Agenttin (u/Agenttin)

Agenttin commented on Schizophrenia linked to marijuana use disorder is on the rise, study finds cnn.com/2021/07/22/health... · Posted by u/pseudolus

macksd · 5 years ago

>> In 1995, 2% of schizophrenia diagnoses in the country were associated with cannabis use disorder. In 2000, it increased to around 4%. Since 2010, that figure increased to 8%, the study found.

Worded that way, causation isn't the first thing this suggests to me. If percentage of cases associated with marijuana rise, it could also be that a larger percentage of the population is smoking and admitting to smoking marijuana regularly. If cases themselves rise, it could also be increases in the percentage of cases that actually get diagnosed, etc.

It could very well be that marijuana puts you at higher risk of schizophrenia - I certainly have an acquaintance in mind for whom recreational drug usage seems to have led them to a paranoid and narcissistic personality described here in other comments - but the connection in this article feels weak. Certainly weaker than the connection we see between marijuana law enforcement and the negative fallout of that.

Agenttin · 5 years ago

There's a relationship between smoking cigarettes and schizophrenia too. I think this may be a case of people trying to self medicate for their conditions.

> "There has been emerging evidence of an association between tobacco smoking and schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD). Two meta-analyses have reported that people who smoke tobacco have an ~2-fold increased risk of incident schizophrenia or psychosis, even after adjusting for confounding factors."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6255982/#:~:tex....

Agenttin commented on Valve Steam Deck steamdeck.com/en/... · Posted by u/homarp

pqdbr · 5 years ago

As a Mac user, I'm very interested as well. I don't play any games nowadays because I cant justify spending all that money for a latest generation PC, let alone the space it takes.

If I can have a dockable PC that can churn decent frame rates, It's just a matter of switching the input on my monitor and switching the bluetooth mouse/keyboard to it. For me, the fact it's portable is just icing on the cake to be honest. I'd buy it even if it didn't have a screen or controls to be honest.

Agenttin · 5 years ago

Have you looked into the gaming NUCs? This thing is probably going to be difficult to get, but those things are competent and expandable in the future.

Agenttin commented on Facebook users said no to tracking, and now advertisers are panicking bloomberg.com/news/articl... · Posted by u/1vuio0pswjnm7

air7 · 5 years ago

I dislike being tracked as much as the next guy, but I often wonder what "our" ideal end-game goal is? By "our" I mean the typical HN crowd that understands both the technological and the economical implications of this.

If we want top-grade products to remain available without a direct monetary transaction (i.e "free"), it seems we must give something that the product providers can turn into monetary value indirectly somehow. Yet it seems we are actively against any such options: We block ads guilt-free, we rally against any attempt at collecting valuable personal information even anonymously, we consider crypto mining in the background (which is basically paying via your electricity bill) borderline malware.

I am part of this "we", and yet I ask myself, what am I willing to give as indirect payment? What other options are there?

Agenttin · 5 years ago

I think people have shown to be willing to give direct payment. Twitch subscriptions, Patreon, Kickstarter, even OnlyFans. People will invest in the people and the projects they like.

I don't want anything that's advertising supported. Anything. There is no media I want to consume so badly that I'll tolerate ads to watch it. There's no product so interesting I'll view ads to use it. No website contains information I need that badly.

People keep saying that without ads we'll have to pay for things. Fine. Sure. Set up a Patreon. I give money on Github to a few projects I rely on to make sure their maintainers don't get day jobs. I couldn't afford to pay a programmer's salary, but I can afford to pay a small percentage of one.

I think the problem has actually been the donation button itself. You want $1 a month out of me that's a pretty easy sell. You want me to sign up for your website and give you my credit card information and you're SOL. I tried to donate to VoiceMeeter a few months back because it's so good. They only accept $20 donations, no more no less, and their payment system wasn't working.

Just, like, get a Venmo.

Agenttin commented on As the Pandemic Recedes, Millions of Workers Are Saying 'I Quit' npr.org/2021/06/24/100791... · Posted by u/pseudolus

rpmisms · 5 years ago

Yeah, if I were single and living in a Big City™, I'd be desperate to be in an office again, too.

