It depends on a lot of factors, which is part of why the question is divisive. To oversimplify:
On one hand, when done optimally, nuclear provides huge amounts of power extremely cleanly and safely - even compared to renewables. There is also a number of options that could allow for significantly reduced costs and significantly increased flexibility such as SMRs, or other reactor technologies. On the other hand, nuclear has a mountain of roadblocks in front of it including antinuclear sentiment, policy blocks (particularly stemming from that sentient), and a lack of know-how increasing cost and slowing both building of reactors and development of new technologies. This means it could be amazing in the long term, particularly in regions that are suboptimal for renewables, and for industries requiring large amounts of power 24/7, but it can't do much in the short-term.
Renewables meanwhile, are cheap, fast and easy to build and easy to expand to the point where until ideal conditions, even individuals can afford to install and run their own electrical infrastructure. As such, its amazing to quickly reduce prices, reduce emissions, and reduce dependence on governments. On the other hand, most renewable options lack flexibility. Solar only runs half the day, and the further you are from the equator, the lower the efficacy. Wind takes up huge amounts of space. Hydro requires damable rivers and space to avoid destroying ecosystems. There's lots of options, but they also have large limits. As technology improves these will limits will be reduced (such as improving battery technology) but they are still present.
Ultimately, this means that where available, renewables are nearly always best in the short term. Long term, it gets messier, since it depends on what we invest in now, which technologies end up going somewhere versus being dead ends, and how the world changes in general. Most predict a mixed approach would be best, both to address the variety of global needs, and to spread risk. All that said, global warming is, at this point, a short-term problem. We can't afford to focus on the long-term anymore, which is why there is so much focus on renewables. We need to be replacing and expanding infrastructure yesterday so we don't have time to wait for nuclear, and debatably, can't afford to be investing in an energy technology that won't pay off for decades when that could be further invested in renewables.
Theres a whole host of issues, many of which are already mentioned, but two other big ones are treating it more as a health issue rather than a moral one, and improving healthcare - especially mental health care.
People don't realize, but a lot of obesity cases are tied into other health issues - especially mental health. This is doubly true for more extreme cases. For a very simple example, those who are neurodivergent often struggle with specific stimulations including food textures (limiting food options), especially in combination with food deserts or areas with little selection. On the other hand, this can often be improved or worked around with medication and/or therapy. Medication such as antidepressants or antipsychotics causing weight gain is another very common example, and while it isn't as easy to avoid, better medical support can make it easier to manage, especially if you need to change diet as a result. For a more extreme example, trauma is very closely tied to weight gain and eating disorders. Watch any episode of My Six-Hundred Pound Life (or better yet, don't), and you'll notice that almost all of them have significant trauma. For example, childhood abuse can lead to difficulty self-regulating, or sexual abuse can cause someone to feel that being """ugly""" will help prevent future assaults. These examples just scratch the surface too, and things only gen messier when you have comorbid conditions. Just imagine, for example, someone with OCD affecting how they eat, depression treated with a weight-gain causing medication, and PMOS (a hormonal issue common in women, which often makes it extremely difficult to lose weight). Doctors often ignore or struggle to treat any of these individually, nonetheless all three together, and thats before we open the conversation around affordability.
Given this, and just how sensitive and defensive humans are in general, that makes it all-the-more important that we treat people respectfully and kindly. Even ignoring basic decentcy, demonizing or mocking people for their weight delegitimises efforts to change systematic barriers, makes accessing care more difficult or unfriendly, often wastes time or confuses with "advice" that is unhelpful or outright destructive given the context of someone's medical background (I.E. telling someone with an eating disorder to control their eating more), and increases stress, which in turn, makes medical issues worse and harder to cope with. Instead, if we treat it as a medical issue, we avoid all of this and stop moralising or hurting people already struggling.
From what I heard (although I may be wrong) it sounded like Sheeran was quietly supportive of Macklemore, given that he was consistently allowed to give his speech up until Kraft threatened them. Sure, he gave in to the pressure far more quickly than he should have, but by the sound of it, he was ultimately a victim of Zionist actions rather than a supporter. Kraft was the one trying to silence the Free Palestine messages, and threatening the whole tour to do so - he is the aggressor here.
