I don’t understand why you’re bringing up Obama. Nobody is defending him, and I think you might be inferring some sort of tribalistic defensiveness without any evidence. I see that sort of thing a lot, and I’ve never understood it.
Please correct me if I misunderstood the point you were trying to make.
The point I'm trying to make is that highly respected and even lauded individuals kill American citizens and people aren't generally afraid of them, so the fact that "they've shot and killed american citizens" on its own doesn't explain any fear. But I had misread the original question so my point was not quite relevant because the question was stated with justified fear already implied.
> My genuine trouble with this kind of post is that I don’t know if it is true.
Same thought I had. I mean, it sounds pretty bad but it's also making no attempt at all to report an unbiased view. I'd like to hear from officials. What are their goals, and why are they doing it this way? I don't think the majority of Trump voters wanted this kind of harm and chaos.
What is the unbiased view of a federal agency geared up for war kidnapping and terrorizing people in the streets of American city? You have no idea what it's like here right now.
I don't have any idea and I'm not trying to defend or justify.
> What is the unbiased view of a federal agency geared up for war kidnapping and terrorizing people in the streets of American city?
That's exactly what I'd like to know. The report didn't provide one. That's my point. Which is fine, they didn't intent to, they were just telling their truth. But those ICE agents have a perspective, they have motivations, they're people, and while reading the report I was curious about what they might have to say about their actions.
> those ICE agents have a perspective, they have motivations, they're people
They are racist, fascist thugs, it's that simple. They want to terrorize immigrants and brown people. There is no need to overthink this. They are racially profiling people every day, and arresting citizens because they are minorities. They shot a mother in the head and now they are telling the rest of us "didn't you learn your lesson?", alluding to that murder. They tear-gassed a family of 6 trying to get home the other day, including a 6 month old baby that lost consciousness. The family had nothing to do with anything, they were simply trying to get home in an area ICE was attacking.
What "perspective" could possibly change anything about this shameful behavior?
They knowingly voted for a racist, a rapist, a felon ...
A man who as president sent a mob to assassinate the vice-president of the United States and members of Congress, because that VPOTUS, Mike Pence, refused Trump's illegal order to overturn an election both of them had lost.
I'm just talking about one report. I'm not waiting to hear from anyone. I just passively consume what happens to come my way, and this is the first report about this situation that I saw on HN and took time to read.
Please educate yourself. The message is not hidden like some cryptic puzzle. Read, read, read. And from more than just one news source. Many. Recognize the bias.
> I don't think the majority of Trump voters wanted this kind of harm and chaos.
Sorry to be vulgar, but it’s about fucking time they find the fucking courage to speak up.
I am angry at the conservative people in my life, first and second connections and beyond, not because they fell for 8 years of increasingly fascist propaganda, but because now they’re too weak and scared and cowardly to stand up and recognize that they were wrong and they’ve ushered in some of the darkest days in American history.
The American right continues to be complicit. I am losing respect daily while I watch my conservative friends not speak out. It’s heartbreaking.
> If you can pay your own way, but choose to instead let others pay for you, you're just sponging off people.
I was particularly perturbed at the mention of someone emptying their bank account to help this guy, who has more money than the person emptying their account. I'm no ethics expert, but there is an idea that the unbounded acceptance of generosity becomes a form of exploitation, which I agree with.
I thought the eaay was creepy but that section just gave me the heebie-jeebies. "Sympathy vampire" is the term that came to my mind unbidden. It reads like an essay by someone aromantic describing love purely in terms of going to restaurants to eat exquisite food, and the mutual benefits of filing taxes jointly.
I am uncertain if space aliens will abduct me as I sleep, but it would be insane to factor that into my daily decision making.
This is where it would help if the government would do the responsible thing and quantify the probability and talk about the risks of not taking medicine if you're pregnant and have a high fever. The fact that they aren't is a clear sign that this is absurd propaganda.
Correct, and the guideline on the "realfood.gov" site doesn't say it but all the protein g/kg body weight I've seen (mostly relative to weight training or building muscle) are in terms of kg of lean body mass, not total body weight.
All these things are actually rules of thumb that aim to be easy, and less focused on accurate.
A reasonably close rule of thumb can actually be 1g of protein per cm of height.
Also not accurately represented is that your body absorbs less protein per gram consumed the older you get. (I couldnt find a source with an actual ratio, just recommendations for _more_ as you get older).
When listening to folks like Layne Norton, they have said that surprisingly many people who simply increase their protein inadvertently begin to lose weight due to greater satiety per net calorie. (remember, roughly 20% of protein calories are lost in digesting/absorbing/converting the protein)
A 16oz steak is over 50% protein, or over double your entire daily target. Hamburger count could be right, if you are eating McDonald's burgers or similar. But then you are not following the guidelines, with far too much processed grains and added sugars.
