The problem here is that Assange didn't kill any people, while Uncle Sam has killed hundreds of thousands for oil, revenge, and preserving the hegemony.
Assange is alleged to have released unredacted info that exposed informants in warzones. This while running a service - not an infrastructure, a service - for exposing information.
Arguing that he hasn't personally killed anyone is not a strong rebuke against such allegations.
Compromising informants working for a foreign government invading another foreign land is not a crime, nor much of a moral dilemma.
The risk inherent to collaborationism is also not one anyone but the informant must account for. Just as mercenaries operate in that same high-risk-reward / low-solidarity space, and accordingly join the cast of characters in war zones along with spies and informants without international sympathy.
Rapeseed oil for cooking is a staple in Germany.
If erucic acid or its thermal products are the cause, there would also be many cases of lung cancer in Germany.
Having grown up lower middle class with parents from a former Eastern bloc country, I feel that my mentality has very often held me back from taking risks in career, education and personal life, because there was no safety net to fall back on if the risky move wouldn't pay off.
I'm good at surviving with very little money or food, but at the age of 42, I feel now like I had let life pass me by, having never developed ambitions or passions, and living like a "rat", is also very unappealing to potential love interests.
I grew up very poor in the USA (in a housing project). I ended up becoming successful/wealthy by most people's yardstick, but it took a long time for me to grow out of the poor mindset.
For the longest time I never bought anything for myself. I had half a million in income and wouldn't even buy a snack or anything because it felt "wrong" the same way I couldn't justify it when I was a kid.
Before I was married I didn't even own a bed (I coded on a lawn chair in my apartment and used a cardboard box for my table. I didn't own a TV, car, etc.
Even though I build things for my livelihood, I couldn't justify buying a new machine, etc.
I started to come out of that mindset after getting married. I enjoyed buying things for others (my spouse, then my kids). My spouse then urged (forced) me to buy things for myself. Come to think of it, maybe I never grew out of that mindset. If I wasn't married I would still be living that way. The only reason I'm not is because my wife urges (forces) me not to.
I get you. It took me a looong time to come to terms with the fact that I can buy myself some nice things, even though I was already gifting nice things to others. I still only rarely buy nice stuff for myself, but I am learning. I bought myself a high-end computer (5950x & RTX 3070) 3 years ago, and I realized how important it is to spend -- it's sometimes cheaper than buying it later (it was the beginning of the silicon crisis), and you get to enjoy it a lot. I still pay a lot of attention to what I buy and for what purpose, but I am less crazy about not spending it.
It takes actual time to learn to spend, and you gotta be patient with yourself.
> Before I was married I didn't even own a bed. [...] My spouse then urged (forced) me to buy things for myself.
I worked for years while sleeping on the floor (on a bedsheet, over carpet), even once I could arguably afford a bed. It took a girlfriend to convince me that I should finally, urgently buy a bed (well, an unfinished pine futon frame, from a warehouse outlet).
Maybe the current pause in VC-powered-growth startups means founders&engineers with latent frugality skills will really shine? :)
With a quick search online it looks like you got it backwards. I'm not Catholic, so don't understand the intricacies of every single position, but it looks like there are about 10 times as many "sisters" compared to the number of men serving in the various religious orders.
I should have been clear, I mean "monks" vs "female" monks of all religions. When I imagine a "monk", I imagine an orange clad Buddhist or Hindu person. Still happy to also be proven wrong there too. Always cool to learn new things.
Something that I've suspected is that "poverty mentality" may not be the full picture.
It seems to me that one aspect of "poverty mentality" is a refusal to go outside of "the rules" even when doing so would clearly be within the socially acceptable gray area. I'm not talking about someone with privilege selfishly believing that the rules don't apply to them. I mean minor things like putting up a lost cat flier without a permit, ducking into a random restaurant and asking if they have napkins to clean up a spill, or teaching a small yoga class in a public park without a permit. The fear seems to be that if those in authority are given any opportunity to crack down or refuse a request then they will do so.
What I have noticed is that it actually does seem like those in authority are more strict with them than they are for me (note that in this case I'm talking about people who are the same race and in some cases the same gender as me).
I've come to suspect that in addition to "poverty mindset", there may also be some sort of unconscious body language or other indicators that allow people to subconsciously pickup that someone comes from poverty. I don't have any proof of this, it's just something that I've suspected. So I don't know if there would be any value in trying to look at any of these potential cues?
