StoneyDcrew

Most people in this profession couldn't give a better assessment than an unplugged sega genesis.

Oh? Care to back that up with evidence?

And if a medical professional would give poor assessments what makes you think Billy-Bob with a 9 year old smart phone can assess him self better? If Billy-Bob does it wrong he could hurt himself or make his mental health worse.

Yeah, but not the way you meant it. It's usually better to research yourself.

What? There is nothing wrong with with researching symptoms yourself, but to think you are more correct than a trained medical professional is insanely egotistical.

When it matches I'm actually surprised they got it right. Never been wrong yet.

"they got it right"? Ah, I see your issue. You are going to the doctor to confirm your biases and get treatment for it, not to get their professional opinion.

If they don't agree; "can't believe they got it wrong. They're useless. " If they do; "hey they got it right for once. "

You are one of the people that I feel aren't fit to self-diagnose. Your symptoms could have been autism, bi-polar, or various other conditions. Could have even been a combination. Convincing yourself it was 100% adhd is reckless and should be tempered by an outside opinion.

I'm not sure where this lack of respect comes from. if you are in the UK like me it probably stems from the lack of funding for the NHS leading to "revolving door" Quick assessments as they aren't able to spend the proper time going through everything. I have my own gripes with the NHS but I trust that the qualifications they have makes them more specialised in dealing with my health than I or the average person.

Patient-facing doctors and those who do research are two circles that do not overlap. The patient-facing people only do research to see if tpsychosisdeny you treatment based on race/sex/(insert immutable trait here) or how they can otherwise jerk you off until you die or leave to save on the budget.

"Deny treatment", huh? Sounds like someone self-diagnosed and demanded medication and the only professional in the room wasn't having any of that shit. How are they supposed to trust what you say your symptoms are when you are clearly biased towards what you think you have, you'd look like an addict trying to get a fix.

I doubt bigotry is involved, but if it was then you could easily get a solicitor involved and he could help prove that you weren't reviewed fairly, by having a second doctor examine you and comparing that to the original.

Regarding research, doctor regularly attend medical conferences and research treatment options throughout thier career as medical sciences advance. You don't stay a doctor otherwise.

Yeah he'll say "have you tried not being sad. Also maybe stop being transgender/black/woman."

If by "have you tried not being sad" you mean they suggested the usual rounds of meditation, exercise, diet, etc then that is perfectly normal to do and shows proven mental health benefits.

Maybe they offered anti-depressants/anti-anxiety to help cope? My GP did (as I had a report from work that suggested that I'm showing signs of depression) but I said I would rather a mental health specialist assess the symptoms as they can overlap with adhd and I want a fair assessment for when they do.

I seriously doubt they mentioned race/etc.

That is if they respond at all, usually it's just silence, or being told to fuck off and wait.

This part I can sympathise with. I waited 4 years for adhd to get treatment and I needed to chase them for updates every step. It's frustrating, sometimes I feel like they are throwing pills at me and throwing me out the door hoping this time it will improve. (though in a way that's really the only way it is done right) I wish their was more monitoring/reviewing of treatments, but I am perfectly fine with their knowledge on the subject.

I attribute this to a lack of funding and a huge waiting lists rather than simple negligence. There simply isn't enough budget/enough doctors/enough time to give everyone the time they need.

That said; as frustrating as it is, that is no excuse to recklessly/stupidly to self-diagnose and self-medicate. Doing so invites health risk that I'm not comfortable with people taking.

My life won't pause itself. I'll never get those years of waiting back if I wait. Or I can just do what I know is right and what I know helps and bypass this circus of drug gatekeeping.

Waiting sucks I know. If that is unbearable then seek private treatment. If that is not an option then wait like everybody else. Until funding improves that's what we are stuck with. This "circus of drug gatekeeping" is there for a good reason, and it is because a layman is not a good judge.

And if a layman can't do it, a doctor is even less likely to.

