The misrepresentation is a feature, not a bug. They need to create dragons in order to justify their dragon-slaying crusade. This has been going on for years, BTW.
Awesome game. My only request would be make the planes less maneuverable and move more like real planes. This would make it less chaotic and allow more dog-fight and strategic play.
> Let psychologists prescribe common, low-risk psych drugs (instead of scarcer psychiatrists),
What the hell? No, there's no way you want a psychologist to be prescribing medication. They receive absolutely no medical training whatsoever.
If you want psychiatric drugs without going to a psychiatrist, find a GP or NP. They're at least trained to practice medicine, even if they're not specifically trained in psychiatry.
You probably should not get psychiatric drugs from a GP or NP without first being assessed by a psychologist. While GPs have meds training, they aren’t trained in how medication fits into a larger psychological treatment plan to actually address the underlying issue. This is equivalent to demanding OxyContin from your GP for a recurring knee problem, rather than seeing an orthopedist to find out what’s actually wrong.
> You probably should not get psychiatric drugs from a GP or NP without first being assessed by a psychologist. While GPs have meds training, they aren’t trained in how medication fits into a larger psychological treatment plan to actually address the underlying issue.
I'm not telling anyone to do anything, but the idea of going to a psychologist for prescription drugs is beyond ridiculous.
> This is equivalent to demanding OxyContin from your GP for a recurring knee problem
It's worse - it's like demanding Oxycontin from your personal trainer at the gym. At least your GP went to medical school and did residency training.
I think you missed my point. I’m not saying psychologists should prescribe meds. I’m saying that medicating psychological problems should not be done in the absence of an appropriate diagnosis of those problems. This can be done only by a psychiatrist or psychologist (edit: and most psychiatrists aren’t trained in testing either, and will generally refer you to a testing psychologist if they think your problems are complex in nature). GPs and NPs do not have appropriate training in diagnosis.
My wife is a psychiatrist. She doesn't prescribe drugs to people with psychological problems. She prescribes drugs to people with psychiatric problems. She's been trained to know the difference. The PA that works under her has been similarly trained. But he doesn't understand the non-psychiatric medicine part that patients often times have.
What is the difference between a psychological and psychiatric problem? I've never seen these terms used in the same context you used them anywhere in medicine.
Hallucinations are generally a pyschiatric problem. Being manic/depressive is a pyschiatric problem. Being a jerk isn't. Having a hard time saying saying no isn't. There are gray areas. As a rough approximation, where drugs can help it's psychiatric, where they can't it's psychological.
5-HT1A stimulation results in decreased aggression, increased sociability, and decreased impulsivity. Sounds like a lack of 5-ht1a activity might make you a jerk, and it's stimulation might cure it.
I’m not a psychiatrist, my wife is. I don’t know hat 5-HT1A is or what your point is. The brain is an organ. It’s the only organ that can be harmed by non-physical means. My understanding is that behavior problems resulting from lack of certain “chemicals” or over abundance of them are psychiatric problems. Problems that don’t arise from such brain defects aren’t. When other organs are defective and don’t produce the right stuff to function properly people take drugs in order to function properly. The brain is no different except there are times the damage is not medical. There are gray areas.
5HT1A is a serotonin receptor generally thought to be responsible for the majority of SSRI effects.
Sorry I guess I wasn't very clear. My point is that there are some conditions that are just "medical". Things like parkinsons or ms. You usually see a neurologist for these conditions.
I'm arguing that any behavior a psychiatrist treats, has some neurological component. And many can be treated with therapy or drugs. So seems weird to use two categories where almost everything is falls into both categories
Think "bottom-up/biological" (psychiatric) vs. "top-down/behavioral" (psychological). Many behavioral disorders have components of both, which means that you either need a psychiatrist doing both med management and behavioral work (e.g. therapy) OR a psychiatrist + psychologist working together to address the problem. The second option can be quite a bit cheaper, since the behavioral treatment is usually far more time-intensive, and psychologists' time is generally less expensive.
>"What is the difference between a psychological and psychiatric problem? I've never seen these terms used in the same context you used them anywhere in medicine"
You really ought to stop pushing your uneducated opinions and do more research.
One this is a completely unhelpful comment. Similar to name calling. A much more helpful one would be showing that medical researches clearly divide problems into psychological and psychiatric.
And no one I know in research, or the psychiatrists I know would say there are many problems that fall into one category or the other. The vast majority of problems you'd see a psychiatrist for fall into both camps.
Mood disorders, and anxiety. The two most common categories of disorders are at least partially treatable by both therapy, and medication.
There are Mental Health Nurse Practitioners, who can and do prescribe psych meds.
I agree that letting psychologists prescribe meds is problematic due to lack of medical training, even though clinical psychologists have a PhDs or PsyD.
