rendx

"2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the following products incorporating portable batteries may be designed in such a way as to *make the battery removable and replaceable only by independent professionals*:

(a) appliances specifically designed to operate primarily in an environment that is regularly subject to splashing water, water streams or water immersion, and that are intended to be washable or rinseable;"

This still does NOT allow non-replaceable batteries. Also note "independent".

Where in the post do you see the author arguing about "a list of all results"? To me, it merely draws attention to the fact that there is only one algorithm available in Google Maps, and you rely on Google to calculate "relevance" based on (to us) unknown and intransparent metrics. It draws attention to the kind of power Google has over businesses and our daily lives, without necessarily presenting alternatives. Nothing about that is "silly". It might be more relevant to me to learn about new, small, independent restaurants, but I don't have that choice. If I had access to the full data set, like e.g. OSM, I would.

Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2023 concerning batteries and waste batteries

Article 11

Removability and replaceability of portable batteries and LMT batteries

1. Any natural or legal person that places on the market products incorporating portable batteries shall ensure that those batteries are readily removable and replaceable by the end-user at any time during the lifetime of the product. That obligation shall only apply to entire batteries and not to individual cells or other parts included in such batteries.

A portable battery shall be considered readily removable by the end-user where it can be removed from a product with the use of commercially available tools, without requiring the use of specialised tools, unless provided free of charge with the product, proprietary tools, thermal energy, or solvents to disassemble the product.

Any natural or legal person that places on the market products incorporating portable batteries shall ensure that those products are accompanied with instructions and safety information on the use, removal and replacement of the batteries. Those instructions and that safety information shall be made available permanently online, on a publicly available website, in an easily understandable way for end-users.

[…]

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A...

(This is active law; there is however a grace period for products until 2027.)

In case this piqued your interest, I really enjoyed the documentary about his life's journey, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Sacks%3A_His_Own_Life - can recommend! (Also, fan of his books and research.)

I think the author, an American, is confusing common law and civil law. The ruling's language may be overly broad but in civil law countries like all of Europe, while it may be cited in other legal cases _as a supporting argument by one side or the other_, it will not fundamentally change law and it's not the catastrophy the post author makes it sound like.

> There’s nothing inherently in the law or the ruling that limits its conclusions to “advertisements.” The same underlying factors would apply to any third party content on any website that is subject to the GDPR.

False. A European court's conclusions are specifically around the case it is ruling about, so it is inherently limited to the exact circumstances of that case, without the need for it to specify that. They do not set precedent.

Interesting how you seem to see nothing inherently wrong in the provided quotes that call for violence against people of different opinion, but decided to only critique the person that admitted a mistake without aggression against anyone else, and demand they be (forever?) silent about a topic they seem interested in.

Why would you ever want to demand that someone "stay silent" about anything. Taking away somebody's voice is the lowest of the low. You do not have to read it or interact with it if you don't like it. And how would you want to be treated when you make a mistake? Can't you see how that leads straight to a world of zero progress, where people are afraid to do anything because it could turn out to be a mistake and they will be shunned for it by those that happen to have the most power? Are you not aware of the research into how bad punishment is for learning and advancement of society?

Williams, K. D., & Nida, S. A. (2022). Ostracism and social exclusion: Implications for separation, social isolation, and loss. Current opinion in psychology, 47, 101353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101353

Knapton, H. M. (2014). The Recruitment and Radicalisation of Western Citizens: Does Ostracism Have a Role in Homegrown Terrorism?. Journal of European Psychology Students, 5(1), 38-48. https://doi.org/10.5334/jeps.bo

https://techcultivation.org is a German broad-spectrum FOSS charity.

Chaos Computer Club is not a charity.

> In fact, the GPL often discourages collaboration

Not true. Yes, companies choose not to contribute, so they discourage themselves. It's not inherent to the GPL.

Linked from Anna's Archive: https://open-slum.org/

None of the breads listed there I would consider to be of the category "bread" as a German, and what I would be looking for when I wanted one.

Yes, a French baguette-type soft white bread is formally "bread", but it is treated as a different/single category here, as "white bread". With examples of typical bread being, say: https://www.hofpfisterei.de/download/Hofpfisterei-Sortiment-... And I don't think the images really carry across the difference (and variety) in texture and density, to someone who simply never had this kind of "non-soft" bread. You can spread cold butter from the fridge on it without breaking it, maybe that gives away a hint towards the difference. Also note the variety of grain: rye, spelt, wheat, barley, oats, in different compositions and degrees of fineness. And this is just one brand/bakery.