That said, maybe I've missed something, so feel free to correct me.
It sucks that this is the current market, but for what it is, this is unfortunately pretty much what I expected. Its similar hardware to a flagship phone, but with custom VR hardware and software, so flagship phone, plus about 25%
I pity psychologists. Imagine how many people want to chew their ear off about narcissism, emotional labor, gaslighting, or whatever self-help pop psychologists are grifting about today.
Honestly, as it relates to academics and papers, psychology isn't too bad from what I've read. There are wildly varying definitions, but papers have had ways to account for that for decades - that being defining terms where needed, and showing your work so others can see the context. For example, if studying depression, they'll have to specify which scale or metric was used for depression in patients, be it a mood tracker, or a standardize questionnaire. That said, you could always tell when a paper wasn't well constructed or had little to offer, because thats when the jargon would be front and centre.
That, and more purely philosophical academic papers. They were awful. For example, reading a thirteen-page paper that could wholly be summarised as "Positionality is how people define themselves relative to others. They may have biases based on these definitions." but written like, "subject-position is based on a subject's temporal elements to best target the dominant drive in a social confrontation..." I have no problem reading most articles, but those were putting me to sleep.
SCP is released under CC BY-SA 3.0, so from my understanding, its free to use so long as they give attribution and use the same licence. I guess that means the movie will also be released under Creative Commons whereas the book wasn't.
Do you mean There is No Anti-Memetics Division? I was trying to research but There is No Anti-Memetics Division was originally published 2020/2021 and I couldn't find anything else, nonetheless something more recent.
Edit: Also, I read the article and it says it'll be tied to the V/H/S series, which means it will be an anthology.
Even as someone who is a proponent of expanding Nuclear power, California is not where I'd expect it to be needed. They're in a tropical climate, on a coast, and have mountainous terrain - practically the best possible conditions for renewables. At the same time the region is prone to earthquakes and (from my understanding) in desperate need for new power generation fast, which the current state of nuclear in the USA doesn't allow for. Is there a reason they're choosing to expand nuclear over renewables?
so it seems logical to punish the same outcome with different motivation
In that case, shouldn't the law be against causing children significant and unnessasary distress/anxiety/fear? Like, if I were to start the Church of Street Safety and say that running into oncoming traffic might get you sent to Traffic Hell, which is "bad", should that be considered child psychological abuse? Like you said, the motivations aren't the important part, the actions/outcome are, so the religion (or lack thereof for that matter) shouldn't be the deciding factor, the damage caused by the parents should be.
for the exact same reason that a parent can tell their child that they will get run over if they play in the middle of a busy road
I'd say that this is actually a pretty good comparison. Like, I wouldn't say parents should be banned in discussing concepts like hell just like they shouldn't be banned from discussing people being hit by a car. At the same time, there is a huge difference between talking about death or suffering in a kid-safe way and scaring them - that should be where the line is drawn. If a parent tells their child that running into the road will have their body painfully crushed and smeared down the road, it doesn't matter if its secular, its psychological abuse, and conversely, if a parent says their child needs to go to services to protect them from hell, its not inherently abuse just because its religious. Ultimately, religion is just a collection of ideas/beliefs, and they shouldn't have more or less privilege based on the label applied to them.
I know four is a commonly referenced favourite, but I just couldn't get into it. Beyond Earth on the other hand, was quite fun despite the hate, although didn't have as much replayability or longevity.
As nice as a return to a more decentralized web experience would be, people have come to rely on the social platforms as a sort of info hub to have everything delivered regardless of device.
I mean, does Twitter even do that well at this point? At the very least, it doesn't work as well as an RSS feed.
I mean, when you're comparing it to a locked down mess of a social media site like Twitter, even that is really overkill. All a website would need to replicate that format is a collection of HTML-only webpages, or if you want to be fancy, an RSS feed.
Yep, as I said, there's only soon much you can do, and supervision and education are the be-all-and-end-alls. At the same time the internet is a horrific place and kids are impulsive and stupid (especially when spurred on by peers), so it makes sense to take additional steps and use additional tools where possible. Thats what I'm asking about primarily, tools to assist in parenting, not replace it.
