"Naturally it should be pointed out that I'm sure the majority of gay people do not behave in such a way."
They most assuredly do not. I am a gay engineer. I've never known anyone so blatantly deceptive, but if any of my acquaintances even thought about doing something like that, I would give them a dressing down that would make a drill sergeant cry.
Gay people are like any population sample. 95% of them are normal, decent human beings; 5% are wackos.
The original team that worked on the Feed was a mashup between Milo and Hunch folks; there were two engineers from Milo, one from Hunch, and a couple of product people from both sides. eBay Now was born completely under the Milo umbrella. Svpply hasn't been involved.
I am a depression patient. It is certainly true that various substances can induce depression. I do not believe that the original poster was implying that depression is without very real biological causes; merely that these causes are more nuanced than the phrase "chemical imbalance" implies. Here is some food for thought.
SSRIs, or serotonin reuptake inhibitors, are the most commonly prescribed antidepressants in the United States due to their relative safety and efficacy. It is widely thought that these drugs achieve effectiveness through their ability to increase serotonin levels in the brain. Now, here comes the mystery: while serotonin levels rise almost immediately following introduction of the drug, the antidepressant effects do not become apparent until several weeks of treatment have passed. Why is that? No one knows for sure, but a few interesting theories have emerged.
The most interesting theory, in my opinion, involves hippocampal neurogenesis and BDNF levels. A few recent studies have shown that one thing that the SSRIs share in common is that they all promote neurogenesis in the hippocampus. A further study showed that the antidepressant effects of SSRIs on behavior in rats exposed to artificially induced stressors could be completely nullified by slightly irradiating the hippocampus, thus negating the growth of new neurons promoted by the SSRIs. The antidepressant effect was gone even though serotonin levels remained elevated.
This conclusion provided compelling but not conclusive evidence that neurogenesis is involved in antidepressant effectiveness. Yet even here, the picture was not altogether clear: while patients diagnosed with clinical depression generally show less hippocampal neurogenesis than controls, it is not at all clear whether this deficit is a cause or effect of clinical depression. Is it possible that depression, once established, can cause physical changes in brain structure? If so, that might explain why cognitive behavioral therapy in conjunction with antidepressant medication is a more effective depression treatment than either of the two alone.
Interestingly enough, strenuous aerobic exercise is known both to be an effective treatment for mild to moderate forms of depression as well as a promoter of hippocampal neurogenesis. An increasing number of psychiatrists are in fact prescribing exercise regimens as treatment for some forms of depression because it seems to work.
The bottom line is: there's a lot we don't know about depression, and while we have effective treatments, the reality is that the causes of depression simply cannot be adequately summed up as a "chemical imbalance." Drugs are appropriate for some patients and inappropriate for others. I encourage anyone interested in the subject to do some reading, as the brain is (at least, to a layman like me) the most fascinating information processing system ever.
While we don't know the exact causes, and there are complex factors in play, it is most certainly a chemical imbalance. Imagine you could take a perfect chemical "snapshot" of the brain/body when it's in a normal mood and again in depressed state. Do you seriously think there would be no difference chemically?
I've take SSRIs off & on for the last 15 years. I'm currently on them after experiencing suicidal depression this summer. (I suspect it was partially induced by taking Chantix.)
Exercise can help, but in my case it doesn't make much difference. When my latest onset hit I was (and still am) in the best shape of my life and maintaining 10% body fat. I've been doing Crossfit for the last 15 months. Very strenuous.
"Do you seriously think there would be no difference chemically?"
No, I do not think that. In fact, I stated quite clearly that depression causes measurable changes in brain morphology and function. My entire argument was to support the assertion that the phrase "chemical imbalance" is merely an insufficient label for a complex psychological and biological phenomenon.
"Suicide. Everyone responded as they should. But if you meant it, this post wouldn't exist because you'd be hanging from a rafter right now. Just a thought."
You obviously mean well, but this statement bespeaks ignorance about suicide prevention. Most but not all suicides are preceded by warning signs, and talking about it openly automatically places the speaker in the high risk category.
The intent to kill one's self begins with ideation and grows from there. At first, idle thoughts about killing yourself begin to drift through your mind at random. Driving down the freeway, out of fucking nowhere, you imagine yourself veering into oncoming traffic. Or maybe you're in the kitchen taking an Advil and the thought comes to your mind, unbidden, to just down the whole god damn bottle and chase it down with vodka.
These images are like demons, and they are not easy to exorcise. As the imagery and impulses grow more intense and vivid, some victims will say something to offer a clue to those around them or to ask for help. The problem is that this warning often doesn't seem serious because the victim is so torn between two conflicting desires: 1) the desire to end suffering, and 2) the desire to live.