You need a prescription to buy contacts? Weird. In 3 European countries I’m familiar with they are a supermarket item (literally) or anyway simply an over the counter item from pharmacies and opticians’ shops
You can get the same brands of contacts from UK websites shipped to the US very easily (and cheaply). I know a few people who do this and they haven't had any problems yet.
People who have no idea about an industry saying how that industry should be regulated.
The reason we have different professions withing the medical industry is because of the years of training it takes to specialise in that area and get to a level of competency in that field.
Optometrists in the UK already prescribe glasses and contact lenses, I'm not familiar with the US system for glasses prescriptions but having to see more than one person seems... Illogical and expensive.
Nurses already push meds. After a suitably qualified and experienced doctor has assessed the patients records, seen or read a history and decided on a course of treatment. A nurse is not capable and should not be expected to know that level of detail about drug interactions and treatment pathways, that is literally what the doctor is for. Not everyone has the capacity / interest to know all this stuff, but we still need staff to tend to and care for our patients. Hence we have nurses.
Not to be disrespectful to nurses because they do incredible work and are essential to the medical industry and patient care but I happen to know quite a few nurses and doctors through friends and what I've come to realise is that anyone who can follow an instruction can become a nurse. And there are a lot of bad nurses. Thankfully not just anyone can become a doctor in the western world, because we have stringent regulations and laws.
The major contributing factor that adds cost to medicine are patents. Companies artificially inflating the prices of drugs and medical devices, not wages on the front line.
The smart move would be to say she's switching parties because of Trump, run as a conservative Democrat left of Trump but right of the progressive wing.
I feel like 2018 is going to boil down to only whether you have an (R) or (D) next to your name, if the election in Alabama is any indication.
When people will vote for a pedophile to avoid putting a checkmark next to a (D), that's when you can give up faith in the average citizen's regard for the details of an election.
He seems to be a horrible person who’s done heinous things, but he’s not accused of being a pedophile (except on Twitter). Words have actual meanings, and using ones like pedophile outside their proper meaning reduces their value and impact.
>Leigh Corfman told the Washington Post that she met Moore in 1979 when she was just 14 years old. The then-district attorney offered to watch Corfman while her mother attended a custody hearing, she said, and he asked for her phone number when he was alone with her. Corfman said that days later, Moore drove her to his house and kissed her.
This is part of what I really like about California's top-two primary system - in a dominant-party system like we have, we end up in a situation where two candidates of the dominant party have to compete on ideology and policy, and the members of the minority party still get an equal say.
With regards to Alabama, the general vibe I've gotten is that the very large evangelical bloc in the state is conflicted - trapped between very strongly held policy preferences (especially on abortion and LGBT rights) and their views on personal morality. Moore has seen a large slide in the polls, including among evangelicals, but there are a lot that are willing to hold their noses and disbelieve for their preferred policies.
This type of response is called Ignoratio elenchi[1], and is a classic technique of twitter trolls and t_d reddit trolls. It is typically used to defend the person of interest in a discussion by dredging the entirety of history for an example of an individual even tangentially related to a group that is in opposition to the person of interest, doing something "bad," with the "bad" being inflated using doublespeak or falsehoods if necessary.
So in this case, we were discussing how Republican voters are unafraid to vote for a pedophile because of his political affiliation, bearing in mind that this is the topical issue at hand because voters have been quoted saying they'd "rather vote for a pedophile than a democrat" (unprovided but assumed common knowledge in the context).
The poster then found a single state law (unrelated to federal election context) regarding disease transmission (unrelated to pedophilia or federal election context) being passed by state legislators of the democratic party (impossible moral comparison - passing a law about disease transmission versus being personally accused of pedophilia). The poster sums it up by declaring because of this one action of a state government thus equalizes all parties and is also applicable in this case merely because of the letter next to their names.
The end result is muddied waters, successful redirection, and further division. Are we talking about pedophilia and republican voter stubborness, or are we arguing the pros and cons of changing California state law re: disease control? God only knows.
I'm doing my best to define, recognize, and combat these kinds of troll techniques, and am open to feedback and suggestions. I get it, "never argue with a troll, they will drag you to their level and beat you with experience," and also, there are probably better things I can do with my time than argue on the internet, but I usually just do it in 5-10 minutes spurts while coding anyway, not much else I can do as a quick break.
This sort of misdirection and "whataboutism" frustrates me too. Thank you for the elaborate response; I will keep this in mind the next time I have to battle a troll like the GP.
This was very helpful. Perhaps you could simply break down future responses into a list of fallacies being used in the parent post and link to them. Might save you some time so you can attack a larger number of troll responses.
I've thought about that - I need to have a better grasp of fallacies before I do. Luckily trolls tend to stick in ad hominem / red herring type fallacies so it's simpler, but yup definite goal of mine!