That's a surprising claim to me. I live in a fairly poor area and people seem very willing to throw litter out of their cars, blast bass so loud it shakes my house, do drugs in public view, or commit flagrant traffic/parking violations (no value judgments here, just being objective) compared to other places I've lived.
It is also trivially true that poor people are more likely to commit crimes (source[1] if needed, though). Of course, that is likely biased by the selective enforcement you call out.
Perhaps the two can be rectified as a bimodal distribution: Poor people are either dramatically more or dramatically less likely to commit crimes based on how they respond to their environment. Say poor people are more likely to be exposed to crime and thus presented with the choice, and you can respond to high scrutiny by treading carefully or just giving up on it and doing whatever ("They'll punish me regardless, may as well get something out of it.").
Because getting convicted of a given crime is relatively unlikely to begin with, the low crime group doesn't substantively reduce the conviction rate but the high crime group drives it up dramatically. And I am more able to notice the guy blasting bass at 80 mph than the hundreds who quietly pass by.
> I live in a fairly poor area and people seem very willing to throw litter out of their cars, blast bass so loud it shakes my house, do drugs in public view, or commit flagrant traffic/parking violations (no value judgments here, just being objective) compared to other places I've lived.
I used to live in wealthy frathouse neighborhoods and they do the same shit there too. They just have the money to hire cleaners after they trash houses, or collectively buy summer vacation trips to other countries to do it.
My previous apartments were mostly very near a campus, so that's more or less my point of comparison. I definitely was more upset at entitled college kids than I am about my neighbors today (who I mostly can excuse), but I do think there was a lot less of it.
The bass issue for example has gone from 1-2 times a week to 2-3 times a day, and this is a much lower traffic area. A lot fewer loud parties here, but I think that's mostly a function of age. And yeah, they'd trash their own houses/lawns, but I'm not sure that's even illegal. Here I pick up a small bag of trash from my own property whenever I mow the lawn; nobody once littered in my lawn by campus (I do have about 4x the space where that could happen now).
This is all anecdotal, my experience certainly doesn't override yours. I'd love to see some data, but I can't seem to find anything.
Reading what I originally wrote again, I didn't explain that I was talking about situations where on the surface at least, it would seem that those in authority wouldn't be able to tell that they were poor. Which is why I suspect that there might be some sort of more subtle tell that people are responding to.
What you aren't internalizing is that fear of authority is a feeling. And feelings aren't very contextual or rational. People learn them and react with them on the most diverse situations.
> one aspect of "poverty mentality" is a refusal to go outside of "the rules" ... The fear seems to be that if those in authority are given any opportunity to crack down or refuse a request then they will do so.
The fear is still valid regardless of their race, ethnicity, gender, etc. if they didn't move away from the poverty. Most do move away, but not all can.
I grew up poor in a poor place, but had some "rich" friends whose future was running the family business or otherwise maintaining regionally dependent wealth. If they cashed out they'd be betraying another set of "rules": their family. Their day-to-day quality of life is still significantly worse than anyone upper middle class in a major metro area suburb. They have to deal with high property crime, corrupt local government, etc. Having to hide your wealth and not many peers can be just as stressful as being poor in the first place.
I think the way we relate to authority is a very central part of socialization for humans. We get it from our parents, and to some extent our peers. Best way to change it as a grownup is probably therapy.
Take a few risks. Start with risks that aren't real, like going to a restaurant that no one you know has ever heard of.
Once you have the experience that nothing bad happens, or if it does, it at most wasted a little money and time, work your way up to more rewarding risks.
Don't go as far as the Into the Wild guy though: he never realised how much "nothing bad" happening was due to other people bailing him out until he took risks someplace where that wasn't going to happen.
It's like writing a program: do it in small chunks and check each bit of functionality before committing.
No hacker ever stopped writing a program because they encountered bugs now and then.
You're not alone, and you have some good awareness.
If you're currently facing real resource threats, I guess your wiring might make it very difficult to develop more luxurious ambitions or passions. (Where someone else might actually retreat into denial, and cling to distractions from survival.)
But if you currently have resources and not under imminent existential threat, two naive suggestions:
* Consider finding a counselor (expensive), or doing lots of (frugal) Web searching about the topic, to try to figure out how to un-condition yourself from fixating on mere survival.