Wait, are you seriously claiming a doctor has less knowledge than a layman? Really? 8 years of studying to somehow know less than the average person?

Going to assume you are being hyperbolic rather than actually believing this. It's one thing to be frustrated with the current system; it's borders on conspiracy theories thinking they are all incompetent for no good reason.

Nah. Just Google what amfexa doses are there, pick lowest, eyeball napkin math it out...

This is insane. No one should be doing this, least of all people with mental health issues. There are MANY steps that allow human error to mess things up. Messing up the measurements via simple misreading of a decimal is a simple one that could get someone hurt, and maybe even killed. The LD50 is only 96.8 mg/kg from what I found. If you don't know what LD50 is without Googling what it is, then stop immediately. You are not anywhere near informed enough to be doing this.

Phycosis is a also common side effect of its misuse. And I'm not convinced anyone doing this would have sound judgement.

Letting someone decide their own dosage for an addictive drug is also a recipe for disaster.

There is no sane professional that would consider this bootleg treatment safe enough to match commercial treatment.

If you aren't stopping immediately, then at minimum don't spout these dangerous ideas that could get someone else killed.

Plenty of people in every profession are idiots, doctors included. They are no more special than mechanics or programmers

Firstly:Those two professions are also skilled and a lay man should not pick up. A bad mechanic causes car crashes, a bad programmer causes security issues. Maybe for minor things like weird car noises, or maybe installing a mod for a game would be fine, but comparing medication to weird car noise is not comparable.

Secondly: it takes 8 years to become a fully fledged doctor and one of the the most competitive jobs to go for, and for good reason, as it is people's lives that are at stake. They maybe idiots in other areas, like can't cook or bad at spelling, but they are medical professionals and it is their job to ensure your safety.

If you are going to be constantly state they are just as incompetent as the next guy you are going to need evidence. For that to be the case.

The 'strict vetting process' is only a method of keeping the supply of doctors low. Literally, that isn't conspiracy. Edit: although that is a u.s. issue specifically.

I agree that this isn't acceptable, but I'm struggling to understand how this supports your argument? you think the doctors they pick for that "low" numbered group is just as incompetent as the people they didn't pick? They are picking the best/more professional doctors from the lot and the rest don't make it or try again another time.

This in no way sounds like anti-vax rhetoric? Doing actual research and doing something that doesn't affect others is literally the exact opposite of what those people stand for.

Anti-vax see themselves as doing "Actual research" and that doctors are "idiots that don't know what they are talking about" (or corrupt). That all they have is a "fancy bit of paper"

They don't understand how dangerous ignoring medical advice can be because they don't know enough about the science behind it and think their research online is sufficient to keep them informed.

The human body is just another machine. You can learn it as easily as you can learn how to fix whatever horrible sound you engine is making.

Then why does it take 8 years minimum to study for it? Even if it was "horrible engine noise" kind of fix unless this would be 100% accurate of the time, it can potentially break the "car".

If it is so easy to get into the profession then go become a doctor and save lives. Should be easy to beat those "idiots" you seem to be implying are rampant. After you're a doctor I will put a bit more weight into your opinions. Especially the one were some doctors can be idiots.

The only advantage a doctor has over a layman is more direct access to resources (both knowledge, as in easy access to research, and tools, such as blood tests),

Wow, almost made it sound if those things were easy and not important at all.

but that doesn't exclude a random from using those resources themselves.

Sure, technically. In the sense that every random person has a chance to go to medical school.

Not everyone can pass medical school. Definitely not everyone should.

But unless you are 100.00% confident that not a single person would be negatively affected by self-medication instead of doctors advice (or even absence of advice) then your energy is better put to complaining that there aren't enough doctors to meet demand rather than trying to advocate they can be substituted with sufficient Internet research.

Doctor aren't some higher beings, hell a lot of them are idiots

What? How do you have this take towards one of the most important and respected jobs in the entire history of mankind? Self-researching/medication isn't going to be comparable to a trained professional. Especially since they have extra resources specifically for medical research.