Some more "typical German bread" images. I picked types that maybe convey the difference to "white bread" the best in viewing:

https://5-elemente.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/rheinische...

https://heicks-teutenberg.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Honi...

https://img.chefkoch-cdn.de/rezepte/2468131388854443/bilder/...

The key used to encrypt traffic is in the URL, everything including path is encrypted from client to the onion service end. What you are saying is true for non-onion HTTP sites, not for onions.

Very sad to see, but I don't expect Israeli kindergardens to be much different in terms of militarization and enemy images, unfortunately. Violence begets violence, and finger-pointing to the other's violence never solved anything.

I get the feeling we're completely talking past each other. I never claimed that psychological disorders cannot have different causes. They may mostly be variants of a living organism's spectrum of maladaptive reactions to various adverse circumstances, yes.

You seem to read what I write, then make assumptions what I might be saying, and then reply to your assumptions, and ignore most of what I write (e.g. about your claims of "heritability"), which makes this a very weird interaction overall.

I agree with your idea of just letting this be, as I don't find it a very productive exchange.

I don't know why you keep coming back to fMRI and genetic markers, because, again, nothing of what I was trying to say has anything to do with whether there are measurable differences on that level or not. You seem to think that "symptoms" are described in the disorder definitions, and anything you measure is the "cause". Again: To me, it is similarly possible that both are symptoms. You can use that for diagnosis if you feel like you need to make this discrimination, but that doesn't say anything about treatment or etiology.

> psychotherapy doesn't have anything to do with "attempting to remove internalized violence against self/other."

I take it you do not consider the EMDR protocol, ACT, CBT, IFS, ego state, Schema, CFT, EFT, SE, DBT, MBSR, DBT, IPT, systemic therapy, gestalt, to be "psychotherapy" then. All of them work with and address internalized violence against self ("inner critic", self-worth, other negative thinking patterns; chronic often suppressed feelings of shame, anger, grief).

> Walk through the fMRI and connectivity differences and the genetic differences as currently understood in the medical literature

"Medicine" can not say anything about kids throwing rocks, it can only talk about broken windows and roofs, because all it measures is houses. I did not argue against measuring and fixing houses. I did not claim there are no visible differences in fMRI, nor did I claim there were, nor did I claim there are no genetic differences, or that there were. Straw man. It makes no difference for what I was arguing about, which you decided to ignore and not engage with.

"The high degree of genetic correlation among many of the psychiatric disorders adds further evidence that their current clinical boundaries do not reflect distinct underlying pathogenic processes, at least on the genetic level."

The Brainstorm Consortium; Anttila, V., Bulik-Sullivan, B., Finucane, H. K., Walters, R. K., Bras, J., … (2018). Analysis of shared heritability in common disorders of the brain. Science, 360(6395), eaap8757. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8757

"This empirical evidence of *shared* genetic etiology for psychiatric disorders can inform nosology and encourages the investigation of common pathophysiologies for related disorders."

Lee, S. H., Ripke, S., Neale, B. M., Faraone, S. V., Purcell, S., Perlis, R. H., … Wray, N. R. (2013). Genetic relationship between five psychiatric disorders estimated from genome-wide SNPs. Nature Genetics, 45(9), 984-994. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.2711

"evidence accumulated over decades of family and twin studies have shown that familial and heritable components commonly overlap between disorders. […] Genetic influences on psychiatric disorders also share genetic determinants with dimensional psychological and neurocognitive traits that transcend diagnostic boundaries."

Lee, P. H., Feng, Y. A., & Smoller, J. W. (2021). Pleiotropy and Cross-Disorder Genetics Among Psychiatric Disorders. Biological psychiatry, 89(1), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2020.09.026

"We are so embedded in this structure. We have spent so much time diagnosing mental disorders that we actually believe they are real. But there's no reality. These are just constructs. There's no reality to schizophrenia or depression. We might have to stop using terms like depression and schizophrenia, because they are getting in our way, confusing things." (Thomas R Insel MD, NIMH director 2005-2015)

https://www.madinamerica.com/2022/04/thomas-insel-future-men...

"In the last 2 decades, it has become obvious that child abuse, urbanization, migration, and adverse life events contribute to the etiology of schizophrenia and other psychoses. […] I expect to see the end of the concept of schizophrenia soon." (Murray, R. M. (2016). Mistakes I Have Made in My Research Career. Schizophrenia Bulletin, sbw165. doi:10.1093/schbul/sbw165)

"Clinically, the evidence that symptoms cut across disorders — or that people frequently have more than one disorder — has only grown stronger. […] Even seemingly separate disorders are linked. In 2008, geneticist Angelica Ronald, then at King’s College London Institute of Psychiatry, and her colleagues found that autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) overlapped."

