Funnily enough, I have mild tinnitus, but sleep very soundly. I have a fan on 24/7 in my bedroom that helps enough for drowning out the tinnitus sound. I rarely if ever wake up in the middle of the night, and wake up fairly refreshed. I even fall asleep relatively fast compared to some other people I know.
Elsewhere in this thread, it's been mentioned that there are several types of tinnitus (it's apparently an umbrella term), and some tinnitus can be caused by a firm pillow and bruxism, which fits my description.
I wonder if the type of tinnitus has more or less effect on sleep than others.
That’s a deep question about the semantics of “basic need”, and highly subjective. I do not think that reproduction is a basic need of the individual in ordinary language, but it may be deemed a basic, I.e. survival, need of the species or tribe
These are very good points. (Except maybe salt, what's wrong with salt?). But breathing in particular, I'd say breathing in for 5 seconds and 5 seconds out, and filling your lungs is maybe the most relaxing thing in the world. One could devote life just for appreciating that.
Here's what I propose, to lessen the effect of populism: The elections are held in a tournament format. People are divided into randomised brackets. People then in that bracket decide who amongst them is most fit to be a leader.
This is then repeated recursively until enough politicians are selected.
With the important difference being that the Finnish minority in Sweden moved for economic reasons and Finnish is forgotten within a generation or two, while the Swedish minority in Finland are the remnants of the Swedish colonial project and largely marry within that same groups. That said government websites in both countries are available in both languages.
If in a few centuries some part of Finland (say, Päijät-Häme or something) is an independent nation, do you think it would be natural for them to talk about the old days — our present — as "back when we were part of Finland", or should they say "our dark age of oppression under the bootheel of the Finnish colonial project"?
The arrangements aren’t all that reciprocal because one of those countries used to occupy the other.
It’s the same(ish) as Russian minority speakers having more rights in Estonia and Ukraine than Ukrainian or Estonian in Russia.
I think each of those countries hates the “invading” language though. It’s a memory of oppression. Finns certainly mentioned that they hated Swedish when I was there and I’m also aware of Estonians hating Russian.
No, I'm not. The very first sentence in the WP article you cite:
"In Finnish history, Finland under Swedish rule refers to the historical period when the bulk of the area that later came to constitute Finland *was an integral part of Sweden."*
Integral parts of countries are not "colonies". That was exactly my point: What is now Finland was an integral part of Sweden, like any other. Calling it a colony is exactly like calling the current region of Dalecarlia a colony of Sweden, or calling Ostrobothnia or Päijät-Häme colonies of Finland. It's absurd on the face of it.
Are you saying it would be correct in a future where they are independent countries to retroactively say Ostrobothnia-now and Päijät-Häme-now were "colonies of Finland" back in the twentieth century? If not, then Finland wasn't a "colony of Sweden" either.
The rest of the article is liberally sprinkled with
A) Tendentious phrasing like "Finland was annexed as part of the Western Christian domain" ("annexed" to a religion?), and
B) Grammatical mistakes typical of Finnish-speakers with a bad grounding in Germanic languages like Swedish and English.
So... No. If you think the bigoted view on history some parts of that WP article espouses are to be taken seriously, it is you who are wrong.
Russian minority in Estonia does not even have guaranteed citizen rights, not to mention any special rights.
Ditto for Ukraine where Russian language in some respects threated as third class citizen, i.e., the only language that you can't use in education or in official contexts. They still pretty much continue to speak it, though.
This is all a lot more complicated than you make it out to be.
Regardless, it looks like Capcom probably did take the images from her collection and it’s pretty dumb for them not to just pay for the license which would probably have been cheaper than this case, whether they win or lose it.
It’s also possible though that they took the images from someone else who they paid or who marketed them as free, or that this lady took free images and is marketing them as her own.
Well, considering politics during your thinking is quite important, as often you can't get a correct answer (e.g. to why a thing is certain way or why a potentially promising course of action is actually unlikely to succeed) without taking politics into account.
In most cases where you'd want to convince others about something, the political connotations of various arguments matter just as much (or even more) as how sound these arguments are logically.
Obviously, there are certain avenues of thinking where we'd want to perform a pure rational, impartial analysis while explicitly disregarding any politics. However, that's a minority of the cases, and even then when trying to communicate that analysis, politics becomes relevant once again. Even the desire to carefully describe a particular analysis as apolitical is driven by political motivations i.e. to make that analysis more convincing to others with different political alignment.
As Aristotle said, "Man is by nature a social animal" - it makes all sense that our default mode of thinking and the associated decisionmaking shortcuts are heavily driven by social and political aspects, because in many circumstances the social impact and political perception of some statement is more important than whether it's technically true.
I didn't mean politics, this is a dirty field to do science/logic. Conservatism bias is a real thing, but this doesn't mean that we should throw off our past. Just reconsider its weight in our decisions.
Anchoring bias is a better name for this flaw. Either way, the handful of examples provided here are.. random? This post has poor depth and breadth, akin to a listicle
Curiously, what set of reading would you say that would make a liberal person become a conservative? If you're belief is that it's logical, it must be an argument we can discuss, backup with data - etc.
So to that end, the reason i'm liberal is that i believe there is a balance between social safety nets and capitalist incentives. In my view, we are currently the conservative dream. Very few protections for workers, less and less than years past - with increasing benefits for corporations that see little to no benefits trickled down to the workers. Walmart and Comcast are what i see as the natural result of conservative practice.
I simply want what will result in the least suffering. Yet i see suffering in mass in the very pro-0.01% behavior. Walmart does great in this environment - it's employees, less so. Worse yet if you lose your Walmart job, as the safety nets are being dismantled left and right by conservatives.
So, what reading would you recommend i do to show me that fiscal conservative behavior here and that further more reducing lower/middle class protections is beneficial to them?
I certainly do not claim to know all, or any, answers. All i know is the state of the poor is very unsettling to me in America. What reading would you suggest?
One problem is that you are just repeating straw men ('trickle down') and stating things that are flatly wrong ('Very few protections for workers, less and less than years past'). No, generally the regulations 'protecting' workers have gone up and up and up. The nutty expansion of UC in recent months is one example. As for 'social safety nets', for people who learn to navigate the system, there is basically work-free living available. Between Section 8, SNAP, SSDI, Medicaid, etc, the 'social safety net' is beyond anything imagined a few decades ago.
In addition, your attack on Walmart is lazy and typical. When Walmart moves into a neighborhood the first group to get hit are whatever retailers already exist in the area--because all the best workers immediately line up to work at Walmart instead. Better pay, better benefits, etc. Just a typical case.
So, what should you read? Anything but /r/politics would probably help some.
Sowell's "Controversial Essays" was helpful for me to understand the conservative mindset a little more. He comes from the Chicago School and Milton Friedman.
> Very few protections for workers, less and less than years past
(Assuming you’re talking about the US)
Which worker protections have been rolled back? What do you think workers aren’t protected from now that they were protected against when there were no overtime, minimum wage, or really any safety laws?
Conservativism (sic) is a flaw (in human thinking) because what it means is "resistance to change"... and as Heraclitus said, "change is the only constant in life."