You see, the crux is this: just because someone doesn't want to die doesn't mean that they won't kill themselves. If they're talking about it, then you should treat it as though they're asking for help. I missed the same warning sign because I thought just as you did, that those serious about suicide would be dead rather than talking about it. I was wrong. The only thing that saved her was luck. Luck and a responsive ER.
Potentially. A full sleep cycle is approximately ninety minutes in length. If you wake in the middle of the cycle, you take a cognitive performance hit for the rest of the day. So, in some cases, sleeping for thirty fewer minutes can lead to higher subsequent alertness. This is a crucial consideration when you're only allowed to get a few hours of sleep at a time.
Case in point: I've known a number of individuals with highly variable sleep schedules imposed by their work who performed this calculation manually. I imagine that they would find an application or a cycle-aware alarm clock on their phones to be quite handy.
Aside from that, calling someone's work the "dumbest thing you've ever seen" is both unnecessary and probably untrue. Please don't be uncivil.
I say call a spade a spade. This is dumb and perhaps only useful to obsessive compulsive individuals who feel some need to micromanage every aspect of their life.
I have felt variously throughout my life both beautiful and homely. As a gay man, I perceive the ubiquitous social pressure to be attractive much more acutely than most heterosexual men. That pressure is not easy to shake off; I can only imagine what women experience.
Case in point: a few years ago, I noticed that my hair wasn't quite as thick and lush as it once was. I panicked, stupidly. Without performing adequate research, I began taking a medication that blocks the hormone DHT. Only later did I learn that this medication can subtly alter cognition by affecting the production of various neuro-steroids. Obviously, the value of my mind vastly outweighs that of my appearance, so I stopped taking the medication knowing that one day, I'd probably lose my hair because of it.
Despite the obviousness of the choice, it was ridiculously difficult to implement. The social imperative to be beautiful is powerful. Yet:
You aren't your hair. Or your face. Or your breasts.
It may very well be that attractive people have it easier than less attractive people. But that's a problem with human nature, not with those not blessed by beauty. Make reasonable steps to improve your appearance, then forget about it. Self confidence, humor, and a compassionate nature will always win the day with people who matter.
Ask yourself: is Steve Jobs as classically attractive as Brad Pitt? Who is more accomplished? Isaac Asimov? Donald Knuth?
>Ask yourself: is Steve Jobs as classically attractive as Brad Pitt? Who is more accomplished? Isaac Asimov? Donald Knuth?
Depends on how you rate accomplishment. Your average female certainly knows one of those people, perhaps two given recent news. But unless they are big into Sci-Fi or computer science, they have no idea who Asimov and Knuth are.
In the evolutionary struggle to breed, Brad Pitt is the winner here, by a long shot.
In the evolutionary struggle, I'd say all the fame and gorgeous abs haven't created Ramses-style success for Pitt. Academic reputation and billions of dollars do less for you than simply marrying a nice girl who likes babies would.
Yes, I think a lot of this focus on looks is just an exaggerated venting of sexual frustration. When you're not getting any, it can feel like the best thing in the world would be to become a Brad Pitt lookalike so you could have your pick and go out on some huge bacchanalic binge, but there's a reason a guy like Brad doesn't spend much of his time doing that sort of thing--it isn't all that satisfying or fulfilling.
In reality, once you are able to reach a base level of intimacy and satisfaction in one (or multiple) sexual relationship(s), how others perceive your looks in general stops mattering almost completely, and the fortunate truth is that achieving this satisfied state doesn't really require being some sort of Casanova, just moderately socially active, comfortable with yourself, and willing to put yourself out there occasionally. It may be slightly easier to be happy in this aspect of life as a very attractive person, but in the whole scheme of what it takes to be fulfilled, it's a fairly small advantage really.
..and looks stop mattering completely the moment people start speaking instead of looking and deciding weather or not speaking will be interesting.
How you look signals what sorts of conversation are likely to be possible or interesting. e.g. if you really like knitting, go talk to the person wearing the nice custom sweater.
Yet, while you mention it, I think you do not emphasize enough the importance of chosing how you rate accomplishment. In terms of ability to attract a mate, there is no doubt Brad Pitt wins, by a long shot.
But change the question to who has had the biggest impact on humanity, and I suspect the answer shifts to Knuth. Ask who will have the largest overall impact on culture, and I think the answer becomes Asimov (I expect his fiction will be read long after Pitt's movies fade away and he has inspired a great deal cultural work for second order effects). Ask who has had the largest impact on daily American life in the present, and Jobs is clearly victorious.
It depends entirely on how you define accomplishment.
