having as an adolescent were coming from, but not at the time).
The second test was performed to establish a baseline in light of some cognitive degeneration as part of neurological investigations. Now I have a set point of performance and should things change I will be able to reference those results to isolate the areas compromised. For example, testing shows that my working memory is particularly ordinary.
Either a test has utility for you or it doesn’t. I don’t see much reason for a normal person to get tested. Very few people are going to give any kind of a damn what your IQ scores are. On the other hand, if something is going wrong such a test might help establish where it is going wrong in more detail.
One really good reason not to get testing is the cost. This stuff isn’t cheap.
I don’t think that’s so easy. Firstly, how are you going to capture involuntary responses, and secondly, how are you going to get people to sign up for that? Lots of people have had to do zoom meetings thanks to the plague, and lots of them have done as I have on occasion: simply turned the video off because I don’t want to be giving out involuntary data.
If there’s any default on the internet (and anyone with backend statistics can back this up) it is indifference. The vast majority of people never write anything, never participate, they just consume. There’s nothing wrong with that, but I think there could be a trap where we assume that the system must be re-engineered to accommodate a small number of super engaged individuals. I’m not against the experiment, but I do think it is more complicated that it first appears.
As I’ve stated in examples involving facebook, discord is often a feature and not a bug. It could be the case here that commentary that is purported to be a problem is actually something that people are seeking (whether or not they’re aware of that). Human social dynamics seem straightforward but they aren’t, and that can be a trap when it comes to designing systems to accommodate them.
There’s also the issue that the internet is basically a written medium. The limitations aren’t necessarily a bad thing here, people have been writing for thousands of years and doing just fine. I would posit that the issue is speed and immediacy—you basically have to respond, right here, right now (and then have it preserved for all eternity whilst every prick out there combs over it for the slightest angle to criticise). That doesn’t leave a lot of room for consideration. Perhaps there’s something to be said for creating some social conventions around communication in a forum rather than trying to engineer it programmatically. If you have accepted rules for policing yourself and others then transgressions can be managed socially. If it is socially acceptable to say “Knock your bullshit off” then someone will and 9 times out of 10 that will be enough to fix the problem.
People only receive feedback from people that are engaged enough to give it. Unsurprisingly, a mouse click is typically a very low effort of caring. It isn’t quality feedback.
Internet comment voting is a skinner box, and giving people clicky buttons that literally dispense dopamine isn’t going to do anything but turn them into button clicking addicts. Showing them click counters just makes that worse.
If you are going to reward behaviour to encourage it then ignore negative feedback entirely. Give people a limited number of medals that they can award to a few comments a day. Force people to think about it and slow down. If you can’t be anything but positive (because you don’t have the option of anything else) then you’re going be forced to make a positive act by default. You will ignore the low value and negative comments because you’re looking for positive ones to give reward to.
If you must have a ‘negative’ button then that button could be a personal block button. You can tally blocks on a given comment and if it hits thresholds you can move it to the bottom and collapse it. A huge problem with downvotes is that regardless of what is said they’re for, they always turn into an agree/disagree binary rather than a metric of quality.
Whatever you reward is what you end up getting more of. Reward design is far from trivial, and people routinely hand out rewards that make the behaviour they’re trying to manage even worse. That’s before we get to dark patterns like you see on social media that exploit discord and the lack of IRL feedback to amplify engagement. Gossipy and angry people welded to their phones are a common sight these days because that’s what makes social media companies money. It isn’t of net benefit to the users thereof, but it’s digital crack so the majority of people don’t care even if they’re aware of it.
The advantage of beauty isn’t even remotely subtle. The difficulty is that most people lack direct experience of moving up or down quickly, so they don’t notice it.
The level of effect of increasing your attractiveness is non-linear and variant between domains. Understanding what you’re trying to achieve in detail is important to ensure you will be happy with the results.
You buy cheap surgery and that’s exactly what you get. Think very carefully before you commit to that. A botched surgery (or one perceived as such) is very much something you may need to repeat. The surgery isn’t difficult, the trick is finding someone that understands the fundamental aesthetics of beauty (or alternatively, you understanding it and them doing exactly as you tell them).
Taking a knife to a ‘feature’ nose is one of the most common aesthetic mistakes you can make. It is generally imperfections that make your looks notable. You want to look like a better version of you, not somebody else. That being said, some people hate their own looks so much that not looking like themselves is the whole point.
I read somewhere that men that get nosejobs that involve reduction can feel emasculated by that. Barring deformity (ie. you’re getting so much work that your entire face will change) I can believe it.
Unless some wish to defect from the NYT in a tactically useful manner then they are enemy infrastructure and a valid target.
All of the NYT materially benefits from this ambulance chasing behaviour, whether or not they admit it. You cannot willingly be part of an organisation that profits from wrongs and be shocked when you get painted with the same brush. You don’t want to get caught in the crossfire? Quit, just like anyone with a backbone would.
in order to ruin him, you’d have to convince the NYT to fire him.
No, as stated before, all you have to do is make his actions costly. Ratcheting up the stress levels is the aim here. That could include going after income, but that lacks imagination and certainly wouldn’t be my first attack vector. That is an expected attack, and it will be a defended attack accordingly.
If you want to fight and win, stop playing by the rules. The easiest way of getting your brain into the habit of thinking up novel solutions is to take the ‘right’ way off the table and then come up with methods of still achieving your goal. Then 10x that, so that you can either drag the hell out over a long period or dump it all on them at once for synergistic effect.
I am in favour of justice, the most foundational element of civilisation. Without enforced laws it will all fall apart. If evil goes unpunished it will flourish. It’s that simple.
