insickness

> Are there people out there with dozens of subscriptions for various things, adding up to many hundreds of dollars every month?

Yes. There's even an app that seeks to cancel all those subscriptions you forgot you signed up for: Truebill.

The commodification of dissent. In the 50's, counter-culture was far more delineated from corporate squareness, which is why those old 50's ads are so funny to us now. Business evolved to where now it has the ability to coopt any emerging dissent and counter-culture almost immediately.

Not for nothing, Everything Everywhere All at Once was produced by the Russo brothers who directed Avengers Infinity Wars, Endgame and Captain America movies. Also Michelle Yeoh is a pretty huge star both here and in China. Just saying it's not exactly an indie film. But it was original, for sure.

By looking like you're not "gaming" your profile, you're gaming your profile. This is like saying you don't like people who care so much about how they look, yet you bathe, don't wear rags, etc. It's human nature to care about presentation and optimize for how we present ourselves.

Whether consciously or not, you're still playing the game if you're out dating. You're trying to get the best mate you possibly can while others are doing the same. You're not dating the ugliest, stupidest, most boring, low-status people you can find, even though that would be easiest. Welcome to the game.

I always hate the "don't overthink it" comment that inevitably comes along with any advice on dating, eating, sleeping, etc. Yeah, if dating is going great for you, then no need to apply any thinking at all. But if something is not working then you'll need to think about it and the chorus of people saying "don't overthink it" are less than useless.

I can reliably say that the more I abstain from porn, the better sex feels with my partner. If I'm regularly fapping and watching porn (the two pretty much go together for me), sex just isn't as good. It feels boring and mechanical. When I abstain, it is way more pleasurable. I notice the increase in pleasure even after just a week or so from abstaining. I'm more horny for my partner and looking forward to having sex.

A teacher should not explain to kids that age "what it means" that Timmy has two moms, nor "what it means" that Tammy has a mom and a dad. Not appropriate. Leave the conversation about where babies come from to a sex education class.

"Some kids have two fathers and some kids have two mothers." This is all that needs to be said. This law does not prevent them from saying that. What else needs to be said to children?

"Past earnings do not guarantee future earnings" can be said of literally any investment.

I was averse to anti-depressants as well. Ended up depressed and started self-medicating myself for a few years with weed and alcohol. Finally gave in and started taking the minimum dose of Celexa and, holy fuck, do I wish I had started taking them sooner. They changed my life. I took them for about 7 years and then went off them when I didn't need them anymore. Side effects were very minimal. Dampened sexual pleasure slightly. But it also made me more effective at work and better to get things done in my life.

My advice is try it. Talk to a psychiatrist and go on a minimal dose for a few months. Get therapy while you're going. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work. But it really could change your life.

This article implies that riding scooters is dangerous. I would love to see some stats on that. Is it more dangerous than riding a bike?

I myself ride an electric unicycle. Overall I think that's far more dangerous than riding a scooter or a bike. I've taken a couple nasty spills. But it is way, way, way more fun than riding a scooter or a bike. Plus you have your hands free to carry bags or do some videography.

Some Windows 11 GUI customization tools:

Start All Back https://www.startallback.com

Explorer Patcher https://github.com/valinet/ExplorerPatcher

Open Shell https://github.com/Open-Shell/Open-Shell-Menu

> Or somebody who is upbeat and friendly with no desire to display anything about themselves?

Just because a person isn't outwardly status-seeking doesn't mean they don't display anything about themselves. They may seem like they don't care what anyone thinks about them, but if everyone thought they were a pedophile, they would hate it, regardless of the legal ramifications. It's human nature to care about what others think about us. We all 'display' in some sense or another, whether it's how we dress, what we accomplish or how we want others to perceive us. Humans are extremely social creatures.

> It is possible to control our desire for status

This is a narrow view of status. In many ways, any type of validation you get from working with others can be considered status. Most animals achieve status through physical aggression, while humans (and chimps) achieve status through cooperation and contributing to the group. Our minds are wired to get pleasure from working with others and being validated and appreciated for our work. That is part of status. If you enjoy doing the work you do and it makes you happy, that's because your brain is wired for status. Nothing wrong with it. There are of course negative sides of status like conspicuous consumption, social media addiction, etc. But just because you learn to avoid the pitfalls of status doesn't mean you aren't playing the game.

