So Facebook allowed some of their developers to run roughshod with users’ data while practically driving others out of business for doing the same? What differentiated the survivors?
Most shelters in Seattle serve single men. Most explicitly do not allow women or children such that it is difficult for single women or families of any variety. I would love to see Amazon sponsor more assistance for homelessness but I think their first project serves a population that is otherwise underserved.
That's a good point. At least here in Amsterdam I know a few people who avoid shelters if they can because they are/feel unsafe. These were all men, so I can imagine it might be worse for women.
It's a bit scary that we rely on the Amazonian ecosystem to carbon sink the Northern Hemisphere's fossil fuel excesses, but we know so little about how it works.
Mastering legacy code is a core SW engineering skill. Learn how to do it if only because it makes new code you write less likely to end up in that state.
This is the most inspiring story I have read all week. Not a typewriter geek but this story makes a good case. I wish for everyone to stumble like this on a treasure related to what they love.
If you think that SSRIs don't affect serotonin, you should halt your amateur medical career now. I send my best wishes for you and your girlfriend and I hope she feels better soon, on her terms and not via a formula. However, SSRIs are highly specific to serotonin receptor bindings. LSD is specific to a relatively sparse type of serotonin receptor, and MAOIs will bind with anything in your brain which is why they are so dangerous and require a strict diet to minimize tyrosine.
Honestly, her coke habit is the lede here, not the scare story that might turn other people off to treatments that work for them.
I didn't say that, I said that "increasing serotonin" is not why these drugs sometimes help people feel better.
> Honestly, her coke habit is the lede here,
Yes. In the long term, cocaine use wrecks the mitochondia, which contributes to exhaustion. The proper therapy in this case is to restore the mitochondria density. Etiology (" a branch of medical science concerned with the causes and origins of diseases") is thrown out the window when a patient is prescribed an SSRI.
> not the scare story that might turn other people off to treatments that work for them.
The BBC story that this submission links is about how SSRI treatments sometimes wreck people's lives. You should read it. My comment was that adverse effects of these defective drugs (SSRIs) have been known from the very beginning, and I said a few words about alternatives that work better.
> In the long term, cocaine use wrecks the mitochondia, which contributes to exhaustion. The proper therapy in this case is to restore the mitochondria density.
In mice, when given super high doses. The data for humans is much shakier and the effects of this are unknown, or if there are any, or if it even matters. AFAIK, none of the long term studies from reputable sources have shown long term effects on wakefulness or motivation past the initial withdrawal syndrome. This is just some new "meth neurotoxicity" hysteria bullshit to scare people into thinking drugs are bad.
Going on my observations, cocaine is a much safer drug than meth amphetamine. She recovers quickly from cocaine, but it takes 3-4 days for her to recover from meth amphetamine use.
That doesn't have much to do with safety, more with half-life. Methamphetamine has a longer half-life (averages about 15 hours) than cocaine (about 5 minutes to an hour depending on route of administration). With long term regular use they both have problems. Methamphetamine can be neurotoxic in higher doses without the protection of tolerance and might cause Parkinson's disease later in life. Cocaine has circulatory effects long term, and if smoked causes damage to the lungs. With short term or occasional use they really aren't that bad for you in general (as is true with almost all drugs).
Then, can the lack of serotonin really be the main, or only cause of depression ? If people with sufficient serotonin levels can get depression, then how can we argue that the actual increased seratonin levels is what helps people recover from it ? It seems like a quite strange argument to me.
Because depression, like most psychological diagnoses, is defined as a pile of symptoms, not as a specific illness like the flu. We don't know all the different things that can cause depression.
One of the things that we're reasonably sure can cause depression is decreased levels of serotonin. That doesn't mean there's not other things which cause more-or-less the same set of symptoms.
EDIT: On a note related to your girlfriend... people can appear externally happy while being seriously depressed. From talking to me irl, you'd likely never guess that I self-harm, have no motivation to do anything, and wish I were dead. You can't blame someone for wanting an escape from that.
Except what you are saying it total BS and you didn't even bother to read either the article you linked to NOR the study. A comment such as yours doesn't really belong.
That is given that that study is the exact fact, but it is indeed mostly a study based on polls which I would say is not exactly hard evidence.
The NYMag article linked within describes exactly why rational people should be scared of those who state obsessive desires to torture and kill people, especially when they've chosen their targets. Two close friends of the profiled from their torture forum: "[Robert] Asch [former school librarian, previously accused of molesting four boys] brought with him a bag containing a Taser, meat hammer, skewers, and a dental retractor." There are few times I'm happy to see intervention by a federal agent but imminent torture and murder is one. His buddy and accomplice arrested for the same scheme, Richard Meltz, is a police chief who used his access to gather data about potential victims.
Valle himself is a cop who stalked his intended female victims on paid time using police resources. He described graphically how he wanted to torture, dismember, and kill them. One was his wife and several were women he knew previously who didn't reciprocate his sexual interest. He gave out their identifying details, which he obtained using his position of authority, to a bunch of psychopaths who are clearly willing to act.
These are all specific, credible threats of murder. If the power dynamics were different I wonder how this thread would go down? If, instead of a message board for men wishing to kill women, it were a message board for Muslims wanting to kill Christians, would you react the same way? What if specific people have been targeted - would you defend the aggressor's right to free speech over the targeted's right to live? What if the aggressor's friends were found carrying everyone they needed to torture and kill the targeted? Would you really defend that free speech?
He did use the NYPD police database to access information about a high school girl, and was convicted of it based on records of the access. He did send another member a file documenting the murder of one of his friends just before meeting her in person. He did talk about murdering and eating his wife.
I still don't think there was the required "overt act" but it wasn't just abstract fantasizing like the EFF is making it out to be.
[1] Public interest organizations can be just as bad as cops in this regard (ACLU is an exception). I stopped getting Public Citizen emails when they described an a teenager who had just been with a group of friends when someone else shot someone, and was sentenced to life. They failed to mention the kid was with a gang of other teenagers who brutally robbed and murdered a pizza delivery driver while his wife and child sat in the back seat. If you mention the facts, people might get outraged at the guy you're defending.
I guess they're point is... in the interrests of law, even unseemly people should be treated just like ordinary citizens.
Even if you're a gross, brutal, horns-upon-head criminal you should be jailed for the crimes you actually commited, not the ones you fantasized about committing, or the ones you were merely in the vicinity of.
These aren't irrelevant prejudicial background facts--they're legally relevant. If you're with a gang committing felony robbery, the law holds you responsible if the situation escalates and someone gets murdered. If you describe the conviction leaving out the robbery, you're actively misstating the facts of the crime. And in this case, at some point fantasizing turns into conspiracy. It's incredibly misleading to leave out the facts of what happened outside the chatroom that might have convinced the jury that this guy crossed that line.