Nature: The hidden links between mental disorders (2020) https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00922-8

"I would say [biomarkers] are potentially highly useful but conceptually and practically incomplete"

Freckelton I., QC (2018). Overdiagnosis in Psychiatry: How Modern Psychiatry Lost Its Way While Creating a Diagnosis for Almost All of Life's Misfortunes, by Paris Joel: Oxford University Press, 2015, xi-xix and 1-181 pp., Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 25(2), 325–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2018.1463588

> Under your view, how would you explain why the disorders have different rates of heritability, different genetic markers, different fMRI patterns, and different treatments?

"Heritability" is a misnomer. "Heritability" via twin studies cannot account for the prenatal phase, so by definition anything that results from early developmental influences is included in "heritability", where it would be more precise to regard is as environmental. Wouldn't it be weird to claim the first 9 months of plant growth is "hereditary" and has nothing to do with its environment in that phase? Epigenetics play a role in the modification of genetic markers. There is a growing body of research around cell memory and "early consciousness". Anything you can measure from a biological lense provides data for correlation, not causation. You can stop on that level, sure, and then claim that is "etiology", or you can theorize about common causes elsewhere.

Explaining "different treatments" makes it sound like there is an agreement on how to treat, say, CPTSD vs bipolar disorder vs schizophrenia vs BPD vs DID vs GAD, where in practice there is a lot of experimentation and overlap. Of course if you "treat" on the level of say, receptors, and try to influence the system that way, you need to use different drugs, depending on what effect the original cause already had. The same cause may result in different adaptations of the body for different people. If you work on the level of the psyche, you might find that what your patients have in common is a history of violence, towards self and others; the symptoms may disappear either from a continous stream of your carefully tuned drugs, or from removing the ongoing violence. Unfortunately you cannot easily measure that from the outside, and people will not necessarily give you accurate data to work with in your surveys; if you even bother to gather that. Psychotherapy is attempting to remove internalized violence against self/other.

Let me try an analogy here: You are tasked to fix broken houses. The symptom that is described is that the floors are wet and it is cold inside. You arrive at the house and see that, yes, the floor is wet, and the windows are broken; the heating works. It is not false to claim that the broken windows are the "cause" of the wet floor. You put in new windows. Case closed.

You get called to another house, with the same symptom. You find that the roof needs fixing. You create a new category in your diagnostic manual of house disorders.

You try to approach it scientifically: You take the symptoms of 100.000 houses, and categorize measurable problems inside the house and correlate them to what needs to be fixed. You may in fact not be interested in why the windows are broken: You make a living from these repairs. You do sometimes wonder why you get called to the same houses periodically to find the same windows broken, but you don't see anything particularly wrong with the house after you fix it up each time so you move on. It's not your job to identify a group of youngsters that walk around throwing rocks into people's windows and dismantling roofs.

Is it wrong to claim that fixing the windows is the correct treatment at the "origin", and that it wouldn't help if the roof needs fixing? No. Does it say anything about the "root cause"? No.

DSM Disorders Disappear in Statistical Clustering of Psychiatric Symptoms (2024)

https://www.psychiatrymargins.com/p/traditional-dsm-disorder...

You may disagree, but I'm more in line with publications such as this:

Frank Tallis, We should still pick up the pearls: on the scientific status of Freud, Brain, Volume 147, Issue 4, April 2024, Pages 1115–1117, https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awad414

"We do not think of Galileo as being a bad scientist because he cast horoscopes. Rather, we consider him to be an excellent one on account of his mathematics. Similarly, our estimate of Freud’s scientific reputation should not be based on what he got wrong—or for that matter, whether his putative affair with his sister-in-law proves that he was a congenital liar—but rather, what he got right. Militant ‘Freud bashing’ has favoured a style of argument that lacks nuance, and sometimes, integrity."

The theories of 100 years of psychoanalysis may not be scientifically proven (nor disproven), but there's plenty of opportunity to do that. There's no need to dismiss any and all ideas coming from that space outright based on some generalization around specific people or their individual-centric approach and reasoning.

"The answer to the question of whether psychoanalysis is ‘scientific’—or not—is less clear than is commonly supposed. Popper’s assertion that psychoanalysis does not meet the falsification criterion, which is often automatically accepted as an incontestable truth, hasn’t prevented ‘scientifically minded’ researchers testing psychoanalytic hypotheses experimentally."

I strongly disagree with your statement that psychological disorders are distinct in terms of etiology. That's just not true, and frankly, unscientific to make up such a claim. To provide some citations:

"The reliability and validity of traditional taxonomies are limited by arbitrary boundaries between psychopathology and normality, often unclear boundaries between disorders, frequent disorder co-occurrence, heterogeneity within disorders, and diagnostic instability."