Not sure what your links have to do with voting D or R. Specifically I don't see how either link has anything to do with "avoiding putting a checkmark next to a (R)"
If these are the best examples you can find, it really helps to prove the point that some people will be willing to do anything to justify voting for a Republican over a Democrat. You obviously don't understand the bills you've referenced.
Regarding decriminalizing child prostitution, the bill removes penalties for the children. Anyone purchasing or attempting to purchase sex from them still face criminal charges. Many places have done the same, but also decriminalize adults who offer sex for money. This is because a very large percentage of people who engage in prostitution are forced or otherwise coerced into it. Decriminalizing their side allows them to more easily seek help while still forbidding paying people for sex.
"Felonious sexual activity" as you refer to the bill to reduce not informing people that you are HIV+ before having sex from a felony to a misdemeanor is certainly controversial, and arguments for and against the change have merit. On the one hand, there are a few people who do it maliciously, but on the other hand, there are people who are inordinately targeted for prosecution under this law (mainly prostitutes). There's also the question as to whether these types of laws continue the stigma around HIV, and what that does to people living with the disease.
So when I analyze your argument, it's extremely weak to claim that people will agree to horrible things to avoid voting for a Republican.
Can you explain how his links in any way support his argument that D's implement policy specifically to avoid voting R? Seems like you just want to perpetuate a victim-hood narrative that doesn't exist.
Any HN mods want to jump in here and suggest maybe HN is a tech forum and not the appropriate place to promote political violence? Or perhaps this brand of hate and hysteria has completely infected this community as well.
You're right, it's not OK. But adding your own flavor of inflammation doesn't help. The way we can improve threads here is to 1) flag and downvotes comments that violate the guidelines, 2) comment civilly and substantively. Add information and insight. The way to do that is patiently and thoughtfully. Slow down and resist responding reflexively—it almost always makes things worse instead of better. If you notice something egregious, feel free to email us at hn@ycombinator.com so you can be sure we'll see it.
This is cute, but I now see comments endorsing this brand of hate and hysteria (albeit with a less violent flair) on HN everyday. If you're going to suggest that you haven't noticed this trend over the past year or two then frankly your request for reporting is disingenuous.
In line with the original top comment, why don't you publicly declare that you you'll treat discrimination/slander of whites/men/conservatives/scientists/free-speech-advocates on this platform just as harshly as you would any other group instead of asking me to send you a dozen emails per day.
Well, Soros does, in actual reality, fund and support the promotion of democracy and this has made him enemies amongst those who don't like that kind of thing.
Theil and some of his buddies are on record as thinking that democracy is holding their libertarian dreams back, that it's incompatible with capitalism. And that generates pushback from those that prefer democracy.
So, they do seem very neat opposites, but no need to assume it's all based on fairytales.
I think it would be possible for two people to reasonably disagree over whether any given move "enables democracy" though. I don't have a good internalized list of the positions that Soros' critics take issue with, but looking at [0], I could see my way to arguing that lots of the issues either do or do not enable democracy, based on different initial assumptions.
Well, yes I can see how "the demolition of technological/industrial civilization" might be considered anti-democratic but in fact, once Soros has destroyed industrial civilization, the remaining 12 humans alive will vote on everything so really it's a win for democracy.
Or maybe we can find slightly less cranky sites to reference in our political discussions.
I was trying to track down an easy shot at a critical framing of his viewpoints. It's surprisingly hard to find people on the internet who criticize George Soros in a coherent and reasoned way.
If you follow the source links from that page you do find a coherent and reasoned criticism of Soros.
The authors don't want felons to vote, don't want poor people to vote, don't want African-Americans to vote etc. Soros funds efforts to make this happen. The Republican party on the other hand has aimed towards the opposite goal for decades and is on the record that they're doing it intentionally because the less people vote the more likely they are to win.
So it's perfectly logical and rational, it's just anti-democratic.
I mean are we all supposed to just pretend this stuff doesn't happen? There's been supreme court arguments about it, it's all on record.
It's difficult to figure out what's really going on there. I followed Abby Martin's reporting on the ground recently, and it's quite eye opening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUYWrPiUeWY
I've only seen a few pieces by Martin, but everyone was a gross distortion of the situation covered. She's a propagandist pushing anti-Western narratives, not a journalist summarizing the facts. I suspect her coverage here may be influenced by her anti-Western feelings.
Really? Do you have some examples of those gross distortions? So far it seems like she has an anti-capitalism slant, but that's hardly something unique or a dis-qualifier nowadays.
You've put an interesting perspective on the safety/cost balance. I find it ironic that the replier is effectively demonstrating your point: people have an emotional attachment to safety, but not opportunity cost, regardless of the math. This is perhaps a form of "one death is a tragedy, ten thousand deaths are a statistic."