Agenttin · 5 years ago

Oddly, this has become an environment where something like WeWork could actually make sense. I might like to have a workspace without any coworkers.

Agenttin commented on As the Pandemic Recedes, Millions of Workers Are Saying 'I Quit' npr.org/2021/06/24/100791... · Posted by u/pseudolus

Terretta · 5 years ago

> Everyone

As we subconsciously blend anecdata from HN into our mental models, remember that we self-selecting to visit here commenting are already extreme outliers.

Weight our in(group)sights accordingly.

Agenttin · 5 years ago

We are probably the people this article applies best to. I know I'm reading it in my boxers.

Agenttin commented on As the Pandemic Recedes, Millions of Workers Are Saying 'I Quit' npr.org/2021/06/24/100791... · Posted by u/pseudolus

UncleOxidant · 5 years ago

> I think our economy is so rich and efficient now, that scenario could actually exist, but everyone is still duped by the workaday culture infinitely persisting the 40 hour work week idea.

Not sure we're duped by the 40 hr / week idea so much as we're slaves to our desire for consumer goods. That and housing is very expensive now which means more work to pay for it.

Agenttin · 5 years ago

The issue is that pay hasn't kept up with productivity. As things become more efficient employers are having to pay far less for the same amount of work.

Agenttin commented on Just Be Rich keenen.xyz/just-be-rich/... · Posted by u/kjcharles

refurb · 5 years ago

I keep hearing about a “fair share” which is vague. What is the exact percentage that is a “fair share” for say someone with $10M?

Maybe if we can all agree on a number then we can figure out how best to collect it.

Agenttin · 5 years ago

I'm not concerned with people with that little money. If you've got $10M, you're rich, but you're not part of the problem rich. The three walmart heirs are worth $180B between them. Jeff is worth that by himself. This isn't "being good at business" it's hording. I'm concerned with Billionaires. 800 people who control $3.4T in assets. I don't want to make them poor, I am completely happy if they remain obscenely rich, but you just can't have that much of the pie.

Agenttin commented on What the Dunning-Kruger effect is and isn’t (2010) talyarkoni.org/blog/2010/... · Posted by u/sanj

etripe · 5 years ago

> The issue at hand is that working women make considerably less money overall than working men

When people tout the "30% less" statistic, it often refers to lifelong earnings, not hourly wage, in a study that didn't control for experience, sector, location or education.

It's 18% less when just comparing median wages. When controlled for the same job and qualifications, women earn 98 cents on the dollar (0). Women (as a group) work more part-time and in less profitable sectors like education, NGOs, government and nursing. They are less interested in high-profile and/or high status roles. Again, it feels good to say that women earn less due to discrimination and less so when it's because of their own choices.

You could argue (and I would agree) that some professions should be paid more. I think Covid has shown all of us which professions provide actual value, amongst whom definitely nursing and teaching.

> Women have all the same needs that men have

Women have the same basic needs, but there are differences in preferences, needs unique to women, needs unique to men and gender-specific dreams/wants that aren't needs.

> the necessity of being present at, key, moments of the child rearing process

Sure, but there is also a greater preference towards staying at home and having the man provide. It's simplistic to say "women are being forced" or "men aren't taking up their fair share" - this is a multivariate analysis. Specifically when it comes to a family, two thirds of the divorces are initiated by women. So not only are women staying home more often, they are choosing not to have a man be there at all. That might be for legitimate reasons, or it might not - but a divorce will impact your life balance.

> Feminists are right that there is a problem, this is a demonstrably unfair society

The problem, according to modern feminism, is different outcomes. As I see it, that's not a problem as long as opportunity is equal. Where women earn less on average per annum, they also have almost none of the workplace related deaths, lower suicide rates, homelessness, depression, incidence of burnouts, etc. In the younger generation, women outperform men both in wages and education. To me, it's not so clear if there is a better deal, and if so who has it.