Sure, Doctors are only human and make mistakes from time to time, but there is a strict vetting process (that isn't simply "fancy paper" as you put it) that only the most competent doctors are allowed to practice medicine. And a process to arrest them for malpractice if they fail afterwards. Without context of adhd, it reads like an anti-vaxer justifying the use of oils.

Medical advice should always be sought for these issues. If you didn't trust a specific piece of medical advice? Get further medical advice i.e a second opinion.

If you need urgent help? Ask your doctor what can be done while waiting for your diagnosis.

There is absolutely no reason to think that the human body (esp. The brain) is simple enough that a layman can do it.

These are addictive substances with potentially dangerous side effects requiring specific doses and ongoing management. I'm on elvance and I needed to make sure my blood pressure was suitable before starting and then later going to a higher dose. People could be hurt, or killed with the self-medication advice and that isn't a risk I would consider acceptable.

Of course it is exaggerated. That is the point of a hyperbolic arguments.

Examining hypothetical edge cases in more detail is a useful tool for defining where the issues lie in a debate.

Would you support/play a game of 100+ devs if key management DID commit war crimes? I'd like to think probably not.

It's though it is clear from your response that misogyny isn't a deal-breaker for you for this case, so the question then becomes; how shitty does a single person need to be before it becomes an issue for you then?

Other people drew a line in the sand at misogyny and there is nothing wrong with that. In fact I'd say it is a respectable opinion.

You probably would prefer to just ignore any controversy and just judge the game on its merits alone, and that is fine in its own way too. It is exhausting keeping up with the news and you would be happier and find it easier to just blindly enjoy a game.

But don't pretend that just because you are ignoring it, doesn't mean that you aren't supporting bad practices like misogyny when you do so.

Edit: downvoted for not wanting to pay attention to stupid controversy about video games? Weird...

It's one thing to live peacefully in ignorance. I get it. it is exhausting keeping track of every shitty thing a company does when it's so much easier at the end of an exhausting 9-5 shift to avoid news and play your games guilt free without thinking about who it's hurting.

It's a completely separate thing to brag that your ignorance somehow makes your way of life superior.

People caring about these issues, and sometimes leading to actions being taken because of that, all makes the gaming industry, or to be hyberbolic; the world a better place.

It's fine to avoid news on controversy and just blindly enjoy games, but don't lie to yourself (and others) by pretending that it is a good thing.

Oh, but those Activision scumbags had no issue with this hype boosting MW1 sales right up until the day before the mods planned release date.

It's one thing shutting down a modders passion project, it's a complete other level of evil to allow it to proceed right up until release date because it boosted sales for an otherwise dead game.

I hope negative press from this tanks their sales, but we all know it won't.

I like the subtle joke of kirby sitting at all tables.

May want to wait and see if the new warbond this week is worth it.

That said here are the ones I'm interested in:

Steeled Veterans has the incendiary breaker which is amazing for fighting bugs. It also has the Dominator which is a good pick for bots. Not much else going for it, but two good primaries are pretty nice to have.

Haven't gotten into the other packs yet, but heard good things for few of them.

Viper commando seems like a great pick: The armour passive is really good due to the faster aim, the booster is really good but niche, the shotgun secondary is powerful but slow, the knife is niche too but a fun gimmick to try, and there is lots of cool customisation options for hell pod/etc.

The one I'm planning to pick up next is democratic detonation: I'm picking this almost purely for the grenade pistol as closing bug holes with a secondary would be handy. Especially on search and destroy. Though the primaries are pretty good too from what I hear.

That problem still takes place in capitalism. It's just that, instead of having to convince people for funding, you risk going into bankruptcy when you try your business idea

Capitalism is still seeking funding, but there is more freedom in how to get it. You can self-fund or seek investors and the option to fund publicly via crowdsourcing. Funds that are invested in a company is the only cost that you are liable for. E.g. If you invest £1000 the maximum you could lose is that £1000. (unless it is an LLP I think).