Ideas mean nothing in the grand scheme of humanity. In 200 years we could collapse back into the dark ages. Only surviving descendants do. The "anyone can produce a baby" is a pretty lie told to those who forsake their prime directive (mating and caring for offspring) in order to serve those who do,in order to make them feel better about themselves. Repeating this lie will not make it true.
And how do you know that one baby (which can cumulatively produce millions more) is not a more "positive impact for humanity"?
This has been suggested previously, but I would like to add my vote as well. HN could enhance its readability by introducing a method of visually identifying new comments in a thread. It is often very difficult to spot new comments in an ongoing discussion even with comment re-ordering.
I have the same problem. I grew up on a ranch in rural Texas. It was remote enough that I might as well have been on Asimov's Solaria for all the human company I had. Over the years, I became accustomed to reading, thinking, and tinkering in relative isolation.
Whether the cause is simply my background or is perhaps strengthened by some neurological factor, I am completely unable to filter out superfluous external stimuli.If someone is talking on the phone in the same room with me, I can't not listen to their conversation no matter how much I wish otherwise.
The people with whom I work tend to have difficulty understanding this aspect of my nature. I'm afraid I come off as rude and aloof when I put on my headphones and request to be IMed rather than tapped on the shoulder. Generally, these requests are ignored. One of our sales people actually came over and pulled my headphones off my head. My startled reaction did not go over well with her.
I'm not asocial. I like people. I just need silence to think.
"What makes this ruin porn all the more infuriating -- and disturbing -- is that it started when the cool people with the right ideas from the Ivy League schools stepped in."
Post hoc, ergo proper hoc? I don't necessarily disagree with you, but don't you think that there might be more contributing factors? In particular, the decline of the American auto industry comes to mind in regards to Detroit.
Obviously the decline of the auto industry was a major factor in Detroit's fall but the civil unrest of the late 60s is what caused the "white flight" out of Detroit and into the suburbs. The city has remained unstable since for a slew of reasons, the biggest one likely being corrupt government.
There's just very little incentive to live in the city itself anymore between the lack of small businesses, crime, etc. I heard a story of a guy who purchased an entire block of houses, demolished them, built new condos and was waiting on city inspection so people could start moving in. Inspection took a while and in the meantime the newly-built condos were broken into and stripped of any valuable piping/wiring. Does that really a place you want to live in? The only reasons I go into the city are for sporting events, the occasional concert, or urbex.
The segregation of Detroit and its metropolitan area are SHOCKING. Look at this map: http://bit.ly/ptgVNe
The blue is African-Americans. The red is Caucasians. The all-too-clear division begins at 8 mile.
Some sort of link has to be established in order to unify the suburbs and the city. Hopefully the M1 rail project can be that link -- unfortunately, like I said in another comment, the rail has to stretch further into the suburbs for it to have any chance of success, IMO.
The American automobile industry didn't really get hit by imports until the Oil Shocks of the 1970s. By then, the productive population of Detroit was already fleeing to the suburbs. Also, if the decline of the American automobile industry explains the decline of Detroit, then the suburbs of Detroit would have declined as well, instead of expanding. Furthermore, the decline of the American automobile industry does not explain why similar declines occurred in the other cities which I mentioned.
The suburbs of Detroit are also in decline. For how many years now has Michigan been in the bottom quartile for unemployment?
The fact that Twelve Oaks Mall is nice and has an Apple Store doesn't mean that that the Detroit Suburbs are proof of a functioning greater Detroit metro economy.
"Decline" means different things when applied to Detroit and to its suburbs. The suburbs are much safer and have much better infrastructure, among many other things.
Higher up in this thread, I referenced the book The Slaughter of Cities, by E. Michael Jones. That is the book around which my views have gelled.
I wish my company had similar sentiments. I sit in a darkened corner with the lights turned off. The only thing I can see is an unilluminated beige wall. It's very depressing.
I brought in my own chair (a used Steelcase Leap) and my own keyboard. That helped a lot. Even so, I still have to get up frequently throughout the day so that I don't get back or shoulder pain. When I do, I get suspicious looks from folks who think I'm not working hard enough.
The irony is that I work at home on my own time because I'm more productive there.
The only thing I work on that my job provided is the laptop, which they purchased for me after realizing my own was a bit too old. External monitor, mouse, keyboard, stand, etc. all came from home.
They most assuredly do not. I am a gay engineer. I've never known anyone so blatantly deceptive, but if any of my acquaintances even thought about doing something like that, I would give them a dressing down that would make a drill sergeant cry.
Gay people are like any population sample. 95% of them are normal, decent human beings; 5% are wackos.