Crazy that someone would use this pseudonym while at the same time saying that all society's problems are caused by socialist and Communist conspiracy.
Well actually, my hypothesis is that Senator Joseph McCarthy sought to root out a distinct group of immigrants who could not be directly named in public, due to the matter of WWII and its aftermath. It would seem that communism/socialism wasn't a huge, huge threat to American culture or morals, but there was a certain ethnoreligious group who has been actively immigrating from Eastern Bloc nations. They were previously expelled from many Western European nations and that is why they became rather concentrated and ghettoized, if you will, before their refugee status.
If Senator McCarthy was not directly worried about communism but about interdicting the influence of this certain group, then communist party membership was a proxy to identify them. In fact, having secularized, many joined the Communist Party in their home nations and become quite influential in Communist circles, and of course later brought that activism with them, continuing stateside.
But Senator McCarthy and his allies would understandably be loath to mention or categorize their actual target in public circles, because that would be political suicide for them, despite having much agreement and support from normal red-blooded Christian Americans.
So no, I don't blame "all society's problems" on those ideologies. I think they've always been sort of a proxy or scapegoat for the real issues, which are more nuanced, more pervasive, and more difficult to define, but I definitely agree with Senator McCarthy's stance that there were identifiable groups of foreigners who sought to influence and destabilize American culture and politics.
I don't really understand where you are going with the fundamentalist vs. empiricist holy war narrative. Medical science is very empiricist, but it is conservative.
Yes they will miss rare cases or where symptoms aren't quantifiable or where no understood biological mechanism exists. Yes you can take on research and treatment yourself with the risk associated. No a bunch of anecdotal evidence on experimental treatments do not substitute for structured research. No you won't come back here in 3 years if you develop serious side effects that would have been identified in clinical trials and tell everyone you were wrong.
’fundamentalist’ has religious connotations which I did not intend, I meant deduction from first principles not foundational orthodoxy. My expression was there was tension not completely discrete factions, there is clearly some empiricism used in medicine. One of the difficulties in getting published is defending a position and it’s easier to do this with a mechanism of action which I think slows things down too much. The pace of progress on my conditions might as well be none at all. Still no cure for a condition that’s been known about since Hippocrates.
So I’ve been doing this for over 4 years now, and commenting on this with this account for a bit less than that, so far no serious unwanted side effects other than the usual ones for semaglutide which went away. Of course that has a survivorship bias but in the forums people do often tell others what they’re about to try and we would notice if they stopped showing up.
> My expression was there was tension not completely discrete factions, there is clearly some empiricism used in medicine. One of the difficulties in getting published is defending a position and it’s easier to do this with a mechanism of action which I think slows things down too much.
There is always tension between objectives in real-world systems. There are essentially two frontiers in our healthcare system--a core of educated professionals that are conservative and move slowly with ample evidence behind decisions, and a wide range of laymen who are comfortable with personal risk (e.g. bodybuilding community). I have respect for both, and they work together. The core will always have too many false negatives and the horizon group will have too many false positives. Saying the balance right now slows things down too much needs more support as an argument, there will always be things on the roadmap for medicine and there will always be edge cases that can't get addressed perfectly
From what I've seen medical researchers are champing at the bit for new areas of treatment that they think are promising and they just need the smallest amount of convincing evidence to research. If they don't have it for something you think is valuable, collect the information in a systematic way and find someone to send it to.
I totally agree. When I was going to school while working, I'd often stay late, or come in on weekends (and stay late). I loved that feeling of peacefulness. Same feeling I got when I would take a walk for a break while staying up for an all nighter coding in the computer lab in university. I think those horror-ish feelings (and same with the dystoptian pictures of american suburbs), really only work if you haven't actually experienced those places.
"setting a line" really means having solid principles to deal with situations. it doesn't mean you have to be rigid, but it does mean you have to proactively think about what you want and what is acceptable, so you have something to fall back on when situations get complex
in my experience, people from ask-heavy cultures will only respond to clear lines. otherwise they will just keep pushing. if you have people in your life who are very good at recognizing soft boundaries, you don't need this skill with them, but it will be helpful for people who ignore soft boundaries.
The advice to seek legal representation is still probably your best course of action. If you're clearly in the right and have a paper trail showing it, you have a chance. Of course, the first thing your lawyer will advise you to do is take down the Medium post.
spain has the highest unemployment rate in the EU. maybe you are ignoring important tradeoffs and are a little too confident about your own opinion on what it means to "manage your company just fine"
Maybe, or maybe you’re about to find out what happens to the consumer side when a large percentage of companies decide they no longer need half their workforce judging on linkedin vibes.
But the definition of economically active differs between the two: Finland includes people from ages 15-89, while in Spain you need to be 16 or older. And judging from what I read the rise in unemployment in Finland is attributed to more people entering the workforce.
what exactly is your point? you misinterpreted what he said. he just said that all 4K were being fired, and he would rather do it in one cut than gradually. he did not say the company's outcome would be different with those 4k vs. not
This isn’t really a guess vs ask distinction, this is you just not understanding people. Those initial questions you asked are:
1. Often an implicit call to action from the person asking the question. Maybe YOU don’t mean it that way, but people have learned to be cautious
2. A distraction from actual work, and not worth it personally for a public discussion. Maybe the answer is “I don’t know” or “This is the fastest good-enough thing I could build to satisfy a dumb requirement”. But no one wants to say those things publicly, so they are cautious before answering
It’s especially aggravating when you get those questions from someone new in authority
reply