da1

4 ms·

1.
by da1 10y ago
He has admitted that it's a sock-puppet account. He stated himself that he has created dozens of accounts and that uses them to post even when his accounts are throttled due to down-voting. How is stating a fact a personal attack?
2.
by da1 10y ago
Well, they do show in-group preference. Does that count? I'd say yes.
3.
by da1 10y ago
> When the Australian minister for communication introduced record keeping laws for ISPs he encouraged people to bypass it using VPNs. Said thats what he was doing. Do you have a source for that? If true I find it very bizarre.
4.
by da1 10y ago
> Any serious criminal/terrorist will use a VPN Or just plain old stenography in very public forums. Basically impossible to detect.
5.
by da1 10y ago
In another comment he claims he's been in HN for eight years but this account is like 16 days old. It is a sock-puppet account.
6.
by da1 10y ago
> I've been on HN like 8 years curious because your profile says > created: 16 days ago Thank you for confirming you are using a sock-puppet account! (Edit: While apparently using your main account to down-vote. Classy!)
7.
by da1 10y ago
True but the vast majority of protein intake was provided by males. They also performed the most dangerous activities because women are reproductively far more "valuable".
8.
by da1 10y ago
Not dear husband. Many of those "men" were teens. Harassing 15 year olds was not uncommon. Harassing WWI veterans not in uniform was very common.
9.
by da1 10y ago
> Is this really manipulation or is it just sexual selection for bravery/aggression/dominance? What's the difference?
10.
by da1 10y ago
Dark tetrad?
11.
by da1 10y ago
I think he means restricted to humans. In the animal kingdom you have uncommon scenarios such as seahorses where the male caries the fertilized eggs or spiders where many times the male is just eaten by the female.
12.
Jacques Lacan – The shrink from hell(timeshighereducation.com)
2 points by da1 10y ago|0 comments
13.
by da1 11y ago
> > "Do you have the capability to retrieve this PIN number?" > The answer to this question is no Doesn't matter. All the judge needs is to notice in your face that you do have that capability. Don't believe me?
14.
by da1 11y ago
> If they can find anything shady This is always better but they don't even need to find it. That's just a bonus. They can just fabricate it. Assange is still in effective house arrest because someone apparently was a victim of
15.
by da1 11y ago
> Yes, a judge could hold them in contempt and jail them for some time. Not some time, there's no limit. It can be extended arbitrarily. All the others points I made in the legal section are indeed legal and have been used in the pa
16.
by da1 11y ago
This is actually very simple. The state can just harass them into compliance. Tools at the state's disposal include but are not limited to: #Legal: * Judge orders them to comply, if they refuse they can be considered to be in contempt
17.
by da1 11y ago
Not one mention of variance in that presentation. The author is either ignorant or just dishonest.
18.
by da1 11y ago
> Of course the diagnosing psychiatrist could always fudge the facts But there is no fudging. Someone not liking something about you that you are totally OK about does negatively impact you if that person is say your spouse. There is no
19.
by da1 11y ago
Totally correct.
20.
by da1 11y ago
Everything that relates to outlier characteristics will disproportionately affect more boys than girls. The more extreme the outlier the much more likely it will be a boy. This is just basic human biology that like the GP mentioned is routi
21.
by da1 11y ago
> The diagnosis criteria for most mental illnesses include that the patient is negatively affected by their specific symptoms. Even if this were true (which it isn't) the psychiatrist can always argue that the fact that someone else
22.
by da1 11y ago
Care to elaborate what I'm ignorant about or is it just a broad insult for something you don't like? Edit: OK. I've read your Bio (stating that you only follow mental health related handles) and I've also read you twitte
23.
by da1 11y ago
You mentioned specifically school shootings and gave that article as a source. In no way did it address the issue. Stop poisoning the discussion with unrelated sources that in no way support your points. People that read your comment might
24.
by da1 11y ago
Nowhere in that article is there a mention of school shootings. Not even indirectly. You are not acting in good faith.
25.
by da1 11y ago
There's a piece of information missing from you anecdote: How did the situation develop? What happened to your friend?
26.
by da1 11y ago
First of all I feel for your situation. Hope you manage to get to a better place. > I was only in therapy for one year, 2x a week, at $65 a visit That's 6760$ for one year. It's a significant amount for what is essentially a p
27.
by da1 11y ago
> Sucks to be American, I guess. Don't go there. The situation is almost global with a few legal nuances that barely have any practical impact. Since you're mentioning the ECHR, have a look at the German man that was involuntar
28.
by da1 11y ago
>It's a young scientific field that has been hurt by cultural distrust and misinformation. It has been hurt by its own history of systemic and deliberate abuse. No need for misinformation unlike what you're engaging with your p
29.
by da1 11y ago
And another ad hominem from you... Thankfully I've never had any (positive or negative) encounter with psychiatry and neither has anyone I like so unlike you, I'm not biased. Your comment is a very common technique which consists
30.
by da1 11y ago
> I think you're conflating psychological therapy with psychiatric treatment. Bad diagnoses happen in every medical field. This is a basic rebuttal from people like you. It's not bad practitioners, the field is inherently subje

More ›