Kotov, R., Krueger, R. F., Watson, D., Achenbach, T. M., Althoff, R. R., Bagby, R. M., Brown, T. A., Carpenter, W. T., Caspi, A., Clark, L. A., Eaton, N. R., Forbes, M. K., Hyman, S. E., Jonas, K. G., Latzman, R. D., Li, J. J., Nelson, B. D., Regier, D. A., Rodriguez-Seijas, C., Ruggero, C. J., … Wilson, S. (2017). The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP): A dimensional alternative to traditional nosologies. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126(4), 454-477. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000258

"Mental disorders traditionally have been viewed as distinct, episodic, and categorical conditions. This view has been challenged by evidence that many disorders are sequentially comorbid, recurrent/chronic, and exist on a continuum."

Caspi, A., Houts, R. M., Belsky, D. W., Goldman-Mellor, S. J., Harrington, H., Israel, S., Meier, M. H., Ramrakha, S., Shalev, I., Poulton, R., & Moffitt, T. E. (2014). The p factor: One general psychopathology factor in the structure of psychiatric disorders? Clinical Psychological Science, 2(2), 119-137. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702613497473

"Denial" typically refers not to the denial that something bad happened to you, but to not see how you act it out on others (or yourself). It is exactly those in denial that would claim that they "have moved on", and try hard to make it look like they did also to those around them. It then shows up in violent tendencies, lashing out against kids, enemy images, patterns of avoidance, psychosomatic symptoms, burnout, addictions, obesity, sports injuries due to overdoing it, inability to sit still and listen, etc. - not necessarily PTSD symptoms.

"Extrasensory Perception Experiences" -- experiencing it as "extrasensory perception" can be very real, like verbal hallucinations are very real experiences. It's well worth to study people who experience these phenomena.

The definitions of psychological disorders are not exact, the comorbidities are high, all of this is not exact science, like you make it seem. CPTSD is not in the DSM because the symptoms are already covered by DSMs extended PTSD definition. I wonder why it is so important for some people to fight over definitions of what to me mostly look like different maladaptive coping mechanisms with very similar underlying causes and very similar treatment options.

To you, things seem to be either "pseudoscience" (on what grounds?) or "scientific", and what you write sounds very much motivated by your own political beliefs. And, why shouldn't people be motivated by their beliefs? They can still be good scientists too.

You dismiss Freud as "pseudoscientific", where he expressed very clearly that he wants people to challenge his theories and develop them further, and that he doesn't think he owns the truth. He wrote lots of material where he merely documents his interactions with patients and presents his thoughts and theories and experiments, based on what was available to him at the time. Nothing what I read of his extensive study material makes me think it's "pseudoscientific", even if many of his theories have now been challenged and disproven. That doesn't make him a bad scientist. You may want to look at your high horse here. Can you explain why you think Freud didn't do science, back when he did it?

Any game ever can run very well on any modern hardware using emulators or virtual machines.

Obviously you would set up a computer system to rule them all. Disobey and there goes your oxygen.

RIRs also run public (web) infrastructure, and it sounds like one of them will take over this project. What's your question exactly?

No need for a filter rule apparently!

https://purelymail.com/docs/features

"Subaddressing allows you to tag the email addresses you give out. […] This also works with example_tagged@purelymail.com (in fact, everything after the first symbol- anything not a letter- in an address is ignored for routing) […]"

Video: https://www.tiktok.com/@ghostpitur/video/7533586820299296022

Ah yes, I run a local IMAP server (Dovecot).

"No matter who you are, no matter what you do, no matter who your audience is: 30 percent will love it, 30 percent will hate it, and 30 percent won't care."

I use imapsync. Yes you can limit it to mails sent or received in a certain timespan.

https://imapsync.lamiral.info/FAQ.d/FAQ.Archiving.txt

> "scientifically documented" - proceeds to not cite the science

It's an excerpt of a book which you can find online, where the citations are in the appendix. 14 pages of them.

Huh? Since when does the word 'radiologist' not already imply being human? Did I miss a memo? The original title "AI isn't replacing radiologists" makes more sense, or why not "Demand for radiologists is at an all-time high".

Judging from many of the comments here and in other threads, it seems like no document is actually making people see how terrible these people are. Not even here of all places, where one could assume a decent capacity for rational thought. They either don't want to see the violence, or cannot see it, or condone or even support it. Which doesn't make rational sense, since it only leads to more violence, which I doubt can seriously be the end goal, to escalate us into extinction.

You don't even need to bring morals into it or care about anyone else than your own peers. It just doesn't make any sense other than self-harm and a comprehensible yet pointless expression of own pain.