My other half had a very good experience with TalkSpace, which accepts our insurance.
Unless you’re in the Republican medicaid-obamacare gap, you should have insurance and they should have at least some mental health coverage. And if you are or they don’t, a professional stranger via an online service is definitely something you should look into.
Was there any reported reduction in training time needed for subsequent words?
Just getting a computer to understand anything from the implanted wires is progress, but it’s “spend hours training for each single word” we’re still at a 1970s scifi level of interaction.
In order to justify their own bigotry, they seem to be literally abandoning the central teachings of the key teacher in Christianity.
When Jesus was asked “what is the most important part of the law”, the two part response was love . To love God wholly, and to love others as we love ourselves.
When later asked how Christians would be judged, Jesus said that we would be judged as if we had done to Jesus whatever we do to the least among us.
I don’t see how it is possible to reconcile bigotry with either of these teachings. I guess they can twist themselves into rhetorical knots and try, but it seems way easier to just decide to love everyone and leave it to God to judge us for whatever our sins may be.
Not everything is a spectrum. You are either actually pregnant or not-pregnsnt. You’re either free to go when the officet is talking to you or you are being detained. You either had consent for sex or you didn’t.
For example, if the example you provide to bolster your argument is “Hitler had admirable qualities”, then you’ve jumped all the way past Godwin’s law and there’s no use talking to you.
“most people” are (1) a much smaller group that you think and (2) wrong.
If your behavior can at all be described as sexist, then you’re not a feminist. That includes both Feminism Appropriating Radical Transphobes like JK Rowling.and outright sex pests like Andrew Cuomo.
Of course I’m a feminist. It’s one of those sublime categories like “alive” or “pregnant” that has only two possible states.
"feminazi’ is kinda like calling a woman a “female”. Its use conveys a “I’m a sexist pig” message you do not seem to intend.
Better terms for women who believe that (cisgender) women are superior to men.
Some of these may covey other messages in their usage.
Thank you for your response.
So, your line from “capitalism” to “nuclear family bias” starts at “line must always go up” and passes through a “more adults is less efficient” principle. Ok, I can understand that picture.
I think you’re wrong about what "capitalism* means, but not in a way that matters for this discussion.
What I’m confused about is who is asserting that a multi-adult household is less efficient. You aren’t, and I’m not, but that sounds like a economic paper trying to smuggle in “christian family values” in the way that creationism tries to smuggle religion into other fields of science.
I honestly just don’t get that argument, as multi-adult households are the norm in a lot of nations and a big reason for the shift towards multi-generational households in western societies is the increased wealth gap, where the rich support their extended families and entourages while the poor make do with less. Stable households with more than three adults are literally more efficient by any measure anyone cares to name.
My opinion is that the bias against them comes in large part from America’s “middle class” myth, (with working men each having their own fiefdoms), and partly from a belief that they are either inherently less stable or cause instability elsewhere.
How does the prioritization of investment over labor make a non-nuclear family lifestyle difficult?
Nuclear-family bias in law and custom is a real thing all on its own. I’m not sure what capitalism has to do with it, but I’d be fascinated to hear you expound on that if you feel like rambling.
That’s a hell of a lot of words that aren’t either “of course we should vote in every election for the best possible candidate” or “no, we should withhold our votes in the general if the Dems don’t nominate someone sufficiently progressive.”
If you mean the latter, say it. If you don’t, then say that, too.
So, you are in favor of “my guy or the Nazi” voting? I didn’t hear a “no”, there.
It isn’t “loser talk” to recognize the rules that elections run by, or to push back against the “both sides” rhetoric that lets the Overton window drift ever rightward.
Either you show up and vote in every election for the least bad candidate, be they good or great or only “not as bad”, or you are doing more harm than good.
What does that fight look like, in your mind? Standing and shouting for Bernie and then sitting out the general when Clinton wins? Or arguing for Bernie in the primary since he’s the best choice and then arguing just as hard for Clinton in the general since she’s the best choice then?
Primary-only voting doesn’t force anyone to do anything but ignore us harder in the primary.