I have no interest in lies. I like the truth exactly because it is a far more deadly weapon. When you absolutely nail someone with a truth they don’t want to hear it’s like stabbing them right in the heart.
I can’t hurt anyone who doesn’t lie and acts honourably, nor would I have any desire to. Conversely, the evil and wicked almost seem to beg me to ruin them with the truth. Good people have nothing to fear from the likes of me.
Fomenting discord amongst your enemies is a feature, not a bug.
I would argue that NYT as an org is not a pure capitalist venture in the same way that almost no political mouthpiece is. They exist to push a viewpoint, and financial viability is the means to ensure they’re around to be able to do that.
Also, as a political mouthpiece they have direct funding from people with a view to push that is independent of ad and customer revenue. As long as there are enough eyeballs to justify it there will be outside money available to fund the messaging.
I believe that the NYT is untouchable for the ordinary person. Individuals within the NYT are touchable and if you can associate the choice of the individual to participate in gutter journalism with personal ruin then that will act as a disincentive outside of the control of the NYT.
You don’t get to work at the NYT and use that excuse. This story has passed through multiple hands.
I can respect the sentiment, but this less than pointless.
The NYT are bad actors that did this for attention. More attention isn’t the answer. They are bullies. Begging bullies for mercy never works, it merely emboldens them.
You’d think that people would take five seconds to look around them and see this MO repeated a million times, and the weak responses to it failing again and again, but there’s a *particular* kind of person that is either agnostic or pro inquisition until it happens to them. Everyone’s heard the poem ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_… ), almost nobody takes it onboard. Being weak doesn’t save you, and it damns you and everyone around you.
As far as I can see there are two options:
1. Go to ground until this blows over. Go on a 2 month holiday. The appetite of the inquisition will never be sated, but they can only really eat you once.
2. Counterattack by targeting the “journalist” directly to demonstrate that bullying has a tangible cost. That isn’t difficult to do, and the “journalist” in question has already given the template for that: self, family, friends, profession. All that is required is to pursue them along the same lines. Even if they are a paragon of virtue (obviously not in this case) there will be someone they either care about or are afraid of that won’t be, and crushing that person will make the “journalist’s” life far more difficult. And before anyone objects, no war was ever won by turning the other cheek.
The NYT as an org isn’t an easy target. You are only going to be able to fight an asymmetric battle with them. Right now, thanks to BLM psychopathy, round 2 of metoo hysteria, and baizuo self mortification, claims of sexism and racism could probably be weaponised against them. I’m willing to bet that the NYT is very white, straight, and male enough to be a juicy target for the SJW identity grifters. Get some blood in the water and let them do the rest for you.
Security point 1: The site becomes the target. As has been proven many times hosting and DNS are vulnerable. If they can’t get you then they’ll get all the roads to you. They don’t care about collateral damage.
Just to clarify: When you say pro-BLM policy, what exactly does that mean?
BLM as an organisation has some subjective and some objective demands. BLM as a broader movement obviously has an even greater scope. Which areas are considered as problems is also variant, as is the priorities one would place on them.
How to do you feel about heretics replying to your offer? I like money, capitalism, and arguing, but I’m also not on the same page ideologically here. Where is this bounty on the spectrum of saying the right things with the right language (obviously not my forte) versus achieving concrete goals by efficacious means?
Some of the stated positions are likely to be a very hard sell. Given that is so, what’s your acceptable time frame for implementation? If I start talking generationally is that too long? In the same vein, are smaller or limited returns acceptable outcomes?
I’m not American, does this disqualify me? BLM is very much leaking out of America, and issues of race and policing exist everywhere there’s racial difference and police. I am of the opinion that a lot of opinion is transposable in and out of America, but I’m not one setting the judging criteria here.
They have intangible assets: organization and brand name recognition.
This is super important when talking about value decided by markets independently of the asset that backs it.
People will pay lots of money for objectively near worthless purchases because they choose to value them.
Never mind the stuff, what about the people?
As far as I can tell, reduced gravity is very deleterious to people’s health. I’m sure it would be really deleterious to a developing fetus.
If you have to ship people in and out to keep things running, and you cannot reproduce there, then it’s not a colony.
Your identity is indivisible from your body. Ergo, anything that influences your body significantly will change who you are.
As a good example, most people don’t even think about what ageing does to their identity. You’re not the same person you were a year ago, ten years ago, etc. Is that destruction or merely transformation?
Based on my experience of dealing with other people: if it isn’t nailed to the fucking floor you can expect it to be moved at the very least, if not simply stolen outright.
If something can be removed to be cleaned as this can then the most likely scenario is that it was, and it wasn’t ever put back together correctly.
The real question is why doesn’t the machine have sufficient sensors to indicate what’s wrong at the very least? I don’t see why an important removable part such as this filter couldn’t have some sort of sensor attached to make sure it’s actually there (magnet and hall effect sensor?).
That’s easy: they were there.
You didn’t ask about having children, you asked about raising them. I have dumped so much time and money into my nieces and nephews that I should be listed somewhere on the birth certificates.
I will never have biological children of my own for many good reasons, foremost being I have significant mental illness. I’m not about to pass that biological curse onto anyone else.
The human race has survived diseases for far longer than we’ve had antibiotic or other modern medical interventions. We used to get by with a 50% child mortality rate, a significant maternal death rate, dropping dead from a scratch, etc.
Many of us dying, even in close succession, isn’t the same as all of us dying.
Considering that facebook is designed around facilitating gossip then it could be that this is entirely intentional rather than a broken implementation.