It depends on a lot of factors, which is part of why the question is divisive. To oversimplify:
On one hand, when done optimally, nuclear provides huge amounts of power extremely cleanly and safely - even compared to renewables. There is also a number of options that could allow for significantly reduced costs and significantly increased flexibility such as SMRs, or other reactor technologies. On the other hand, nuclear has a mountain of roadblocks in front of it including antinuclear sentiment, policy blocks (particularly stemming from that sentient), and a lack of know-how increasing cost and slowing both building of reactors and development of new technologies. This means it could be amazing in the long term, particularly in regions that are suboptimal for renewables, and for industries requiring large amounts of power 24/7, but it can't do much in the short-term.
Renewables meanwhile, are cheap, fast and easy to build and easy to expand to the point where until ideal conditions, even individuals can afford to install and run their own electrical infrastructure. As such, its amazing to quickly reduce prices, reduce emissions, and reduce dependence on governments. On the other hand, most renewable options lack flexibility. Solar only runs half the day, and the further you are from the equator, the lower the efficacy. Wind takes up huge amounts of space. Hydro requires damable rivers and space to avoid destroying ecosystems. There's lots of options, but they also have large limits. As technology improves these will limits will be reduced (such as improving battery technology) but they are still present.
Ultimately, this means that where available, renewables are nearly always best in the short term. Long term, it gets messier, since it depends on what we invest in now, which technologies end up going somewhere versus being dead ends, and how the world changes in general. Most predict a mixed approach would be best, both to address the variety of global needs, and to spread risk. All that said, global warming is, at this point, a short-term problem. We can't afford to focus on the long-term anymore, which is why there is so much focus on renewables. We need to be replacing and expanding infrastructure yesterday so we don't have time to wait for nuclear, and debatably, can't afford to be investing in an energy technology that won't pay off for decades when that could be further invested in renewables.
Theres a whole host of issues, many of which are already mentioned, but two other big ones are treating it more as a health issue rather than a moral one, and improving healthcare - especially mental health care.
People don't realize, but a lot of obesity cases are tied into other health issues - especially mental health. This is doubly true for more extreme cases. For a very simple example, those who are neurodivergent often struggle with specific stimulations including food textures (limiting food options), especially in combination with food deserts or areas with little selection. On the other hand, this can often be improved or worked around with medication and/or therapy. Medication such as antidepressants or antipsychotics causing weight gain is another very common example, and while it isn't as easy to avoid, better medical support can make it easier to manage, especially if you need to change diet as a result. For a more extreme example, trauma is very closely tied to weight gain and eating disorders. Watch any episode of My Six-Hundred Pound Life (or better yet, don't), and you'll notice that almost all of them have significant trauma. For example, childhood abuse can lead to difficulty self-regulating, or sexual abuse can cause someone to feel that being """ugly""" will help prevent future assaults. These examples just scratch the surface too, and things only gen messier when you have comorbid conditions. Just imagine, for example, someone with OCD affecting how they eat, depression treated with a weight-gain causing medication, and PMOS (a hormonal issue common in women, which often makes it extremely difficult to lose weight). Doctors often ignore or struggle to treat any of these individually, nonetheless all three together, and thats before we open the conversation around affordability.
Given this, and just how sensitive and defensive humans are in general, that makes it all-the-more important that we treat people respectfully and kindly. Even ignoring basic decentcy, demonizing or mocking people for their weight delegitimises efforts to change systematic barriers, makes accessing care more difficult or unfriendly, often wastes time or confuses with "advice" that is unhelpful or outright destructive given the context of someone's medical background (I.E. telling someone with an eating disorder to control their eating more), and increases stress, which in turn, makes medical issues worse and harder to cope with. Instead, if we treat it as a medical issue, we avoid all of this and stop moralising or hurting people already struggling.
Are you looking for multiplayer specifically? If not, Borderlands might be a good fit for a fairly casual shooter.
I did not, so that would explain what I'm missing and why people are focused on him over Kraft.
From what I heard (although I may be wrong) it sounded like Sheeran was quietly supportive of Macklemore, given that he was consistently allowed to give his speech up until Kraft threatened them. Sure, he gave in to the pressure far more quickly than he should have, but by the sound of it, he was ultimately a victim of Zionist actions rather than a supporter. Kraft was the one trying to silence the Free Palestine messages, and threatening the whole tour to do so - he is the aggressor here.