* For growing new ambitions and passions, have you tried experimenting, trying different things to see whether you'd like them, once you spend a significant chunk of time on them?
Also, FWIW, 10 years from now, you'll probably realize that you had more agency and options now than you currently think you do. Consider that bit of info from your future self.
The main blocking "poverty mentality" is focusing on getting by with what little you have, rather than focusing on producing more.
In generally, it's far easier to earn an extra Dollar than to save one from your budget, especially when you're poor. Working an extra hour is hard, but it's still easier than eating less rice and beans. Getting a job that pays more money is hard, but easier than reducing your rent from $600/mo to $550/mo.
The other mentality one has to break is the hopelessness, which is not at all helped by articles such as TFA here. Believing that past difficulties are inescapably holding you back robs you of the initiative, motivation and agency you could use to actually improve your life. The people who make it out of poverty are the ones who believe that their effort can improve their life.
> living like a "rat", is also very unappealing to potential love interests.
Yeah, women really dislike men with a poverty attitude who worry about spending money. Poor men who act as if they are rich seems to do much better than well off men who act as if they are poor.
You and I are the same age and from similar background... Just reading your post makes it sound like you have a little backwards (obviously I don't know your situation beyond what's written here.)
You mention "potential love interests" as the last thing but that's what it's actually about, isn't it? If you're not sure you want a family and partner then "living like a rat" is kinda fine - why not live that way if that's what you want?
On the other hand, if you want a family then start with that goal in mind - what has to change? If you need to upgrade your living situation so women aren't grossed out to come over, then you do that for that reason.
I don't think this has to do with "poverty mentality" specifically. Plenty of poor people make do with what they have and still date, get married, and have kids - because they want those things. When you really want those things, you shape your life to achieve them.
I know a few people living in the east who earns 1/5th of what I do and they're happy in their small garden growing tomatoes and potatoes, who am I to judge them and their poverty mindset.
Getting in line for the rat race most likely won't make you feel less of a rat.
Find your own pace, don't listen to random internet users about what poverty mentality is, or that taking risk is always good, or that being a wantrepreneur is the be all end all of life
Poverty mentality often mixes up with frugality in lifestyle, a certain disdain, discomfort, anxiety or even outright fear about living better than you "could" or "should", partly based on being afraid to lose what you purchased and feeling wasteful when purchasing something you previously considered an excess, indulgence.
> how does one unlearn "poverty mentality"?
Acquire things and then lose them, repeatedly. Literally throw money at the problem.
One can start with more expensive consumables and luxury items, as simple as food and wine (not to mention that more expensive quality produce more often than not means healthier diet), clothing (better fabrics feel nicer on skin, better fits make you look better and improve your public image if you care about it) and cosmetic items (bodily sensations are very important for mental health, who would've thought?).
Essentially you want to gradually get into "better" lifestyle and bigger spending just to show yourself it's not actually a problem, which in turn relaxes you towards seeking better opportunities and bigger earnings. Once you feel that spending more here and there can make you feel significantly better, something clicks in your monkey brain and changes your perception of what money can actually buy for you and why you would want to risk to get more of it, and that in turn changes your behavior. Just try to be self-aware about it and refrain from forbidding yourself to feel better because it's "unnecessary".
In the past, the same group that claims responsibility for this attack,
conducted arson attacks on the public transport infrastructure accusing the train company of collaborating with the military-industrial complex or some similar farfetched excuse.
It seems to me like they just like to start fires and destroy things to cause chaos (under the pretense that there is a political justification for it).
The implication is that is the star system had potentially been artificially modified or even designed.
Any entity capable of performing such a feat that must logically possess advanced technology. That's all.
Makes me think about the blunder from the first season of Star Trek: Picard. A mysterious, unknown star system, hidden deep in Romulan space[0], with 8 stars and a habitable-ish planet suspended in the middle. Clearly engineered. But I can't imagine how it could stay hidden; I'd expect it to stick out like a sore thumb from across the galaxy on any star survey, even with present-day telescopes...
--
[0] - An antagonist space empire in the franchise.
