How can you believe it's both "no better than placebo" but also that it's "going to have his brain chemistry altered and essentially be addicted to a drug". SSRIs are not considered addictive, though people can develop a dependence if it provides them significant improvement.
The whole point of the linked article is that the drug is no better at placebo at treating depression but also carries a host of known side effects, besides unknowns when it comes to long term use. They're not saying it's inert.
That's fair, though I never implied that there were no side effects. The part I was trying to point out in the quote was the mention of it being addictive which is not really supported, nor is that mentioned in the article.
Here’s a paper from last year: The nature and impact of antidepressant withdrawal symptoms and proposal of the Discriminatory Antidepressant Withdrawal Symptoms Scale (DAWSS) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadr.2024.100765
‘Highlights
•
Antidepressant withdrawal can be severe and protracted.
•
It produces characteristic physical and emotional symptoms.
•
All symptoms were more severe after stopping than before starting antidepressants.
•
We identified the 15 most discriminatory withdrawal symptoms in our sample.
•
Withdrawal did not differ between people with physical or mental health diagnoses.’
This seems like a you problem. I have quite a few repos made before using "main" was the default in GitHub or Git. I have not changed them, and I have never spent more than 5 seconds thinking about it, let alone worrying about being considered "less of a person" because of it.
Interesting you mention jumping spiders, I just saw a rather interesting video talking about exactly this and includes some interviews with scientists involved in some of these experiments [1]. One interesting fact I learned is that they have a sense of numeracy, and can distinguish between one, two and three-or-more objects.
If you read fiction you might find The Children of Time to be interesting. It follows the hyper accelerated evolution of jumping spiders to a sentient species that eventually has to coexist with humans. It leans on a lot of fact about jumping spiders and uses it as a jumping point to what their societies might look like if given the chance to evolve as the top predators.
Sales taxes in the US are truly and insanely decentralized.
The US has thousands of independent sales tax authorities with their own laws and regulations about how sales tax must be computed and displayed. These jurisdictions overlap, the sales tax you pay may be the aggregate of multiple different sales tax authorities between which there is no coordination.
Rounding to the nearest 5c or whatever creates a situation where in many locales it would be impossible to comply with sales tax and pricing laws because different tax authorities requiring mutually exclusive ways of making this change.
This creates an obvious need to change the law. This is not trivial because they are often written into statute or constrained by constitutional processes. It requires thousands of jurisdictions to all change their laws at the same time in the same way, which is effectively impossible. Even if it weren't the process would require several years. In many locales it requires a democratic vote -- what if the voters vote against it? Courts aren't going to let the government ignore these requirements because it would be inconvenient.
It really is a "herding cats" problem. There are many other things in the US that effectively can't be changed because there is no central authority to overcome coordination problems by fiat. Even at the level of all 50 States, resolving these kinds of coordination problems typically takes several decades.
> the US has thousands of independent sales tax authorities
The US does not have thousands of independent sales tax authorities; administrative subdivisions of states are not independent, or even sovereign in the sense that states (which are also not independent) are, and can be dictated to by the state they are in, if the state decide there is a need, such as an urgent common problem that requires a coordinated solution.
> It really is a "herding cats" problem.
It's not, though. It's a "convincing cats to find shelter when it rains" problem, that you are trying to make harder by inventing the nonexistent need to also gather them in a herd. They aren't in a herd with the penny as the smallest coin, and they don't need to be in a herd if that changes to a nickel.
> Even at the level of all 50 States, resolving these kinds of coordination problems typically takes several decades.
There is no need for a coordinated solution between all 50 states, just as there is no coordinated policy on sales tax now between all 50 states. All that is necessary is that there is a solution in every place where the current tax policy would be problematic without the penny. There is no need for the policy to be the same in every jurisdiction with sales tax, just as the status quo policy is not the same in every jurisdiction with a sales tax.
There are many examples of these types of jurisdictional conflicts in the US due to the strong decentralization of authority. These situations almost always rely on non-enforcement, which works until it doesn't and then you find yourself in court. Enforcement sporadically happens, or more commonly happens, someone with a personal axe to grind demands enforcement happen.
I'm all for eliminating the penny and rounding to the nearest 5 cents or whatever. But I am not so callous as to ignore the reality that doing this de facto forces many businesses to break the law because compliance is impossible for reasons completely outside their control.
Maybe you're cool with breaking some eggs to make an omelette but I find it pretty gross and immoral to dictate change without satisfying the preconditions that allow it to occur legally for everyone involved.
> I find it pretty gross and immoral to dictate change without satisfying the preconditions that allow it to occur legally for everyone involved.
Your claims include that this is effectively impossible and that changes of this type take decades to roll out in the US.
If we take your claims as accurate then the only way to ever make a change like this is to “break some eggs”. The alternative would be for us collectively to stop pretending that effective governance is a unreasonable expectation.
Coordination problems become easier when there is a pressing need to solve them.
If pennies are phased out, companies need to figure out how to do business without pennies. If they can't find a legal way to continue business, they will tell the relevant legislators that the laws should be changed. If the legislators don't see a reason to change the laws, the companies will probably stop doing business in that jurisdiction. If the legislators still don't see a reason to change the laws, then the outcome is probably what the local residents wanted.
I get the feeling that most people commenting here have only surface level experience with deploying k8s applications. I don't care for helm myself but it's less bad than a lot of other approaches like hand rolling manifests with tools like envsubst and sed.
Kustomize also seems like hell when a deployment reaches a certain level of complexity.
It appears you can tune what is sanitized from the input via the "sanitizer" optional parameter. The default sanitizer is however defined in a spec linked on the docs page [1] with the actual sanitize operation specified as well [2].
Ah, perfect, the "remove unsafe" operation is what I was looking for. It includes a list of elements and a list of attributes. These appear to apply regardless of the sanitizer configuration you use, the original MDN link demonstrates allowlisting "script" but seeing that it is removed anyways.
You didn't refute anything in the comment, other than saying one part of it was correct. This comment would be more useful if you actually made an argument.
A cursory internet search would back up my statement. Feel free to do that if you're interested. I note that you aren't asking the parent poster for any citations for their claim, which I would say is quite extraordinary.
And to be clear, my "argument" is that the parent poster is objectively incorrect, which is accurate. I decided not to posit on why the parent poster made an objectively incorrect statement, though I am curious.
This is your statement: "just to make this explicit, protecting civilians has never been the purpose of modern police forces. they were developed to put down rebellions/catch slaves/protect rich people's property"
That statement is incorrect, no matter what your definition of "modern police force" is. That's it. It's not complicated, despite your attempts to deflect from the invalidity of that statement.
Yes, I knew exactly how you were stretching the truth to suit your viewpoints.
Thanks for confirming you knew exactly what you were doing as well. As I said at the start of this, I don't understand what you get out of intentionally making inaccurate statements, but I don't expect you to explain that.
thank you for confirming that you agree with the substance of my argument but have some weird ideological axe to grind with the conclusion! i also appreciate you wasting my time, failing to provide any other viewpoint or counterargument, and repeatedly engaging in ad hominem instead of the substance of my argument!
reply