“I am being censored!” Screams man who owns media outlet and his every word gets covered by media and spread to every corner of the world.

You know, to make money in a gold rush, don’t dig, sell shovels.

Ok, I’ve actually debated with myself whether to post a comment on this question or not. There is a lot to unpack on this question, and as a matter of fact, Lemmy might not be the most appropriate space to talk about such a complex topic at length. I will try my best to answer in a balanced and rational manner. I’m a psychologist, have read all those experiments and papers, and I can say that maybe there are other points of view and deeper understanding you can approach from on these topics before casting such a wide negative opinion on a whole field of science.

Just to point something out of the gate, psychology is indeed one of the most misrepresented sciences in popular science communication. It is very difficult to explain in lay terms that what we know, experimentally, is from a really recent and young science. Psychology only really took off at the turn of the twentieth century, and just like most sciences, we have changed so much in the past 20 years alone that the public has had a very hard time keeping up with what happens in academia. If you were to scrutinize chemistry back when psychology was barely making its first steps, from today’s perspective, you would think they were all wackos. We didn’t even had a coherent model of the atom, radiation wasn’t even known as a phenomenon and Pluto hadn’t been dreamed, much less observed by the human eye. Look at medicine in the 19th century and by today’s standard they were all butchers. But the point is that, they weren’t malicious. Scientists were still trying to act in good faith with the limited knowledge available at the time, while still trying to expand said knowledge.

As a result, someone like Simon Whistle—who is not a psychologist but educated in business and law, and just a comedy media communicator—is probably working entirely on popular science’s musings of already old science papers. Because that’s what science does. We change what we affirm to be, probably, the truth as new experiences, ideas and theories are accrued in the collective understanding of reality. So, are there things that psychologist has been wrong about? Yes, absolutely. That’s what science is. But changing the general masses ideas about it is an entirely different matter, and it goes at its own rhythm and speed.

One of the barriers is that psychology and human behavior and conscious, as well as subconscious thought, are things everyone has their own experiences and opinions about. Thus processing scientific experiences that clash or contradict an individual’s anecdotal observations is challenging. Because, as with any science, nothing can be entirely deterministically predicted. Even physics, which we understand rather well, still has a margin of error and wide possibility for failure on predictions. Reality is simply too complex and has way too many variables for any single event to be predicted with absolute certainty. So, you will find experiences that seem to contradict scientific knowledge from psychology. But the truth is there are actually very few formal scientific laws in psychology.

Just to address your example, there is no prisoner’s dilemma rule. It is not even from psychology. It is a game theory thought experiment. As such, it doesn’t actually predict at all what people are going to do if placed on such circumstance, it’s just an exercise to reason about what would a rational person do on different circumstances. By definition, on a formal prisoner’s dilemma, the prisoners are defined to be guilty of some crime. So, I really doubt you were put in a prisoner’s dilemma by the cops.

Just to reiterate. No, psychology is not littered with false rules and expectations. The public’s perception about psychology is, indeed, littered with misrepresentations that claim that psychology has rules and expectations. Trust me, we don’t have none of those you claim that are rules.

Finally, as for diagnosis. There is no per country definitions of mental illness. There are two comprehensive bodies of diagnosis. One is the ICD (International Classification of Diseases) managed by the WHO (World Health Organization) that standardizes and defines criteria for all medical diagnosis internationally. Including neurological, and psychiatric illnesses. Then there’s the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) managed by the APA (American Psychiatric Association) that standardizes diagnosis criteria of only mental disorders that was, until recently, a US only academic endeavor. There is overlap, which may cause this confusion that you seem to have. But they have radically different purposes and uses. Mainly, the DSM does a greater effort to contain psychiatric specific information regarding mental disorders that are not and probably will never be part of the ICD. While the ICD is far more international, comprehensive and integrated standard.

But that said, diagnosis is a very personal thing, think back about the confusion the public had about COVID during the pandemic when we knew so little. Even something as common as the influenza, every person manifest and experiences wildly different levels of severity and combinations of symptoms. For a myriad of variables, factors and reasons, some people die of the flu, some people have a mild nose discomfort for a while and are never aware that they were infected. This is the challenge that doctors, psychologists and psychiatrists face every day. As a teacher of mine liked to say, “the difference between your anecdotal experience and science, is that your anecdotal experience gives you one data point, a scientists ideally works with millions of data points”. You had your one anecdote, a doctor (or any other science based health worker) sees the experience of thousands of patients, and would have read about millions of other’s experiences just by the time they finish their basic education.

Corporate doesn’t just want a lot of money, they want all of the money.

It’s not all the French, mostly just Parisians.

The horrible implication by your previous comment’s logic and this link is that Europe should drop all languages except Russian. Or, if only EU countries apply, everyone should speak German, as it’s obviously the predominant language. Also, this link absolutely destroys your idea that “they aren’t unique cultures”, there are at least 120+ distinct cultures in Europe, just by languages alone. This is like looking at Japan and thinking that they must be Americans because they eat KFC on Christmas.