Engineered when? Just because they can send information and travel faster than light doesn't mean that the light from there has reached federation space. A survey would have to have been done nearby to see it
Now, while it's quite away from the Federation, the system sits in or close to Romulan space, so it makes zero sense for it to be a mystery that only the secret police inside the secret police of the Romulan Star Empire knows about it. I mean, it's like suppressing the existence of Mount Everest from citizens of Nepal. I can't imagine how strong the intelligence/counterintelligence apparatus would have to be to actually pull it off, given most people in that country can probably see it with their bare eyes on most days.
(And of course this only matters for real-life telescopes; Star Trek sensors work FTL (except when it would have inconvenient consequences)).
If they are brave they might build something like that in order to attract attention, it is starting to look feasible to not just inspect solar systems in detail but to send and receive messages using methods like
Have you tried tweaking parameters like temperature, top_p, or seed value when sending the API request?
Beyond that and due to the probabilistic nature of the LLM response I'm not sure how a reproducible "matching" between chat interface and API could be achieved.
I'm working primarily with the API through my own wrapper and I noticed that I tend to give less detailed instructions than when I'm using the OpenAI chat interface often resulting in a less accurate response.
Thanks. I will. I must confess, I have not tried the top_p or seed value. I guess my naive belief was that the the defaults in the api matched the OOTB experience of the web interface. shame on me
While my Elvanse dose is merely half of yours it always seems to affect my nervous system for much too long, keeping me unable to sleep before 3am on weekdays on the average.
Some nights no bother at all - I've been getting way more of these nights on meds than off, others it'll be a 3am one (2-3am has been my norm for as long as I can remember so it's not made it worse as such), and on the odd occasion I'll keep myself busy with something all night and do a double day.
Unfortunately no solid answer there, I take the meds first thing in the morning and hope I'll be able get to sleep later. Fortunately (for me) this has been my norm for as long as I can remember either way so at least nothing is worse!
> I take the meds first thing in the morning and hope I'll be able get to sleep later.
This has been my crutch as well, basically setting an alarm for an hour earlier than I need to get up at, taking the pill from the nighstand and then trying to get back to sleep before having to get up for real at 7am.
You wouldnt need full BP or Schizophrenia to justify this -- if partial traits to partial degrees confer advantage, then the full constellation of them may be dysfunctional in an individual but worth preserving for net benefits. Evolution does not operate at the level of individuals, so most in practice, are often dysfunctional in many respects.
As for schizophrenia, see it is an exageration of rule-seeking and pattern-seeking behaviour, an over-imparting of consciousness and intention to the world, a (disregulated) sense of significance. But each of these are vital for survival and procreation in less extreme degrees.
As for BP, hypomania seems plainly adaptive in some cases (eg., esp. having sex a lot, working a lot, ...); and "hypo-depression" likewise (eg., low opporunitites for winter work, retreating, conserving, less risk takign, etc.).
It also seems adaptive that we would swing between these, so we can better explore the mood-space of motivation.
Someone posted an article a while ago that claimed the ratio of people with ADHD, autism, etc. lined up with Dunbar’s number (the theoretical preferred size of a social group) so that there would be about one individual per group with these traits. The article then went on to theorize that this was an evolutionary adaptation against total conformity. Even if everyone else doesn’t see the landslide in the distance the one weirdo might.
I can’t find the article after searching on hn.algolia.com but IIRC there was no real evidence for this, it was just a theory.
As someone with ADHD, I've often mused this. It would absolutely suck to have a tribe of nothing but ADHD folks, but having just a couple around to think outside the box would be pretty damn helpful.
Don't know much about BPD, know a little more about schizophrenia. The genes that make you predisposed to schizophrenia seem to positively impact creativity and certain types of creative output. A gene doesn't necessarily have to have a good outcome for everybody with that gene, so long as it results in enough good outcome to make up for it.
I think of this with homosexuality. What is the possible evolutionary advantage to homosexuality? Well there's lots of reasons why we would want humans to be attracted to both men and women, so they're reproduce, and it's not hard to see how genes that cause that could make people gay.
Interesting thought. More than once I've heard the theory that the prophets of old (Moses, Jesus, Muhammad etc.), were actually schizophrenics and hearing voices. Only due to the superstition of the time they sometimes became regarded as holy men (or women like the case of Jeanne d'Arc) instead of being shunned, or, as we do it today, treated and medicated in order to suppress the symptoms.