"high scores: braised eye-of-round steak 40.62; broiled t-bone steak (porterhouse) 32.11; grilled lean steak 31.0
"
numbers are grams per hundred grams or wiki also reports 25% as the average, thus your factor of 2 error in weight (400 instead of 200).
That's only relevant until the AI output no longer has a tone that triggers your gag reflex. Then you'll be in the same boat as everyone else, and the "who cares who/what wrote it, if it has good information" question will apply to you as well.
What will actually happen if and when AI output is indistinguishable from human writing is that I will curate a whitelist of people I know personally whom I trust don't use it, only read from them, and everyone else can piss off. I've already stopped using several websites where the SNR has dropped too low because AI usage is rampant, I'd have no problem extending that to the entire internet.
Nice summary. Can you explain why someone who has "recovered" and is no longer suffering the ruinous effects of alcohol in their life still considered an alcoholic? I heard someone on the radio today say that they are an alcoholic, but in the same sentence said they were 30 years sober, which seemed like a massive contradiction to me. I don't think it was a mistaken use of present tense. I've heard similar statements from others.
In my AA we say that alcoholism is a chronic disease. The same as (some forms) of diabetes, you don’t just get rid if it. Its something you can manage but not cure. It lies dormant inside of you the rest of your life.
My mentor (highly successful and 30 years sober) said it nicely: he has an angry tiger inside of him thats trapped inside a cage. One that will surely eat him if it gets out. His job is to keep the tiger in the cage.
Thats what it feels like. Every day. The cravings go down, the thoughts, etc. Self control improves. But the danger lies dormant for us.
As someone who suffered from deep depression, but never alcoholism - the way alcoholism is described by alcoholics always rings true with how I experience (and hear described by others) depression. I am no longer suffering from depression actively; the symptoms of it are essentially gone. But there's life events, certain situations, certain moments of deeper vulnerability, that feel like I might slip back into it.
Surprisingly enough, although there seem to be parallels with how people experience 'life after' both things, I find it curious that alcoholics I talk to often use the "caged animal" metaphor, whereas depressives tend to describe it more as walking "a tight rope" or "at the edge of an abyss" metaphor.
Thanks for mentioning it, sometimes I feel isolated in my experience of walking at the edge of a cliff. It seems like a good portion of my mental energy goes into the daily practice of keeping depression away. But my therapist has kindly explained why it’s chronic and something to manage for life.
Have some experience with NA but assuming functionally the same, and there isnt a set threshold. If you are unable to stop taking a substance in any circumstance that is negatively impacting you then you are considered and an addict. Whether thats just every Friday night or every day. Its the inability to stop that makes you an addict rather than the frequency. Tbh i didnt get on with it at all, waaay to goddy for me but I appreciate the work they do for people.
The clinical American definition is 14 servings per week for men and 7 for women.
Personally, I was what you call a dipsomaniac. Colloquially that is called a binge drinker. I drank 4 to 9 days at a time from morning to night (and night time) without a break. Luckily I only drank like this 7 times in 4 years but I almost died in my last binge.
We see alcoholics of all kind in AA: frequent and a lot, infrequent and a lot, and frequent and little. The frequent and little are the hardest to crack because they have the hardest time with step 1. Now step one is actually comprised of two components: realizing you have a problem (easy for me) and also admitting you were not in control of your own life anymore (hard for me). Its only through doing the 12 step work really arduously, going to meetings and having a great sponsor that I was able to change enough to where drinking no longer ran my life.
I remember a rule of thumb being "if you cannot remember the last day on which you did not have any alcohol, you're an alcoholic". Probably not what AA goes by, but I like the simplicity of it.
This is weird - my mother very rarely drinks but she’ll be hard pressed telling you exactly when was the last time time . This doesn’t make her an alcoholic.
Or should you start the rule with ‘you’ve been drinking everyday for a while’?
If can't remember the last time she DID NOT take alcohol, it does make her an alcoholic. Or just an old person with severe memory issues, who shouldn't even live alone at that point.
Can you stop tomorrow? If so, then no. If you make excuses why you can’t or shouldn’t, or when you try you have physical or psychological problems, then yes.
