They acknowledge this in the article as well, surprisingly enough.
> Corporate law experts say while there is nothing illegal about housing a business inside a shell company, the practice is often a strategic move to protect a firm's wealth or shield it against lawsuits and action from government regulators.
What is the thought process of someone writing this? Does this article have any meaningful or critical thought behind it?
I'm really bad at it for things that aren't novel or really interesting, especially repetitive tasks, like doing illustrations for a customer for example, I know what to do, I've done it hundreds of times, but I'd just rather be doing something else. It does also happen for things I want to do but only usually if it's something I'm not confident about. Like I want to do a really comprehensive gardening setup this year, I've done all the research and planning, I just have no experience sewing seeds or growing vines, or how to setup indoor seed hatching, and I'm just dreading the whole starting process and have put it off too long- I should've started mid-April.
Pretty good. I don't find I get derailed by other tasks but I do find others related to what I'm doing like "Oh, dishwasher's done, let's empty it, but oh wait let's clean the counter first" and then end up cleaning the sink and emptying the garbage as well
I find similar behaviour in myself, particularly that dreading a task makes it significantly more difficult to start. I find that if I can manage to do just a little bit, even just open the application and maybe look around a bit at what I need to do, it really gets the momentum going for me.
Do you think there's anything that differentiates what we might call "general task dread" that perhaps anyone experiences to a certain degree from a more broad executive function disorder? Or is it that dreading leading to task paralysis is one of many symptoms of an executive function disorder?
Even if they reset to several days ago and lose, say, thousands of edits, even tens of thousands of minor edits, they're still in a pretty good place. Losing a few days of edits is less-than-ideal but very tolerable for Wikipedia as a whole
That's a total mischaracterization. OP is saying there are no safer fireworks, so some damage will be done, but until someone develops safer and better fireworks, people will continue to use the existing ones
How is intent relevant to this? Or is it not? If you did happen to play out your scenario, your intent would clearly be to insidiously confirm delusions. What is OpenAI's intent? To confirm delusions?
Banning substances naturally decreases use, that's obvious, but prohibition criminalizes use, which will always persist. You cannot stop drug use. Drug legalization so far has resulted in declining use of dangerous substances like tobacco and alcohol. Far more young people today choose smoking pot over smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol. Many people choose not to drink because they've observed the widespread dangerous effects of it since it's been legal. If heroin was made legal all over the world today, you'd 100% see increased use. But maybe humanity needs to see the consequences in order to respect them? Just like alcohol and cigarettes?
I like your libertarian approach. You're right the line can move a lot. Of course, my support/interference would (hypothetically speaking) be different on a situation to situation basis, my reasoning is simply love. If I love someone, like my son, I want them to be free to make mistakes and hurt themselves, and certainly if they start hurting others I would seek to stop that. I think it's important, though, to be there for people, nut the line does change like you pointed out. So I'm really not sure- my decisions would be situationally dependent. I'm still inclined to say that prohibition is ineffective and potentially more dangerous for some people
I'd rather have my heroin addicted son do it at home, where I can be there to take him to the hospital, talk to him about it, etc., rather than make him go out into the streets alone. Banning it doesn't seem like a productive approach
The assertion is not that something will inevitably happen because of this other than the further normalization of government authority over individual autonomy. That is an inherent result of this, as well as the prohibition of sale of alcohol and drugs to kids. You can argue on and on whether or not these are good, righteous, moral laws, but you cannot deny the intrinsic fact that widespread acceptance and even support of widening the scope of government control normalizes government control
I'm curious to understand why your approach to TikTok is banning it. Why do you think this is the right solution? Are you concerned at all about your son's ability to cope independently from oversight and control?
That they're upset does not mean that the world should bend to their feelings. I think you would agree that getting upset does not necessarily mean something is wrong externally, oftentimes things are wrong internally. Thank you for taking the time to reply
It's clear that "privacy " in public spaces requires a fair bit of entitlement, why can't we all just love one another and let it go? What harm comes from being in someone's cool AirSoft video? Is it just a matter of principle that bothers you or something deeper?