Gaywallet (they/it)

I’m gay

  • 108 Posts
  • 264 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: January 28th, 2022

help-circle






  • Yes, antidepressants are not considered addictive by the same big pharma companies who told us that Oxycodone was not totally fine.

    No, I’m talking about how researchers, who do not have conflicts of interest, have to say about these drugs.

    What is the difference between a physical dependence and addiction?

    Googling this will give you plenty of pages drawing the distinction between the two. For example, here’s a webmd article on the difference. In short, it’s meaningful to draw clear distinctions and definitions around where an urge is coming from. Withdrawing from a substance does not necessarily mean you desire the substance. Taking the substance to avoid withdrawal symptoms might happen because you wish to avoid the negative symptoms, and treating the symptoms could be enough to get someone off the substance causing problems. Addiction, on the other hand, is characterized by a strong desire to continue drug use despite the ways in which it is negatively affecting one’s life. It is possible for addiction and physical dependence to have overlap (and for many drugs this is common) but they are mutually exclusive - one does not necessarily imply the other and the presence of one does not mean there is the presence of the other.

    If they aren’t addictive, but cause the same withdrawal symptoms which result from addiction, in some cases severely, then what should we call them?

    While withdrawal symptoms can vary with the nature of addiction, one does not need to be addicted to experience withdrawal symptoms. Many common, non-addictive chemicals have withdrawal symptoms. Nearly every drug has some kind of withdrawal symptoms. Withdrawal symptoms are the direct biological consequences of a human changing their equilibrium with the addition of or removal of an exogenous substance or the regular use of said substance and the long-term biological changes it can have on one’s body.


    At a high level, I would highly suggest you educating yourself on drug dependence and recovery as well as the psychology of addiction. These are high level basic concepts which are taught to you in any human-centered biology and psychology coursework.










  • Ethically speaking, we should not be experimenting on humans, even with their explicit consent. It’s not allowed by any credible review board (such as the IRB) and in many countries you can be held legally liable for doing experiments on humans.

    With that being said, there have been exceptions to this, in that in some countries we allow unproven treatments to be given to terminal patients (patients who are going to die from a condition). We also generally don’t have repercussions for folks who experiment on themselves because they are perhaps the only people capable of truly weighing the pros and cons, of not being mislead by figures of authority (although I do think there is merit of discussing this with regards to being influenced by peers), and they are the only ones for which consent cannot be misconstrued.










  • Genuinely asking, because I always assume US billionaires are effectively untouchable

    They’re certainly less touchable because they mostly exist outside of normal spaces - private drivers, private planes, curating who’s at events, etc. They’re not untouchable so much as it’s too much annoyance/effort to deal with them. I mean, hell, the very idea of a hired assassin is basically entirely made up by Hollywood. The military assassinates people all the time during war and coups on foreign soil (albeit a lot less than they used to) and civil disrupt in the homeland, but that’s because they have the backing of a government to protect them. There are some rare targeted instances of sabotage (Havana syndrome may be a modern version of that) but those are also suspected to be tied to government. Any overt assassinations in another first world country, even if backed by a strong military, would likely be considered tantamount to a declaration of war, and I cannot imagine a situation in which it would not be difficult to figure out that another country was behind it.


  • you should filter out irrelevant details like names before any evaluation step

    Unfortunately, doing this can make things worse. It’s not a simple problem to solve, but you are generally on the right track. A good example of how it’s more than just names, is how orchestras screen applicants - when they play a piece they do so behind a curtain so you can’t see the gender of the individual. But the obfuscation doesn’t stop there - they also ensure the female applicants don’t wear shoes with heels (something that makes a distinct sound) and they even have someone stand on stage and step loudly to mask their footsteps/gait. It’s that second level of thinking which is needed to actually obscure gender from AI, and the more complex a data set the more difficult it is to obscure that.