canihasaccount

joined 1 year ago
[–] canihasaccount@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago

Yeah, people here clearly do not understand that this is the most benign investment strategy that could exist.

[–] canihasaccount@lemmy.world -5 points 6 days ago (4 children)

This is literally the entire stock market, excluding US. All publicly traded companies worldwide. It's the epitomy of the "set it and forget it" investment strategy. If you don't know how to invest, this, coupled with VTI and a bond ETF or two, would be exactly what you would own, and nothing more.

[–] canihasaccount@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago

A bit of an exaggeration, sure. But only a bit. The lay summary of the article I referenced states the following:

Venkataraman et al. find that the paper commits every error that it was possible to make in the paper: leaving out important papers, including irrelevant papers, using duplicate papers, mis-coding their societies, getting the wrong values for “big” versus “small” game, and many others.

"commits every error that it was possible to make in the paper," and, "completely incorrect," aren't very different.

[–] canihasaccount@lemmy.world 57 points 1 week ago (4 children)

This study this meme is based on is completely incorrect and should be retracted. Here's a lay summary of its issues:

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2024/03/04/new-paper-debunks-the-prevalence-of-women-hunting-in-early-societies/

And the published article detailing the problems with that study's issues:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513824000497

[–] canihasaccount@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

When have we been talking about anyone's diagnosis? We've been talking about the common misperception that depressive episodes caused by environmental triggers are not a result of treatable neurochemical dysfunction. MDD can certainly be a result of environmental triggers, and there are a wide variety of neurochemical bases of it. I distinctly said in my first comment that I was referencing a small part of your reply. I'm not trying to have a needless fight, I'm trying to correct a common public misperception that you reiterated. I do that whenever I see a misunderstanding of science; I care about public science education, especially on topics important enough as psychiatric conditions that are often fatal without treatment. If you feel like this is a pointless fight, sorry. I only commented because I understood your comment to mean something that, no matter my read of your wording, you clearly say you weren't meaning.

[–] canihasaccount@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

MDD is a real disability. It can and often is precipitated by environmental triggers, and episodes can resolve once the environment is changed. Just because someone experiences remission in such a case doesn't mean they don't have a disorder that should be treated prior to another episode. Dichotomizing chemical and psychological/environmental is harmful.

[–] canihasaccount@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (3 children)

My point is that such a lay interpretation isn't helpful, and it may be harmful. Plenty of people with MDD have an environmental trigger prior to their first episode, and have their episode remit after that precipitating factor is managed. Convincing someone that their experience isn't chemical suggests against treatment seeking during remission, such as seeking therapy, which could help prevent another episode (and one that may not have an environmental trigger). A depressive episode can be fatal. Telling someone that because their prior episode remitted spontaneously or after the environmental trigger changed might prevent them from getting the proactive and preventative treatment that they need to keep them from experiencing another episode and thus keep them alive. Don't gatekeep depression.

[–] canihasaccount@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (5 children)

And how do you think addressing stressors works? Some non-chemical means?

[–] canihasaccount@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago (9 children)

That first bit is totally untrue. Do you think our grief is not chemical? That we can't have neural rewiring occur following the loss of a loved one? Don't dichotomize experience and neurochemistry. They're two sides of the same coin.

[–] canihasaccount@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Trogdor was popular way before Reddit

[–] canihasaccount@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It doesn't have to be

https://www.mathworks.com/products/compiler.html

MATLAB can ruin all sorts of coding experiences, programming included

 
 

Panpsychism is the idea that everything is conscious to some degree (which, to be clear, isn't what I think). In the past, the common response to the idea was, "So, rocks are conscious?" This argument was meant to illustrate the absurdity of panpsychism.

Now, we have made rocks represent pins and switches, enabling us to use them as computers. We made them complex enough that we developed neural networks and created large language models--the most complex of which have nodes that represent space, time, and the abstraction of truth, according to some papers. So many people are convinced these things are conscious, which has many suggesting that everything may be conscious to some degree.

In other words, the possibility of rocks being conscious is now commonly used to argue in favor of panpsychism, when previously it was used to argue against it.

 
 

I watched it recently for the first time, and I really don't get why it's so loved. IMDB rates it as the second-best movie of all time, but it seems far worse than that to me. I like most old movies and see their hype, but The Godfather didn't do it for me. What am I missing?

 
view more: next ›