Beyond that, the gratification from accomplishing something is short-lived. If your last book sold a million copies and your new book only sells 500k, you may feel like a failure even though 500k is a lot of books. In some ways, success only adds to the pressure to keep succeeding. This isn't to say you shouldn't try to succeed, but it certainly explains why so many famous or successful people deal with problems like depression and drug addiction.

Wow. I've purchased more than a few bottles of ducosate. But it looks like you're right:

Reevaluating the Use of Docusate in the Management of Constipation https://www.drugtopics.com/view/reevaluating-the-use-of-docu...

Graph: Historical Marginal Tax Rate for Highest and Lowest Income Earners

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Historical_Marginal_...

You underestimate most mens' willingness to avoid pregnancy. To a lot of men, there are few things more horrific than getting the wrong woman pregnant and being saddled with 18 years of child support payments and the ethical burden of 18 years of child-rearing.

Likewise, if I am scheduling something, I'll go for 12:15pm rather than 12:00pm because it is easier to visualize anything after noon as PM.

> The law protects private individuals, say someone taking your picture specifically on a train, in a gym or what have you.

How does the law differentiate between public places and individuals? For example, if you're sitting in a park and I want to take a photo of the park, how would the law differentiate between me taking a photo of you versus taking a photo of the park?

In the US, it is legal to photograph and film in public as long as there is not an expectation of privacy, such as a restroom. And it should remain legal. If I want to film a police officer arresting someone, they can't tell me to stop. If I'm on a public sidewalk filming a private business, they can't tell me to stop.

You can't legally use someone's image in an advertisement without their consent. But that's different than having the right to film in public. If I'm filming and you walk in front of my camera, you don't have the right to force me to stop filming. You don't own public space.

The CSO is implying that the super user was able to get into the system but did not have access to sensitive data, or at least did not exfiltrate that data. It's possible if their defenses are layered enough. The security model is defense in depth, rather than the "moat" concept of hard on the outside, soft on the inside. Micro-breaches are expected; it's about detecting and mitigating them. I'm not saying the CSO is telling the truth, but that's how you reconcile someone having access to the system without accessing sensitive data.

This article is far better written that most mainstream news articles on any topic. It provides detailed and balanced coverage of both sides of this issue. Wasn't expecting that from a site called TorrentFreak.

The difference is the political nature of the process. When a search engine filters out faceboook.com from the results, I don't question the political motive of the company. When the same company decides for me that I don't need to see websites with information on politically polarized topics, I have a problem with it.

Can you expand on how you would define disinformation if it were your job to down rank sites associated with disinformation?

Both Facebook and Twitter blocked sharing of the NY Post article. You couldn't even share it in a private message. Twitter froze the NY Post's twitter account saying they would unfreeze it once the NY Post took down the article.

Facebook and Twitter restrict controversial New York Post story on Joe Biden https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/oct/14/facebook-...

Twitter Unblocks Account of New York Post, Which Claims Victory in Standoff Over Biden Stories https://variety.com/2020/digital/news/twitter-unblocks-new-y...

> Facebook will no longer take down posts claiming that Covid-19 was man-made or manufactured, a company spokesperson told POLITICO on Wednesday, a move that acknowledges the renewed debate about the virus’ origins.

The citation is in my comment. Here it is again:

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/26/facebook-ban-covid-...

More:

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-06-07/facebo...

My point is that the "misinformation" label has constantly been used as a cover to censor. Two cases in point:

1. To say that Covid may have originated in a lab would get you censored on youtube, facebook and most other social media. It was misinformation until it wasn't. Now the lab leak theory is just as viable.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/26/facebook-ban-covid-...

2. When the story of Hunter Biden's laptop first broke, it was labeled by most mainstream media, along with 50 intelligence experts, as Russian propaganda. Now even the New York Times admits that it was authentic.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/all-the-news-thats-finally-fit-...

The problem is when officers construe filming video as interfering with their job. I wonder if this law would paradoxically enshrine the right to film officers anywhere outside of 8 feet.