We're stupid, but at least we're honest about it. They're stupid, but at least they have the decency to not act like it out in broad daylight.
Wrong comparison. People from the US are stupid and proud of it. There's nothing honest coming from the US except bombs.
You forgot the anti-vaccine campaign they ran in countries near China saying their vaccine contained pig parts. Not the US state dept's first anti-vax campaign btw.
US vaccines were made available first and foremost to Western citizens, and only then were made available to purchase. China released their vaccine worldwide, so countries without a vaccine program had access earlier and cheaper than they could acquire vaccines from the US. Their anti-vax campaign was meant to prevent other countries from accepting China's offer, thus preventing goodwill towards China, protecting the profits of US companies, and leading to the deaths of millions who could have been saved in "US Allied" countries such as the Philippines.
If you were going to buy into one of these two conspiracy theories, first you should have some actual evidence, and then you should look at the behavior of these countries and ask yourself: which behavior is more consistent with releasing a virus that could act as an economic weapon meant to shut-down a country, but not kill everyone?
This thread brought to you by Western Imperialism™.
Seeing this allowed on mander.xyz is deeply disappointing.
Counter-point:
There are also many widely accepted beliefs in the scientific community that are based on misinterpreted data/results published by others, unconfirmed, and out-dated beliefs. I agree with you, but I also think we too quickly dismiss those who question the paradigm and many in translational/translated fields (like medicine) continue operating on out-dated beliefs because they don't want to or don't have the time to keep up with current research.
Case in point: the justification for 6-foot spacing at the beginning of the COVID pandemic. Particles do not magically drop off after a few feet, this was justified in medical textbooks based on a misinterpretation of a particle physicist's publication. Another example: many organic chemistry classes still teach that FTIR is a qualitative method only despite many examples of FTIR quantitation and the widespread adoption of this method throughout companies that produce instruments and analysis software.
We should encourage trying to disprove that which we think is true and unquestionable so that we can fix our past mistakes and better inform our future work.
As our laboratory's butterfingers, I find that this happens everywhere, but also the rotovap and always at the worst possible times.
Some of my colleagues refuse to directly hand me sample vials now because they've seen me frantically attempt to save a sample I dropped by treating it like a hackey sack one too many times.
If your lab assistant needed the rotovap moved to a hood quickly, chances are it should have been in there to begin with.
We seem to be at an impasse, my stainless steel ass face. How about a compromise: we return to asbestos!
Institutions could easily form their own journals. National organizations that provide grants could also require you to publish in their journal. Universities can run their own journals. These sorts of entities already exist and provide article access for free, publishing in them would just need to be normalized.
These are just a few options without researchers organizing anything for themselves.
Now we're ~~cooking~~ ruining the respiratory health of our youth with gas.
Living longer: technology has improved childhood and old-aged mortality, but how is this relevant if we are expected to work for a larger portion of our lives? Retirement age continues to increase, while the increase in life expectancy provides relatively marginal improvements to quality of life in old age while the years we have the most energy are spent toiling away doing work that we are coerced into by way of the threat of homelessness and death.
Luxuries: technology has improved and many of what were considered luxuries in the past are now commonplace. As our definition of luxuries has changed, has our access to the contemporary luxuries expanded? Relative to someone 100 years ago, can you afford access to a different amount of luxuries than past generations could? Compared to even a couple generations ago, younger generations have less access to necessities such as housing and food security than previous generations. We do not own necessities any more. What good is having access to 500 different brands of wine when you struggle to keep a room over your head and food on the table? Maybe this access is different for your boss than for you.
How we define how society is doing is subjective without clearly-defined goals. Is our goal to improve the living conditions of the people? On average, this has been decreasing for decades. Is our goal to grow the wealth of our people? When adjusted for inflation, most people have less money relative to what we had a few generations ago with the exception of those who own to make money instead of working to make money.
I would argue that most countries do not have clearly defined goals, so they are, in essence, floundering along with no roadmap for our progress. Regardless of how this relates to the past, this is not a good place to be in.
If your boss is the owner, remember that even if he is nice, you are working to produce value and he is taking a portion of that for himself based on owning the company. A manager is not useless, but an owner is. You could own the company. You and your coworkers could all own the company together. An owner brings no value to the table that could not be achieved by other means. The owner does not create anything of value by owning, they just benefit more than the people working to create value. You trade your work and time for payment that is not 100% of the value you produce. Maybe that's fine by you, but chances are you could take more of that value home without a single boss. Maybe you don't see this as theft now, I don't know, but when life drives home the fact that you can never regain lost time and health, maybe you'll see your relationship with your boss for what it really is. I promise you that he is well aware whether he's a middle manager or an owner.
I prefer it over jalapenos because I don't like the taste of jalapenos. Similar spiciness, better taste. Hope you enjoy it!
Why do you think people are living this way? Do you think it's personal failure or maybe desperation? Where else do they have to go? If you tear down the buildings but don't address the root problem, do you think they will just stop existing or will they be forced to find a new spot to live? Were these places always this way? What would you like me to call them?
Please continue making assumptions about my personal life and deriding me for my choice of words rather than contributing something useful. I try to meet people where they are at, which means speaking to what they know. In this case, you seem to know the symptom, but not the cause.
Edit: I missed that you mentioned this in your original post. Nevermind!
Big drug mixture warning: be careful mixing Vyvanse/Adderall and fluoxitine/Prozac. Fluoxitine can end up making the effects of amphetamines stronger than normal, even for Vyvanse.
Normally, because Vyvanse is a pro-drug that requires enzymatic degradation to become active, the only effect a higher dose will have is a longer effect. Fluoxitine affects interactions with the active drug and how long it is in your system, overriding the pro-drug effect. This can lead to (likely minor) overdose effects. You'll be able to tell if this is happening because you'll get similar side effects as are often experienced with Adderall that you normally don't experience on Vyvanse. Think of the ones normally associated with Adderall IR.
This doesn't mean they can't be mixed, just that you should watch how you react to the doses of each when mixing. You may find that you need to reduce your dose of Vyvanse if you go to a high enough dose of fluoxitine.