What we need is clean, efficient treatment paths for acute depression. Barriers to treatment are the worst thing possible.

We need to work on attacking root causes, not just throw some drugs at the person and call it a day.

We need to help teach depressed people HOW to start pulling themselves out, not just to try harder.

Once the patient is stable, we need to NOT just wash our hands of them, treatment wise. This is the time that spending mental effort will lead to far bigger gains.

It’s the difference between telling someone with broken legs to “walk it off” vs emergency treatment, casts for 6+ weeks, and then physiotherapy where “walk it off” becomes walk on it to rebuild your strength.

The “just try harder” mentality got me into the mess Ive been in. It burnt me out, and it took me decades to even realise how bad I actually was, and years more to even start getting the help I actually needed. Even now, I have to fight for it. 1 slip up, and I’m set back months or years in the process. It’s like putting the hospital A&E department on the 5th floor, with no lifts, and expecting people to walk up if they really want treatment.

All of those points are things that depression actively disrupts. It’s akin to asking an American, living hand to mouth, to just pay out of pocket. It’s not a case of not going on an extra holiday. It’s a case of not making rent payments to do it.

Depression can leave you without enough mental resources to even maintain basic functionality. An upfront cost, for a payout potential years down the line, is simply more than many can afford.

The worst part is that you are correct. However, it’s the same correctness as telling someone about to lose their house to “just make more money”. Technically correct, but useless and callous in practice.

To be fair, my research is decades old at this point.

Some slight ramdom paper reading, back in my uni days. Though I’ve ran across it via other sources over the years since. Unfortunately I don’t have any links to hand though.

It might better be described as people put numbers into categories. Most people have a 10-20 category. 19.99 fits. 20.00 gets bumped up to the next box. It’s a sub/semi conscious thing. If we use our higher thought process, we can deal with the numbers. That takes effort however, by default, we chunk. The price just abuses a common rollover point most people share.

It’s a subconscious thing. It’s how our brain is wired. It’s a bit like advertising. Most people don’t like ads. However, when confronted my 2 similar products, we will go with the familiar one. The source of that familiarity is irrelevant, ads make it familiar, just the same as using it, or a recommendation.

It’s possible to override both of these effects, but that requires a level of conscious effort. I can almost guarantee you’ve been caught by both at different times. You just didn’t notice (since noticing would allow you to correct).

Basically, $19.99 is in the category “under $20”. $20.00 is in “over $20”. Without conscious correction, you act on this.

It was originally to force the cashier to open the till.

Say an item was $20. If the customer paid with a $20 note, then the cashier could, intheory, pocket it, without it showing up on the rocords. If it was $19.99 they needed to open the till to get a cent out. This meant it was recorded, and so the till wouldn’t balance.

Most people round down. Their brain locks on to the 1 of 19.99, and approximates it to 10.00. We need to actively counter this to see it as 20.00. It’s a skill most people don’t apply all the time, and a number can’t even do.

Once you can do it reliably, it’s mind-boggling that others can’t, but it’s still a learnt skill, that needs to be applied.

I view it like an over-revved car. Some parts can handle the strain fine, others are over stressed. Depending what aspect you look at, you will get different results.

As the pressure rises, things will start to fail. Some will not cause additional issues, but others will cascade. Predicting when a cascade failure will happen is difficult, however.

If you watch the cooking shows with Gordon Ramsey dealing with kids, you would get half of it. He’s amazing with youngsters, and k ows exactly how to give them positive motivation. He saves his outbursts for the “professionals” who are being complete idiots. He also racks it up for American TV. He’s a lot more relaxed on UK TV.

Shut them down, but leave them a route out.

It’s a cult, one of the goals is to trap people within them. The worst thing we can do is shove people back into that box, once they try and escape. It might be satisfying, but it’s also extremely counterproductive.

If America wants to actually win, you either need to outlive, or deconvert the members. The first will take generations, I presume you don’t want to have to wait that long?

Before you criticise, you should have seen the alternative timelines! If we had switched on sooner, we might have been able to avoid this one, but we didn’t.

All I will say is imagine a Trump with a triple digit IQ and competent advisors. It was horrifying. Multiple techs took compassionate leave after seeing some of the projections. Poor mark still can’t make himself enter the building!

https://youtu.be/wGKxWatPkd0

Summer up how I feel about usb C now.

Complete BS article.

Quantum teleportation is very different from scifi teleportation.

Quantum teleportation is a way to bypass the heisenburg uncertainty principal. You take a particle and entangle it (in a special way) with a carrier particle. You then send the carrier (generally a photon) to another particle of the same type as the first. When they interact, most of the properties of the first particle are transferred to the second.

This is extremely useful for things like quantum computing, but has no real path to teleporting a human.

I have some sense of self preservation. She’s bad enough right now calling everyone a banana!

They definitely do!

I personally support this plan. Smoking in the UK has already plummeted. A lot of smokers have moved to vaping. Unfortunately, those left are often the ruder ones. Limiting where they cam smoke, or reduce expire for everyone else is a big dead for me.

Additionally, it’s not banning nicotine, it’s banning cigarettes. Vapes have changes the balance on that one. They are less damaging, and cause far less issues with passive smoking. This acts as a pressure relief valve, rather than a blanket nicotine ban. Also, at no point will an existing (legal) smoker go from legal to illegal.

The vape issue definitely needs fixing. A number have found advertising to younger users is a good money maker. Limiting the options here l, without an outright ban would help reduce the harm to children. It wouldn’t significantly affect ex smokers who moved to vaping.

First 3 should get a good reaction. The rest require context I’m more sure she’s picked up on properly yet.

There’s a few spellings I apparently have blind spot for. That is definitely one of them.

Both work for protecting humans. However, I believe vaccination is better overall. It also improves the quality of life of the chickens. Unfortunately, it’s also (very slightly) more expensive, so America went the cheap route. The EU mandated to reduce animal cruelty, by vaccination.

While I like this one. Unfortunately, I suspect it will get a blank, confused look. We’ve managed to almost completely avoid guns etc.