Well, you see, damaging the souls of students is kind of the point. Undamaged souls aren’t submissive, and thus make bad wage slaves.

Almost everywhere in the world they charge for the ambulance ride. Except, some countries have state funded providers with super low subsidized prices or even free. And the private providers have to compete with that which keeps prices affordable. So using an ambulance is not a bankruptcy inducing event.

Quite accurate since the US judiciaries are like kings, inmune, rule for life and get to write and struck down laws with the flimsiest “precedent” arguments. All they’re missing is appointment via bloodline, but the sponsorship line seems to have taken its place.

More important. Than taking notes is what are you gonna do with them. This conditions how, where, and with what you take notes.

If you’re never gonna look at them again and just generally use it to think, brainstorm, or remember things better. Then it doesn’t matter where, just use whatever is immediately available to you.

If it needs to be later referenced, shared, archived or processed into finished products for personal projects or work, there are several options. Note taking apps, text editing software, plugins for different editors. Each will do things different and will link differently to different work pipelines.

My current pipeline is notes either on the phone or on a notepad. Then I clean and process said notes on OneNote (don’t judge, work pays for it and it is the only one available). Where they are more structured, tagged, detailed, hyperlinked or whatever else it takes. That’s where I also take notes for meetings or training and study sessions.

Finally, I use those notes for writing reports, minutes, and presentations. Which are then sent to the actual institutional archive.

Me and all my colleagues erase old notes once they’re no longer relevant for data protection, so we don’t use the archive features of ONote. But the encrypted sharing and sync is very useful for collaboration and to save your work in case of hardware failure.

On my personal life I have permanent places of data storage, and take notes with whatever I happen to have at hand. Samsung notes, paper, notepads, whatever. Data always end up either being deleted or sent to a more permanent place. Just like with cameras, the best tool is the one you have at hand when you need it.

Thanks for mentioning the name because I honestly didn’t know what software the second icon was supposed to be.

Year of the linux desktop since 2018 over here, linux server since 2002.

Remember kids, oligarchs are not your friends.

If you bothered to read the article, you’d notice that the charger was chosen by the manufacturers a decade ago in a summons by the European commission. If Apple had complied to do what they agreed to do back then, this law wouldn’t exist. But they got whiny and litigious. So, instead of an at will standardization program, the EU decided to make it mandatory by law, to shut Apple up, and anyone else who wanted to forcibly refuse to comply. The cool thing about European law is that nothing is written in stone. Not even constitutions are considered sacred, unlike in the Americas, and can be changed at any point or amended as long as proper procedures are followed. There’s nothing, ever, preventing the EU from calling another commission of tech companies to choose a new charger, if a better one ever shows up.

Prescription glasses expire as our eyes are constantly changing. You should get your eyes checked every two years minimum.

But that would be an ethical business model, we can’t have that, this is PayPal and this is the internet. There’s no place for ethics in that combination.

Unless we invent cold fusion between the next 5 years, they will never be economical. They are the most energy inefficient thing ever invented by humanity and all prediction models state that it will cost more energy, not less, to keep making them better. They will never be energy efficient nor economical in their current state, and most companies are out of ideas on how to shake it up. Even the people who created generative models agree that they have just been brute forcing by making the models larger with more energy consumption. When you try to make them smaller or more energy efficient, they fall off the performance cliff and only produce garbage. I’m sure there are researchers doing cool stuff, but it is neither economical nor efficient.

Several tried. Nothing as elaborate as cross dissemination, federation or whatever. But at least 5 to 10 years ago it proved to be almost impossible. Platforms like Rooster teeth, which was 100% subscription based, I think never broke even and still relied on YT ads for the majority of the revenue. Some big and small channels tried to at least just catalog, archive and serve their own videos and the costs still became astronomical really fast. Whenever you see one of those very old channels, most of them don’t conserve copies, let alone original source footage of their entire material. Everyone just delete their videos once they’ve been on YouTube for a month or so now, and they have to download their own videos when they want to reuse old footage.

Storage is cheap today, yes, but video really eats storage at an alarming rate. Specially now that 4k is the standard. So you have to reuse storage over and over. Transcoding is also really fast and optimized with modern algorithms, but it takes specialized graphical cards and data centers charge a premium to use servers with such capacities. Self hosting will never be able to satisfy a moderate demand. Get anything above 100 users simultaneously transcoding videos and a non-specialized server will halt to a grind just on IO calls to hard drives alone.

Once you consider all those factors it is obvious why YouTube is such a miracle.

Typical infantile C-suite logic “I didn’t do X well, therefore X is impossible and no one can do X! It’s not my fault, I swear!”

Yeah, I think a lot of Frida’s attractiveness was due to her strong character, personality and ideological thoughts. These have an influence on what and how we consider certain features attractive or not.