354 karma · joined June 4, 2018
Edit for one more thought on this: it also gave me an appreciation for vegans and vegetarians. I was eating chicken while tripping once and really had some inner conflict over if it was ok to eat another animal. I'll never be a vegetarian, but for a brief moment I understood what all my hippie friends are on about :)
One of the weird things about psychedelics is that you'll often think "why don't I take better care of myself?" which often includes not doing the drugs or living the lifestyle that gave you that insight.
I also think I enjoy weed less since I've had that experience, which I'm a little disappointed about, but I feel like I have a much better compass for making good decisions now. I replaced grams in blunts with small amounts of whole leaf vaporization after that.
That remote control is how I explain modal interfaces to people when they can't understand how my editor works.
If I'm on the receiving side of that kind of tone, it's time to either re-engage with normal conversation and try to salvage the relationship, or now I'm also mirroring that tone and we can never have an honest conversation again.
If he apologized to everyone but you, maybe say "I heard you apologized to some people about last week's tension, I just wanted to let you know that we're all on the same team and there's no hard feelings, your concerns are valid and we'll work on them together".
Your reaction shouldn't be fear and extra stress. It should be about how you can help your fellow workers through the day and help everyone meet their goals. The whole idea that you'd have fear as a response to a co-worker is crazy to me.
If you can't have that type of conversation with your co-workers and get good results, it's probably not because you employed the wrong conversation tactic. It's probably actually because they don't trust you, which would make sense if you've been forcing them through a conversation algorithm instead of treating them like humans.
Conversations between good actors don't need to be engineered. These techniques are probably great if you're a police officer, lawyer, executive, or salesperson, but let's not turn our workplaces into that internally.
I'm also in software development, and especially in this field, just talk directly to people. If you find that you can't connect with your team and you need various pre-planned tactics to work with others, you're probably doing something else wrong.
We're social creatures. Don't engineer away the last of our humanity from our workplaces in pursuit of optimal request fulfillment.
We have some other examples worth considering though, like literal workhorses. Once the engine came around, horses became inefficient and were relegated to shows and races. With AI able to do superhuman pattern recognition, it's only a matter of time before humans also become a luxury, as they're no longer needed for traditional work.
I kid, but I think most people do have the view that the government really owns everything. In practice, control means ownership, so it's not an unreasonable view.
If you can switch from many addictive things to just nicotine, then you can get off the nicotine alone pretty easily. It only takes about 3 days for cravings to stop.
Yes, and they know it too. People often value your attention more than your productivity, and with good reason. Think about how many meetings you've been in and steered somebody clear of a trap just because you were there. Or how some input you give from meeting with the CEO could impact the direction of the company. Your attention is probably more valuable than your productivity more often than you think.
I'm still kind of a workaholic, but I could do way less and it'd be fine. It's also super nice to have a safety net of more and more remote jobs now. Even if the whole economy melts down, people somewhere in the world will still need software built and maintained remotely.
Remote work is so much closer to feeling like it's not a job than office work, which is a huge deal for me.
And you can move to a lower cost of living area, avoid state income taxes, and still have a competitive salary to your city-dwelling peers.
I honestly don't know why everyone isn't remote.
So really, trans women have biological traits of genetic males, which is fine.
But apparently I'm incorrect in thinking that you're not supposed to discuss "trans women" as a group, which is still confusing to me.
I'm surprised that my understanding is already out of date or was wrong in the first place. Maybe 5 years ago or so, the rule I learned was that cis people should make no distinction between trans or cis, so as not to separate people into groups. I figured that extended to everything, which is why we don't make a distinction between cis and trans in things like sports or bathrooms, because there should be no distinction to make.
It's all a bit confusing. I'd like to get it right, but there's a lot of change happening and it's hard to keep up.
The way I read it is that it's taken over 50 years for "gender" and "sex" to become different things. It's still a word that's transitioning (ok, some pun intended), but essentially we're past the tipping point now and you'll offend people if you use gender words incorrectly.
The WHO has the progressive definition that you want to be using: https://www.who.int/gender-equity-rights/understanding/gende...
This is in contrast with the dictionary definition from Google, which still uses biological sex: https://www.google.com/search?q=define+gender
It does feel a little bit like when "literally" changed meaning to "figuratively", but this distinction is really important to an ever growing group of people.
It's also worth noting that it applies to gender words like "man" or "woman" which are different than sex words like "male" and "female".
I still don't understand how non-binary people fit into this, but if you embrace the "singular they", you'll probably not offend anyone.
"Tall" is an acceptable descriptor for a person, obvious to all and not usually very sensitive. "Trans" isn't like this and remarking on "how trans" someone is carries a very different meaning than remarking on "how tall" someone is.
Maybe it's still acceptable or useful to accept "trans women" as their own group, but eventually that will probably go away and "trans woman" will become a dated and bigoted term.
You may find yourself shocked that you ever used the term "trans" in the same way that it's now shocking that black people were once referred to as "colored".
Or alternatively, being trans might become an identity badge of honor, in the same way "gay" has in many places.
My point is that these things evolve over time, so either people are going to be allowed to make mistakes and have debates and figure things out in public, or we have to only use useless tautologies to describe people.
When you tell the GP (who claims to be pro-LGBT) that they're not pro-LGBT because they're struggling to speak correctly on the topic and they used the "wrong" language, you might not be having the effect you intended.
In this case, the GP mistakenly believes the dated idea that "gender" is a biological term, but enlightened folks are aware that gender is now a social construct. I think they simply meant "biologically male people are not female" instead of "trans women aren't women". The language is confusing because it's evolving, but getting everyone on the same page is going to require a lot of public errors that would be better met with debate than shaming.
Or preachers telling the world that gays are evil sinners that need to be saved by conversion therapy? That's discriminatory.
Or feminist groups that advocate for women-only programs and institutions? Dividing the world into groups with different treatment is certainly segregation.
I wonder if things like the Freedom From Religion Foundation would qualify for a ban. Or a church that preaches that their god is the correct one.
You can't choose your age, gender (mostly), race, caste, sexual orientation, or veteran status, but religion is malleable and public discourse about those topics where one person argues that their view is superior to others is pretty important to society.
It's not clear if YouTube is going to remove anything that asserts some religious beliefs are indeed superior to others.
There's various schedules on how to do it, here's a good starting point: https://www.aafp.org/afp/2017/1101/p606.html
My personal rule is to never be taking benzos for more than 3 days in a row, to avoid being in a dangerous withdrawal situation.
It's a problem if everyone does it, but that hasn't really stopped me. It's unclear if I'm a rational actor, a bad person, or both.