And if that isn’t what you mean by your objection to framing all elections as choices for “least bad”, then why are you echoing the rhetoric of those who do?
I don’t know how you square the circle of asserting that ‘both sided are bad’ is what got us here and still echoing “less bad” to buttress their thesis
Waiting for the left to be “good” instead of “less bad” is what makes “both sides are bad” such an effective demobilization tactic.
Picture the clearest example in human history, where one side was absolute villains and the other a superman-esque obvious good guy.
Then explain to me how the good guy is not the “least bad” choice.
Because too many of us who had selfish political actions, and for decades kept saying “both sides are bad” while the side nearest facism kept acting in bad faith.
Democratic elections have always in the end been about picking the least-bad option. And, like it or not, elections and their consequences shape the rest of the world.
1: what the frick are you doing in Excel that needs even 10^2 columns? Rows go up to 2^20 (~10^6), and the thing starts to run like ass way before that.
2: Excel does have a RXCX format, if you really do need to go out hundreds of columns.)
3: feel free to ignore. Bitching about being forced to use the wrong tool is definitely more stress than anyone needs.
If you think that’s bad, look at what “1” means.
(And, honestly, at least windows’ “last big calendar change” and excel’s “start of the century when we wrote it” are reasonable points. The unix “let’s make it recent so we can fit an absurdly small unit as an integer!” Epoch is just… Weird.)
“this job requires specialized training we’re not willing to provide” is the same management failure as “the wages offered for this job are not sufficient to attract workers.”
Raise the latter, and give the former with a reduced wage for a set number of years.
Are you an atheist, a neo-pagan, or just a protesting with an anti-papal bias?
I ignored most of your anti-catholic bullshit because that’s what it is – anti-catholic bullshit. You asked where I got my assertion from, and I answered. If you want to get into more detail, sure, let’s do that.
Go ahead and rebut how millions of lives were lost by actively sabotaging condom use
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_HIV/AIDS
Condoms are very effective at stopping the spread of HIV, but they do fuckall to keep anyone infected with HIV from developing AIDS and dying. If the catholics are providing 25% of the world healthcare for people with AIDS, that means that there are “millions” of people alive today because of the roman church. And if celebrities like Princess Diana or Magic Johnson get credit for humanizing victims of the AIDS epidemic, so does the catholic church.
I don’t want to defend their wrongheaded opposition to prophylactics due to their family planning usage, but how much blame they get for the spread of HIV and how much credit they get for research and healthcare is, like I said. complex as fuck.
Between 500-1000AD the Church systematically destroyed classical libraries and learning centers.
To paraphrase wikipedia, “citation fucking needed.” Here’s some random links I found, starting with two biased statements.
https://churchandstate.org.uk/2023/01/christian-vandalism-of-the-classical-world/ https://www.christian-thinktank.com/qburnbx.html
The first is a pop-formatted article by a rather obviously biased author, who doesn’t seem to have any actual citations for his claims. The second is a more scholarly formatted article from someone with a more pro-christian bias, but numerous citations are included. Here’s a less biased take, whose short form is “no”:
The Church burned books, destroyed manuscripts, and executed or exiled intellectuals who challenged religious orthodoxy.
I’m going to infer that you’re alluding to the story of Galileo Galilei here. In short, Galileo was condemned by the church not because he was an “intellectual who challenged religious orthodoxy”, but because he didn’t even try and hide his anti-catholic bias. There’s a world of difference between telling the king he’s wrong and telling the king that he should abdicate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
To paraphrase what I said before, if you want to assert as a matter of faith that Christianity in general or the roman church in particular are bad and evil, then there’s no way I could convince you otherwise. If your perspective is more religiously agnostic, however, I encourage you to do a bit more research before you repeat the biased accusations of others as if they were objective fact.
A diesel engine can literally run on vegetable oil. We don’t need fossil fuel subsidies to keep farm tractors working.
If we must distort the market directly, we should do so on the demand side. Give farmers a per-Joule fuel subsidy, and let them use petro-disel, bio-disel, or electric as the market may provide.
Either we believe that markets work or we don’t