As somebody still in my early 20s, I am viscerally aware of these advantages provided to me slipping away year by year. I apologize for being vague but I would be interested in hearing advice from those who felt the same what they wish they would have done in their 20s to minimize future regret.
Spend as little time at home as possible. Travel. Find community. Live in a big city and make a ton of friends and throw lots of parties and bring people together, forming your own community. That's what I did and I feel like my 20s have been fulfilling, and I'm looking forward to what my 30s bring.
1) Buy a broad market global index fund. Put as much money into this as you reasonably can. Do not time the market, just put your money in every month and forget that it's there until you either want to buy a house or start to think about retirement. If these funds significantly decline, the world economy has tanked and you will have bigger problems to deal with.
2) Travel abroad alone at least once if you haven't already, ideally for a few months. Shorter trips are costly and will interfere with suggestion #1. If you're still living with your parents, this can be a good way to test out living on your own.
3) Do not waste your time. You can be out partying, traveling, working, praying, or studying, but don't be doing nothing waiting for a more opportune time to make something happen.
I, too, participate in the world's biggest and longest-lasting Ponzi scheme. As long as people keep buying in, the value will keep going up. It runs so long that it's likely it will still be running when I die. I strongly recommend everyone to buy as much of this scheme as possible.
If you're cynical about global markets, you can always take profits and build a self-sufficient homestead somewhere remote, or buy a cauldron and fill it with gold doubloons and bury it at the end of a rainbow like a leprechaun. Doomerism caused me to miss out on the biggest bull run in history, so I no longer give this advice. Rural property is a hedge, not an investment.
This was a seminal review in psychiatry that I am fully in agreement with but there are a lot of easy to draw conclusions from this review that are false.
SRRI efficacy for one - The nature of SSRIs is that they are highly effective for some patients and useless/detrimental to others. This does not lend itself well to traditional measures of effect size. For those in the comments pointing out SSRIs low effect size, note that the effect size of morphine for pain is only 0.4 (SSRIs score 0.3). For instance, drugs that significantly improve 60-100% of patients are clinically insignificant under various guidelines. I can expound upon the various methodological reasons this is the case if there is interest.
This is not to say that SSRIs are good. There is no doubt they are overprescribed, have underdiscussed side effects, and are barely understood by their prescribers. I was severely depressed with suicidal ideation since I was 6 years old until I was young adult. I have pored over the psychiatric scientific literature for many years now, and I will say that understanding the sociological reasons for depression was much more effective at helping me than learning about the biological or pharmacological aspects. If you are in a similar position, I cannot recommend enough reading Crazy Like Us: The Globalization of the American Psyche by Ethan Watters as a starting point.
Another problem with measuring effectiveness that you are relying on patient (or caregiver) reported outcomes. There are no “objective” measurable criteria for depression, such as a biomarker on some lab test or survival at 5 years. Depression is assessed by asking people questions about how they feel, which is prone to all kinds of noise and bias.
A lot of the problem with studying psychiatric disorders is that you can’t just go around biopsying people’s brains; so we don’t have much of any idea what is going on at a molecular or cellular level. We just kind of know the behavioral tics that doctors can observe and what patients can tell us.
Thank you for ending with a further reading suggestion as a useful complement to your personal experience and research. Your write up is a strong positive in continuing toward advancing education, open mindedness, and patience with a delicate subject. I appreciate your notes in this context and, as small as one voice is in “anecdata” context, I’m glad to see the mention of sociological factors because it’s also in my journey of discovering more.
Its unconscionable to me that the author would take $10,000 from his own father who is clearly not only mentally vulnerable but not rich as the author states. The father is very much at fault for what happened here, but something is deeply wrong with American society normalizing the annihilation of what should be sacred familial bonds over political matters. As somebody who generally aligns with the left, the last 10 years of overzealous liberal woke-scolding has done nothing but further increase this alienation of others that results in a complete mental split between families.
The son being an NPR correspondent and the mother moving out of their room on the day after Trump's election is highly indicative of this. To the author's credit, he is somewhat aware of this and mentions it in the article.
What about the familial bonds the other way? No respect for the wife’s opinion on how to spend the family money? Telling the daughter her lifestyle is wrong/immoral. The daughter should suck it up?
