I had a single terrible experience with dissociatives, to the point that for many many years I had ongoing panic attacks. It was an absolute nightmare for a long time as I was never sure when one might strike.
Without data it’s hard to say how dangerous these drugs are, but they are dangerous. People will pipe in with how you need the right setting and mindset and on and on, it’s never the drug it’s always the patient. But even if that’s all true, none of that is objectively verifiable, people will still have terrible, life-changing experiences, and we should better understand the rate at which they will before prescribing it broadly.
You don’t know enough white suburban conservative Christian seniors. I agree it’s not exactly a huge group, but in my experience in the Midwest that’s where you might find disgust.
Everywhere else? I agree, normal people are not in general “disgusted” by kids at parties dancing all night dressed in neon or whatever the kids these days do.
It's a protestant (or WASP- white anglo-saxon protestant) history in the USA that has caused innumerable damage on medicine, education, and what is 'acceptable'.
In sex-ed, we're not allowed to talk to children/adolescents that sex is enjoyable. It's against protestant morals. If something feels good, we're not allowed to talk about it.
And in that same view, doctors should never give out drugs that make you feel good. We even have a term for this outside of doctors offices: sin taxes. Alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, mushrooms all make you feel 'good', but that feeling good is somehow bad.
So yeah, there has been a stigma on psychotropic drugs in this country because they make you feel good. And that is bad to the WASP types.
(And that's ignoring the fact that white isn't even a race to be racist against. White is a social construct created in Virginia to mean 'not negro and not indian's. Later was also 'not asian and not jew' and sometimes 'not Italian and not Irish'. But I digress....)
You are just long-windedly doubling down on your racism.
But your justificationist theory does not explain why people of other races in Nigeria, Qatar, Japan, and every other non-white majority country do not tolerate drugs.
Sure, shady companies exist. And you shouldn’t trust shady companies to self report. But… you already know that, it’s in the name! “Shady”. So I think the idea that you should never trust self reporting is indeed an over reaction.
However, having been at (what I deemed) non-shady companies, there’s still the very human desire to downplay as much as is reasonable. Shady companies overstep reasonability on purpose.
You mean to tell me that Apple could have created thousands of high paying jobs, if only for several years, but didn’t. And this is good? I can never remember who to be mad at.
More seriously, I realize this is just clickbait, but I wonder how you could determine objectively which approach (hiring slow and needing to catch up, hiring medium, hiring fast and needing to fire) is “better for business”. Seems very hard to control variables.
Depends on if you have comb-selections of the people hired.
If we follow one path all the way to the end: If you can bring on a large number of people, then you can potentially evaluate them as "up-and-coming" high-quality talent. Those talents can be soaked in your business and technology stack, and become internal experts. Over that talent's life within the company, you may also underpay them relative to bringing in the same equivalent 10+ year veteran and training them on your internal assets.
On another path: You can also develop a broader population of mid-grade, quality talent which can strength workforce resilience.
During the mass layoff, procedures are different, and you may not have to follow quite the same fire-process as with an individual, and without some of the individual recourse processes regarding discrimination.
FWIW, Microsoft used to (still does?) had a certain percentage of layoffs every year. In a good environment, it's weeding; in a bad environment, it culls good talent.
Hiring many people and firing them shortly after isn't very productive use of human minds. Those people were doing probably something more valuable instead.
And now they can. It is good that people are being laid off. They can now go do the valuable thing. Perhaps Google's true target should have been 50% layoffs so that they can release people to go work on their valuable stuff instead of working at Google.
> You mean to tell me that Apple could have created thousands of high paying jobs, if only for several years, but didn’t. And this is good?
Yes, I consider it good management and judgement. Apple is a company, not some charity. Amazon, etc didn't hire out of the goodness of their hearts they felt they could capitalize on something that didn't materialize.
Well, maybe don't be mad at anyone. Aside from a small number of true a-holes, the vast majority of people are all stumbling along doing the best they can and trying to make the best decisions they can. Yep, sometimes we humans don't make the best decisions. Sometimes we do dumb things. But at the end of the day, I personally believe most of us are trying to do the right thing. If that wasn't true, our society would rapidly descend into chaos.
As for me, I'm trying not to be mad at anyone. You do you I guess.
Without data it’s hard to say how dangerous these drugs are, but they are dangerous. People will pipe in with how you need the right setting and mindset and on and on, it’s never the drug it’s always the patient. But even if that’s all true, none of that is objectively verifiable, people will still have terrible, life-changing experiences, and we should better understand the rate at which they will before prescribing it broadly.