Bankruptcy is a protection of capitalism in that the owner cannot be liable for the debts of the company. Yes, there are scummy abusers of this protection, but it is a protection no the less

Great, so you run you business in capitalism, and run the other cafe into bankruptcy because that's wonderful for everyone, very efficient and humane. How about the local council decides that the other cafe is shit, and they give a warning to the place that they need to improve the quality of their work?

Lets assume that the council actually gives a crap on the quality actually issues this warning? This implies the council has the final say on how a business should be run, further proving that individualism is restricted.

What if it still doesn't improve? I'm assuming they'd shut down the business for ignoring the warning? So in this hypothetical there is no cafe and no jobs. When in capitalism there is at least a competing better store left over with presumably the same number of jobs.

Do they fire the manager and the staff and replace them? I suppose this is job neutral still and probably the quality improves, but ignoring the difficulties finding a replacement then it will be the same store and same equipment used. There is no development or improvement or creativity because there isn't any incentive or "freedom" to do so because the council has the final say on how your store is run.

This can very easily be compensated by bigger, not so local, councils. Maybe specialized in more weird and experimental business ideas. Located in densely-populated ideas so that one of these weirder businesses can give cover to a high amount of population.

I'd consider this worse as it widens the divide of urban and rural areas.

Again it is still the taxpayer that is taking this risk, and not the individual, so there is no reason why a council would bother with anything that isn't an easy win for the public approval (or a selfish grift done under the table).

For example: A council member that a approves a sex shop could easily be labelled a pervert by his opponent in the next election so why would he take the risk on it?

I'm sure there are other businesses too that are punished in this system as the need to go through government means it needs easily positive public approval before it is considered, and there is no option to do it on your own as private owned businesses aren't allowed.

Really, you seem to be coming up with increasingly-complicated problems

Have you considered that its maybe because it is an increasingly-complicated issue?

I could accuse you of giving increasingly-easy answers too. Though to be honest I don't think that. I think you have thought through the benefits in great detail but not reflecting on the negatives and who could get hurt.

My point is that all of these problems can be outsourced to direct democracy instead of "consumer democracy", in a more efficient, fair, and risk-free way for everyone

I don't think it is that simple. As I said before democracy is the will of the majority and thus only majority-approved cases are considered leaving little room for freedom of expression (or at least in terms creating a business and diversity of products)

Democracy is NOT "efficient", but it is "effective". It is a slow tedious process with 9001 rules, with the goal that the end of it, the only possible candidates are people that serve the majority's best interest. It works well for governments (well...for the most governments) but it results in an economy only serving majority interests. Capitalism with all it's flaw still provides products to the minority as long as demand outweighs production. It is a fair, and risk-free way for the majority, not everyone

Saying that I don't think the current state of capitalism is acceptable in anyway. It has turned into large companies bullying smaller ones via mass produced goods/ large user bases/brand recognition/etc, and thus accumulating power and wealth in which no human should have.

Capitalism thrives with competition, as new ideas and higher quality products are a survival pressure for the businesses to thrive. However there is little/no survival pressure to treat employees well (aside from rare/ high skill jobs) and also large companies do not have any significant competition meaning they have no need to incentivise better consumer experiences. In fact it turns to the opposite where they try to squeeze value from customers instead. This is made worse with how public trading incentivises investing in a small company then demanding unsustainable growth until it is sold at the peak market price and left to rot.

"Pure" capitalism left us with this mess. But I think proper regulation to tweak these survival pressures are key to turning things around.

All employees should have the right to affect the profitability of a company, either through unions or otherwise. This incentivises a company to treat the employees well.

Investers in the stock market should be liable for selling "at risk" stock for up to 3 months since the transaction date and the buyer of this stock can then sue for any damages from the base price. This incentivises investors to invest in stable long-term businesses rather than "pump and dump" a new fad.