> It doesn't matter what the reason is

I couldn't disagree more. If the claim is the problem lies with men or "the patriarchy", then the onus is on the claimant to prove that position, starting with a solid definition and falsifiable demonstration of patriarchy. That said, if you don't understand the reason for your outcome, you're powerless to change it. In a very concrete sense, you won't know what policy to implement when you topple the status quo and get to power. Among third wave feminists, I'm not hearing about how women architect their own fates and the importance of choices. I do among second wave feminists.

Would you say "it doesn't matter what the reason is" if all your relationships are short-lived, if you keep getting fired or if you keep failing your driving exam?

> this is a demonstrably unfair society

Yes, because of unequal access to money and genetics. Therefore there are class issues first and foremost, some sexism, some racism and the other forms of discrimination. To claim all (or even most) of women's problems are due to sexism, systemic or not, is a reductio ad absurdum.

> I don't want to live in a world where women are men. Where they can't take time to start a family and properly care for their children, because keeping the money flowing is a more immediate need.

Neither do I. But if that's what you want, you can't be opposed to earning less, either. Those are the consequences of your choices. Child rearing is unpaid, unless you're nannying as a service.

> I want to live in a world where you can't just take time off to raise a child, but also to do art, or to travel, or to simply be a human who exists outside their office.

Going out on a limb, I'm going to assume you mean where you can take time off. I'm fully with you there. That comes with a trade-off: you're going to be less "successful" in the conventional, square, monetary sense. You're sacrificing compensation for added fulfillment. That might entail any of: being less resistant to economic downturns, a smaller house, less of a pension, no or fewer kids, less social credit, fewer available/compatible dating partners, more limited career chocies, etc. It might also mean more laughing wrinkles, good moments, average happiness, life expectancy, better relationships, and so on.

That's why I said modern feminism is infantilising: it refuses to acknowledge that life is a struggle, filled with compromise and sacrifice. It's the Disney princess that won't grow up and the college kid that won't stop shouting from the barricades long enough to get on with writing their final dissertation. You have to pick and choose, mostly because no one owes you a damn thing. That is, until we've achieved fully automated luxury space communism à la Roddenberry. We don't live in a post-scarcity world yet by any stretch of the imagination.

> as much as it matters what the solution is

TL;DR: If the cause/reason is unimportant and the solution is key, what do you think is/are some good next step(s)?

[0] https://www.payscale.com/data/gender-pay-gap

Agenttin · 5 years ago

I understand that women tend to make choices that cause them to earn less money. However, as a society, we benefit hugely from people making these choices for which we do not properly compensate them to the tune of $1.2 billion a year.

> For 2018 (the most recent data available), the dollar value of women’s unpaid work in the U.S. was equal to 86% of all the economic activity recorded in the state of New York. In other years—say, the late 1990s and late 2000s—the value of women’s unpaid work even surpassed New York state GDP. And keep in mind this value is at the low end of the possible range because we use the federal minimum wage and not, for example, higher state minimum wages let alone market wages that correspond to the specific work being done.

> The UNDP Women and Development Report of 1995 conducted a time-use study that analyzed the amount of time women and men spend on paid and unpaid household and community work in thirty-one countries across the world, including countries classified as 'industrial, 'developing' and 'transition economies.'[12] They found that in almost every country studied women worked longer hours than men but received fewer economic rewards. The study found that in both the 'developing' and 'industrialized world', men received the "lion's share of income and recognition" for their economic inputs, while women's work remained "unpaid, unrecognized, and undervalued."[12]

The fact that we don't pay as much for the things women tend to do is the problem. We've created a world where if you choose to spend your life sitting in a cubicle, you can support yourself. But if you spend your life caring for the people around you, you cannot, your labor still has value, it's simply not compensated. This is a really bad incentive scheme. We want parents to spend time with their children, not just because children with present parents perform better, but because of course we do. We want smart, capable people to become social workers and teachers and pediatricians without sabotaging their finances. To put another way, the world would be made worse, if 20% of the people who are currently working in their homes, decided to become software engineers instead. The world would become better if 20% of software engineers decided they'd rather contribute to their homes and communities.

https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2020/03/calculating-the-valu...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unpaid_work#Gender_and_unpaid_...