That said, maybe I've missed something, so feel free to correct me.
It sucks that this is the current market, but for what it is, this is unfortunately pretty much what I expected. Its similar hardware to a flagship phone, but with custom VR hardware and software, so flagship phone, plus about 25%
Getting killed by an AA in an unarmed vehicle?
Honestly, as it relates to academics and papers, psychology isn't too bad from what I've read. There are wildly varying definitions, but papers have had ways to account for that for decades - that being defining terms where needed, and showing your work so others can see the context. For example, if studying depression, they'll have to specify which scale or metric was used for depression in patients, be it a mood tracker, or a standardize questionnaire. That said, you could always tell when a paper wasn't well constructed or had little to offer, because thats when the jargon would be front and centre.
That, and more purely philosophical academic papers. They were awful. For example, reading a thirteen-page paper that could wholly be summarised as "Positionality is how people define themselves relative to others. They may have biases based on these definitions." but written like, "subject-position is based on a subject's temporal elements to best target the dominant drive in a social confrontation..." I have no problem reading most articles, but those were putting me to sleep.
SCP is released under CC BY-SA 3.0, so from my understanding, its free to use so long as they give attribution and use the same licence. I guess that means the movie will also be released under Creative Commons whereas the book wasn't.
Do you mean There is No Anti-Memetics Division? I was trying to research but There is No Anti-Memetics Division was originally published 2020/2021 and I couldn't find anything else, nonetheless something more recent.
Edit: Also, I read the article and it says it'll be tied to the V/H/S series, which means it will be an anthology.
Also, the Index (the main non-Facebook option) isn't even available for sale anymore, so...
Even as someone who is a proponent of expanding Nuclear power, California is not where I'd expect it to be needed. They're in a tropical climate, on a coast, and have mountainous terrain - practically the best possible conditions for renewables. At the same time the region is prone to earthquakes and (from my understanding) in desperate need for new power generation fast, which the current state of nuclear in the USA doesn't allow for. Is there a reason they're choosing to expand nuclear over renewables?
In that case, shouldn't the law be against causing children significant and unnessasary distress/anxiety/fear? Like, if I were to start the Church of Street Safety and say that running into oncoming traffic might get you sent to Traffic Hell, which is "bad", should that be considered child psychological abuse? Like you said, the motivations aren't the important part, the actions/outcome are, so the religion (or lack thereof for that matter) shouldn't be the deciding factor, the damage caused by the parents should be.
I'd say that this is actually a pretty good comparison. Like, I wouldn't say parents should be banned in discussing concepts like hell just like they shouldn't be banned from discussing people being hit by a car. At the same time, there is a huge difference between talking about death or suffering in a kid-safe way and scaring them - that should be where the line is drawn. If a parent tells their child that running into the road will have their body painfully crushed and smeared down the road, it doesn't matter if its secular, its psychological abuse, and conversely, if a parent says their child needs to go to services to protect them from hell, its not inherently abuse just because its religious. Ultimately, religion is just a collection of ideas/beliefs, and they shouldn't have more or less privilege based on the label applied to them.
I know four is a commonly referenced favourite, but I just couldn't get into it. Beyond Earth on the other hand, was quite fun despite the hate, although didn't have as much replayability or longevity.
I thought this was from Dota 2's early art, but its possible I'm wrong. I couldn't find the original source.
Pretty much, yep. The only people I know who aren't are old, and even they're feeling the pinch.
I mean, does Twitter even do that well at this point? At the very least, it doesn't work as well as an RSS feed.
I mean, when you're comparing it to a locked down mess of a social media site like Twitter, even that is really overkill. All a website would need to replicate that format is a collection of HTML-only webpages, or if you want to be fancy, an RSS feed.
Yep, as I said, there's only soon much you can do, and supervision and education are the be-all-and-end-alls. At the same time the internet is a horrific place and kids are impulsive and stupid (especially when spurred on by peers), so it makes sense to take additional steps and use additional tools where possible. Thats what I'm asking about primarily, tools to assist in parenting, not replace it.