"51% of the population decided to wear a blue shirt so only blue shirts are made" isn't at all a good representation of the possibilities of democratic planning of the economy.

I understand it doesn't highlight the benefits like better working conditions but I feel that it illustrates my point well in that individualism is affected negatively in a democratic planned economy and forced to conform to the majority.

While it would be nice for individuals to get funding for whatever businesses ideas they think are profitable, in reality it comes down to trying to sell a product you haven't produced yet.

Going by your cafe example, what if there was a Diner nearby that sold some coffee/tea on its menu. You have to convince the majority that your shop is a worthwhile investment with them never even tasting the product, and even if it is low cost enough that you would still make profit.

What if there was a sub-par cafe with lazy employees already in town and you want to make a cafe that takes pride in its work. Would people want two cafes in the same town? If not then you are competing with a store without even able to sell a product of your own.

It's ultimately the taxpayers that are taking the risk on your product instead of the individual so they won't want to pay for a service they won't use or care for. Even if the minority of people can make it profitable.

Maybe a hybrid system where company can be owned by both private and public funding, but the private would win as they exploit their workers to cut down costs.

Ultimately I believe people should be able to start a private business on a product they believe in, as there is more diversity in products and more freedom for creativity that way. While at the same time believe that employees should have a voice that can disrupt profitability if they are mistreated. Either via Union or otherwise.

100% agree with the exploitative global market.

Also, that was an interesting read and a great example of an ideal company's practice.

Though it was a bit vague on where the start up funding came from. Which is what I was most curious about (and my main reason I consider the practice complex to implement)

Mondragon seems to be founded by a generous man that created the company from the ground up with these principles in mind, but unfortunately most people with the resources to this kind of business do not have such great ideals (and for the most part, they have these resources because they don't have them and thus exploited workers)

How would a business take off the ground in this scenario without a selfless benefactor?

Also it's a much different beast to convert an already established company like amazon and convert that to the same system. Mainly in that the owners and shareholders do not want to give up their investment for nothing.

What are the options then? Steal the company from the amazon investors in spite of the capital they invested to the company? Or pay them off?(would be expensive if going by market value)

Stealing would still be dystopian. I have no love for amazon investors, but imagine a lovely small family-owned business that invested all their life savings into it, before being taken from them because they hired some teenagers to help them for the summer.

It's complex, and not likely compatible with the current economy (unless the rich bastard's hearts grow 3 sizes large), but it would be nice if this business type was more widespread.

I consider the tax rate suggestion a good way to integrate the employee vote with capitalism. it still "survival of the fittest" but the "fittest" would be a profitable company that looks after it's employees.

My concern is that I cannot see a democratically planned economy implemented in a way which doesn't sacrifice individualism of people .

Democracy isn't strictly "freedom" on its own, but it is a powerful tool to protect our "individual freedoms" by ensuring our leaders act in our best interests.

But unless everyone has the exact same mind set that means that the majority will always drown out the minority and so the minority voices will be forced to conform to what the majority want.

We are mostly like-minded in things like what should be crimes/punishment/rights/etc(but note this wasn't always the case): but everyone has individual preferences, like colour of shirt, a specific brand of food, video games, etc which means they need an economy where products can be created by individuals rather than decided by the majority.

If 51% of people think wearing a t-shirt with a cute dog on it is a stupid waste of time then that t-shirt doesn't get made, and so the 49% people that did like the shirt lose out.

Also if 99% of people wanted the garbage collected, but no one wanted to work there, what happens then? Is someone forced to work there? That would be extreme, instead maybe there is more incentive to work there with more pay, but then what if lots of people wanted to work there due to this incentive who would decide who works there and therefore who owns the company?

Hyperbolic examples I know but i hope you see the point I'm trying to make.

Capitalism despite all it's flaws can allow a single person the chance seek funding to provide a good or service and if deemed profitable (either through high demand or cheap production) then the product gets made. People can also seek the obscure products they want rather than what's popular.