You know that that "angry tiger inside you" feeling can go away completely right? That angry tiger is not biological part of who you are, it's a dissociated memory of how you felt when you were a child, which continues to live on in you in the present because you haven't fully processed your childhood feelings. All else being equal, keeping the tiger caged up is better than letting it loose, but you can also heal it so that it goes away completely, which will benefit your life in many ways, most of which are not even related to alcohol. Healing usually requires softening the cage that the tiger lives in bit by bit as you become increasingly able to metabolize him, or cutting the tiger up into pieces and dealing with a piece of him at a time.
I always found this a little odd, even though I understand the reasoning behind it. I think it would be more accurate to say that they're no longer an alcoholic, but "struggle with addiction", or "have addictive tendencies", or something like that. But that's a bit of a mouthful, and in part I think people continue to call themselves alcoholics even when they've been consistently sober is that it's a strong, shorthand reminder that even one drink can send them right back to where they started.
It's because they know even one casual drink can lead them down the same path they were on previously, so it's a reminder to themselves and others. It might also be something of an absolutionary statement, where they feel guilt for their past "sin" of drinking and feel the need to label themselves à la The Scarlet Letter to atone for their sin and obtain absolution.
Maybe it is sometimes part of a person's identity. But people who have quit using tobacco or other drugs are typically called "ex-smokers" or "former users/addicts", respectively. (Even though "smoker" is still a somewhat "cool" identity in popular culture, with many movie villains - and some heroes - still smoking.)
Without trying to make it sound judgemental I know literal dozens of people who stopped smoking and it hardly comes up in conversation anymore - I think I have like 2 friends left who smoke, out of... more than 50%? And several of them smoked for 10 years or more.
Maybe it's because most people don't just randomly are offered cigarettes or because it went from a "50% of the population" to "10% of the population in this age group".
I'm not saying that sober alcoholics are making a big deal out of it, it just feels different - maybe because it is seen as a lot more problematic than being a smoker? Or harder to quit. Or because it's rarer.
Good point - cigarettes are increasingly harder to find, and are banned in many places (restaurants) where alcohol is readily available, and associated with sociability. There even seem to be more marijuana shops vs. tobacco shops (or liquor stores for that matter) in some places, and the former are advertised while tobacco advertising is banned. On the other hand, while smoking may be in decline, I still see (and smell) vaping everywhere.
Plenty of people go out the door after X years then go back in worse states than when they first showed up. Once picking up a drink/drug/whatever, they're off and running again. 10 - 12 are "maintenance" to stave that sort of thing off. There's no end to working 10 - 12. They're a daily practice of continued growth. There's no end point (recovered), recovery continues on (recovering).
It's also a practice to keep everyone on the same level. Everyone is an alcoholic -- otherwise it'd just be a bunch of old farts telling new guys what to do (then hardly anyone would come back).
Alcohol in AA is viewed as an allergy—a lifelong illness. Someone may have recovered and dealt with their fears and resentments. That doesn’t mean they won’t slip back into negative coping mechanisms though.
I picked up "Atomic Habits" recently, tbh mostly because I've seen it being hyped all over - I was expecting it to be along the lines of "if you just do X for even 5 min every day...", but one of the early ideas that get introduced is that identity can play a big part in how we function with regards to our habits, which resonated with me, and I think is interesting in the context of your question.
The idea is that our sense of identity and image of self shapes our behaviour, subconsciously to a large extent. So if someone offers you a cigarette and you're trying to quit, it can make a difference if you frame it as "No thank you, I'm trying to quit" (I still identify as a smoker, but I'm trying to not do it), vs "no thank you, I'm not a smoker (anymore)".
Applied to defining goals vs parts of identity- not "I want to run every day and compete in a marathon", but "I 'd like to be a marathon runner". Because, in a lot of cases, we want to do something because of the qualities or traits we perceive the people doing it to have.
To me, it sounds good in this context as well - instead "I have to stop drinking" - "I want to be a sober man".
>Can you explain why someone who has "recovered" and is no longer suffering the ruinous effects of alcohol in their life still considered an alcoholic?
I've known people with substance abuse problems, some of them recovered and had healthy relationships with substances. Some of them stopped using for long periods but touching the substance again relit the problem just the same as before.
The latter group even sober for decades are still alcoholics (or whatever other substance). There are people for which the problem never goes away, they just manage not to indulge it.
People don't like to see difficult to accept facts stated plainly. And sometimes equate a statement of unfortunate fact with endorsement of status quo.
More on topic, I hoped there would be some support from Colombia, Russia, and China in place to help with this situation. Instead it seems like Maduro took an exit deal and left the country at the hands of the GOP who openly promulgate the idea that the US should lord over all other countries in the western hemisphere.
Obama authorized the bombing of American citizens.
Those who are authorized to commit violence tend to do so. That in itself is not really saying much.
reply