The other sources are
https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/star-d-dethroned
Which cites the BMJ
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25886544/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37491091/
I thought this article explained the science better than the Psychiatric Times, so I used it. Lesson learned.
I agree, the source is poor. But I thought the summary was better than the one offered here:
https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/star-d-dethroned
Bruce E. Levine is just some guy. Not great. But the sources he cites made the case for me:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37491091/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25886544/
I myself am and have been on psychotropics for years, don’t know what I would do without them. Further, as noted, the the STAR*D approach drops from 67% to 35%, which means they do work for some. But reporting that high a rate when the numbers don’t support it is information patients need. The original study seems very problematic with patients that dropped out assigned success rates, and the lack of a control group. I think the information is relevant.
Dear Nitwit,
A reduced faith in science might, hear me out here, ••might•• have something to do with science, ya know, killing the planet and what not. You wanna get some faith back? Maybe apply these new technologies to human happiness, or even, who knows human survival.
One more thing, nimrod. The real risk averse culture? It ain’t your unwashed “zero-sum thinking Millennials” No, it’s your hyper capitalist who’s rigged the system to the point where taking financial risk is erased by government bailouts. They’re the ones who want to eliminate risk.
And it’s that, plus their increased control of what is and is not researched in practised science that leads to our dismay. See above: “planet dying” Imagine something like pencillin, developed entirely within an academic risky environment, getting made today.
There’s risk in true critical thinking, instead of lazy “Kids Today” hand-wringing. So, in future, take a fucking risk.
Great article, with lots of historical explanations on the theory of how these lenses work, and how optics works in general. Learned a bit today. Thanks!
Is anyone else using invidio.us type Firefox plug-ins to deal with this? I don’t know if it’s better for privacy, but I like the illusion of sticking it to the man. And the lack of ads.
Two things here. I was forced to go induction when I moved house about fifteen years ago, and I love it. It’s just better than gas. I’m terrible at many things, but I’m a good cook, and I can say, there’s nothing I can do - nothing - that isn’t better on induction. Admittedly, not crazy about the waste of new things, but even so, worth it.
Also, turns out, Big Natural Gas lied to you. It’s dangerous (which the article states). This is a carrot and stick. I’m all electric, and working on solar soon.
I think that’s a great recommendation. I really admire your admission of not being anywhere near zero waste. Me neither! But it’s better to do better than do nothing. The zero waste movement can get quite fanatical, which is a turn off. Especially if it’s about shopping for things to be zero waste with.
I don’t do everything right, but I do bring my own bags. But it took years, and like any habit, and like you said, it’s about feeling. I’d walk into a store, and it would start to feel weird if my hand is empty. If you forget to bring your bag today, bring it tomorrow. The feelings develop over time.
I know because I’ve switched recently to getting my bread and croissants in a wax-cloth bag (instead of the throwaway papers). It’s been about six months, and I get it right … about half the time.
Thank you.
So sorry, I didn’t see if the article worked. I’m an idiot.
Archived version: https://archive.is/0eou1
Archived page here.
I think that’s the point though, that the app can be misleading as to the needs of the people using it, especially in regards health.
Or, “What’s the right mix of things that will actually reduce the likelihood of heat-related illnesses?”