Agenttin commented on What the Dunning-Kruger effect is and isn’t (2010) talyarkoni.org/blog/2010/... · Posted by u/sanj

watwut · 5 years ago

In that particular situation, saying "no I don't know" would be only acceptable behavior, imo.

If I am asking for my keyboard back, I should not have to physicality touch or fight you to get it back. Regardless of what you think about me.

Agenttin · 5 years ago

We're all just really smart monkeys here, and communication is complicated. "He's always trying to fix things when I just want to talk" is this same interaction just in a home context. Same communication error. There's a gap, you're saying "Do you know, at this moment, how to do this" to which the answer is clearly no. However, men are hearing "Can you solve this problem for me". Giving you back the keyboard means admitting that I failed to fix it.

EDIT: In my head, I feel like you've given up on the idea that I can help you, and you're probably going to go find someone smarter and more competent than me. In this context, a guy who doesn't want to give the keyboard back is afraid of admitting failure.

Agenttin commented on What the Dunning-Kruger effect is and isn’t (2010) talyarkoni.org/blog/2010/... · Posted by u/sanj

etripe · 5 years ago

> men are going to believe they're more competent ... because they've been socialized to believe they're better at it.

That's one of the central dogmatic feminist talking points that are just spouted off uncritically, along with other things men are supposedly socialised for, like wage negotiation and preferences for violence, taking up space and technical subject matter. Included is the starting position that women and men are the same and if women are perceived to be behind, it's because something was done to them irrespective of their own agency and accountability as individuals and adults. It's a conspiracy theory, and an infantilising one at that.

In social sciences, this becomes social and/or (modern) historical determinism, leaning heavily towards assuming everything's a construct and caused by historical precedent, ignoring biology (other animals, hormones, sexual attraction, evolution), long-term history and global invariability of gender roles. Sure, that's a feel good narrative, but is it a rational stance supported by evidence?

> If they asked about cooking or cleaning, you'd probably get the opposite reaction.

If this is about socialisation, the simpler explanation is that men are socialised to project confidence, because that's what romantically/sexually rewarded. The link towards granular, per-topic confidence is more tenuous and requires you accept a lot of feminist baggage at face value or provide an alternate explanation.

> Of course men aren't inherently better at math nor are women better at cleaning.

No, but perhaps they are more interested in maths by virtue of the topic itself, or due to ancillary effects like future status and wages, like women are more interested in nesting than men. Similarly, men are generally more drawn to the concepts of service and duty than women are, which is why vastly more men work logistics, manufacturing, law enforcement, fire departments and the military.

Personally, I find feminist axioms to be a very poor predictor of reality because they fail to account for mating strategies, personal choice, responsibility and preference - which is ironic for a movement that was initially about women's choices in the reproductive sphere.

Agenttin · 5 years ago

The issue at hand is that working women make considerably less money overall than working men. This is due to any number of factors including sexism, social effects, and the necessity of being present at, key, moments of the child rearing process. In the current iteration of our capitalist system it's required for nearly everyone to work, especially in the lower classes. Women have all the same needs that men have, and they have to cope in a society that, for many reasons, pays them 30% less.

Identifying those factors and working to minimize or eliminate their affect is a noble goal. But there are some factors that can't be eliminated, and we wouldn't want to live in a world where they were.

Feminists are right that there is a problem, this is a demonstrably unfair society. It doesn't matter what the reason is as much as it matters what the solution is. People spend a huge amount of time arguing about the problem, who's fault is it, what factors come into play.

I don't want to live in a world where women are men. Where they can't take time to start a family and properly care for their children, because keeping the money flowing is a more immediate need.

I want to live in a world where you can't just take time off to raise a child, but also to do art, or to travel, or to simply be a human who exists outside their office.

TLDR: Why matters very little, the income gap exists and we should fix it.