It's just a symbolic order, won't actually lead to anything important being released because the agencies have the authority to reject whatever they want. Many of the files have already been destroyed anyways.
See:
Sec. 3. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed
to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency,
or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget
relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and
subject to the availability of appropriations.
In 1973 DCI Richard Helms ordered all files on Project MKUltra destroyed. We only have documents on it, because some files were stored in an office outside the main records office, which were found in a 1977 FOIA request.
The simplest explanation is that the juiciest records were destroyed a long time ago, and released the remaining ones would only lead to speculation and a decrease in trust of the agencies involved.
Because classified records don't always come with expiration dates on their classification status for obvious reasons - even if records are classified for a speficic reason you'd probably want to make sure that reason doesn't still apply ten, twenty or fifty years later. You seem to assume the default is for information not to be classified. The right question to ask is: what incentive would there have been to declassify them earlier?
As others have said, declassification is a process, not a rubber stamp. Declassified records can reference things which are still classified so you need to go through each document line by line and check for such references to make sure they're blanked. Likewise if you want to be particularly helpful you'd have to also go through all previously declassified documents referencing this document and then un-blank their references and republish them, though I doubt that often happens in practice.
You're hoping for a salacious answer. But the real answer is going to be "because declassifying stuff is a time consuming pain in the ass, and no one could be bothered for the file which covered correct letterhead formatting for internal correspondence which technically got sucked into the system 50 years ago and now it's difficult to figure out that that was all it was".
JFK stuff was also declassified under Biden. No one cares because there's nothing in it.
no I don't. I literally said it was a honest question. I truly just want to know more about the underlying mechanisms of why governments classify and declassify things because I don't know much about that.
> JFK stuff was also declassified under Biden. No one cares because there's nothing in it.
A post about it is trending on HN so saying "no one cares" is a dismissal about the interest on this topic. Your very contribution to the post ironically contradicts the content of your message
> saying "no one cares" is a dismissal about the interest on this topic
The point is if you're in a position to declassify banal documents, you probably don't care to do it. You look at them. You see they're banal. You move on.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by boringness.
A post is trending about the declassification which hasn't actually happened yet. It's not trending about the content of the documents, or even discussing previous documents, in fact no one is even discussing what was in the previous thousands of pages of declassified material.
People care about the idea of the story, not the reality.
JFK investigation documents have been declassified repeatedly, and no one even has any common reference points they bring up about them because ultimately there's nothing there. So this is just the new fantasy: "now, NOW! They'll totally declassify the memo ordering the CIA hit on JFK using mob money and then framing Oswald for it! They've had it the whole time!"
There are lots of interesting / incriminating details in the already released documents. There are also some redacted names which surely would add more context and answer a few questions. I'm sure we won't get many shocking revelations but if they really do release the same documents unredacted that's a step in the right direction.
I remain unconvinced that is going to actually happen, unfortunately. They will present a plan that simply excludes any really revealing documents and what they do release will be a nothing burger. That doesn't mean that there is nothing there, just that they don't genuinely intend to release the goods.
> Comparing the two scenarios, we found that about half of the observed decline in US social trust may stem from: i) ever more unemployment experiences, ii) ever less confidence in political institutions, and iii) a slight but systematic decrease in satisfaction with income.
Will a gun protect you when your car accelerates to 150 mph directly into a tree? A couple micrograms of toxin being sprinkled into your coffee? The CIA had a heart attack gun 50 years ago. Not difficult to imagine the capabilities they have today.
Nope, but it would probably help in the instance here, where I guess according to you, Boeing assassins broke into his home, and forced him to commit suicide with a gun(or, killed him with their own gun and staged it perfectly to look like a suicide).
Wigs, stockings and heels were associated with being of the aristocrat class. Which, as the article states, could make one wearing such things a target.
I think you're misreading that a bit (it is confusingly written).
> During the French Revolution, wearing dress associated with the royalist Ancien Régime made the wearer a target for the Jacobins. Working-class men of the era, many of whom were Revolutionaries, came to be known as sans-culottes because they could not afford silk breeches and wore less expensive pantaloons instead
_Prior_ to the revolution, the Jacobins (who were largely bourgeoisie) would have been wearing that dress, distinguishing themselves from the working class (who _didn't_ wear the stockings). The revolutionary period is being used to illustrate a change here, not the norm.
reply