I remember seeing a video of a rubber arm experiment that goes through a series of exercises to convince someone’s mind that a rubber arm placed against their shoulder is theirs, while the real one is blocked out of sight. Once these phantom sensations are in place, the organizer then hits the rubber hand with a hammer, causing great shock in the subject but no real harm. The immediate panic is exaggerated by the fact their mind can’t actually move “their” hand out of the way when they see the swing coming.

Another study had organizers shine a harmless light on participants’ arm for a few minutes and see how they react, allegedly for some sampling purpose. The twist was that they would have the real subjects stay in a waiting room beforehand and watch actors leave while appearing to be in considerable pain from the session where the light was targeting. They then experienced a significant burning sensation from the “laser” despite the organizers insisting it was harmless. Some would go as far as to raise their voice and demand the experiment stop.

The idea is that people can be convinced that something is painful just from others’ reactions to it. This may have been what the organizers were actually testing for, and the electrical shock wasn’t real or was barely large enough to felt. But OP was just immune to being influenced. I would expect the ability to follow cues from others has strong correlation to success at socializing, so considering they use 4chan OP might actually just be built different.

The jokers are very specifically worded for things like this. Usually they will say they give a bonus if a hand contains a certain (scoring) pattern. A straight flush contains both a straight and a flush, so jokers specifying one such contain trigger will proc. Similarly a full house contains a pair, two pair, and three of a kind too.

Rarely, jokers will specify you must play a hand instead, which means it must exactly match what is listed as the scoring pattern (except I think royal flush is still a straight flush), similar to planet upgrades. To do list is one example, because otherwise something like a three of a kind roll would be strictly worse than a pair.

Two pair seems to require two different pairs in a scoring hand to proc, meaning it doesn’t count four or five of a kind hands. Some people disagree with this ruling.

I only played Stellaris off and on, but I went years without buying an expansion and always thought the new systems were complete and better than what they replaced when I returned. Breaking current saves is frustrating, so I guess you would need to delay an update if you had one you planned on returning to.

If you didn’t know, you can roll back to older versions of steam games with some work. A few games have a built-in system, but most of the tile you have to manually replace files after redownloading the old versions.

Most if not all of these have one side that is clearly in the wrong. Real life is more complicated. Conflicts are usually gray vs. grey, with both sides having identifiable faults and justifications. But even then, if you spent all your time seeing the world from the perspective of certain designated protagonists you’ll likely sympathize with them anyway.

Is that saying meant to cover baseless assertions about someone’s actions? Hillary Clinton was involved in enough shady shit to not need to make stuff up. If someone says that she donated to her opposition’s campaign they should have evidence to back that up. Otherwise they just give ammunition to people convincing others to ignore real, substantive criticisms against Trump.

That article mostly describes her campaign focussing on criticizing stronger and more likely candidates early on when the Republican nomination was still up for grabs. That just makes tactical sense. Otherwise you might as well also accuse her of being involved in a conspiracy to get Vermin Supreme in power too.

You can say the fact that Hillary is a woman contributed to her loss. You can even argue that it was enough to make the difference in Trump winning. But the main reason she lost is because she was still otherwise a weak candidate overall.

If you mean they are donating from their own profits, yes they can write that off. But these customer donations are not income for them and cannot be written off by the company.

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-000329849244

But people should research charities before giving, some are many times more effective than others.

https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/en/best-charities-to-donate-to-2024

They do not. It is not income, so they can’t claim it as a deduction. The customer could claim it as a deduction if they wanted, but these donations are small enough I’m sure they really aren’t worth tracking for an individual.

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-000329849244

This is a good example showing OP was being too broad. I like the sentiment but think they should limit it to topics for which there is a sizable amount of genuine dissent (meaning we don’t have to invent an argument for an hypothetical unreasonable contrarian) and that aren’t easily demonstrably falsifiable (meaning we are covering opinions and theories, not matters of objective fact).

OP likely was meaning to apply this to controversial social policies or philosophical questions exploring what values people prioritize. Too often loud voices demonize “the other side” and dismiss them out of hand with strawmen.

For free speech, that would be similar. A company can have a social media account or make broadcasts or advertisements, and having to have an individual as a proxy would just be cumbersome. And yes, that includes things like lobbying. Otherwise, you could have a company pay for private individuals for the service of lobbying on their behalf and essentially have no cap or regulation. Formalizing what they are allowed to do also allows you to go after them for things they aren’t, again without needing to prove individual culpability. And if we decide they have too much influence in politics, it gives us a lever to pull to reign them in.

Corporate personhood is mostly for convenience. Otherwise a company would need an individual to buy and sell corporate property, and they would have to rearrange stuff like that whenever that person dies, retires, or does something else that restricts property use. And it means an individual wouldn’t be able to be a tyrant for everyone else working at the company just because everything is in their name.

Importantly, it makes it much easier for customers to sue, since they only need to show the company wronged them in some way rather than an individual being personally responsible. Usually they would have no way of knowing who makes which decisions and has which responsibilities, and by suing the company as a whole. they don’t have to. The same applies for governments, police departments, school boards, etc.

Never should’ve come here

You could also add items to button shortcuts in the 3DS remake iirc.

Here’s the thing…if you get upset that a random woman that you don’t know would take the hyperbolic position that they would rather be in the same room as a bear than with you, you’re likely the exact type of man that these memes are talking about.

What the heck? Expressing resentment at the implication that you are more threatening than a bear based solely on gender is evidence that you are, in fact, more threatening than a bear? How does that follow? You don’t need to have a fragile ego to recognize the unfairness of it.

They know how dangerous a bear is.

If they would rather be alone with a bear than a random stranger of any gender I’m going to say they don’t.

The original post was a bad-faith engagement farm that became much more popular than it ever should have been. It ended up bringing up a bit of good discussion and a lot of insane takes.

I was using it almost daily from the start and felt worse for it, so I started dreading taking it and quickly preferred no medication. I eventually finished it off and instead of getting a refill, I switched to something that worked great from the start and was cheaper.

I’m not saying it’s not a good medication, I even recommend it, but if it requires a strict schedule and that much of a miserable buildup just to still be worse than an alternative it’s simply not the right one for me.

I went through a month’s supply of strattera before switching to adderall. I also only took it on “need to be productive” days, which may have been the wrong approach. I was reluctant to take it otherwise because of the side effects. I felt like it did help me focus on tasks, but the benefit was essentially offset by the drowsiness it caused making it something of a wash for my productivity. I work at home so I would end up needing to take a nap most days I took it. Sleeping became very refreshing though, which was a silver lining.

Other symptoms were a pounding head, a decrease in appetite, and an increase in anxious thoughts. None of the symptoms were intense except drowsiness, and all of them mellowed out after a few weeks.

Adderall works a lot better for me now and has fewer side effects. But I’ve seen others in the community really appreciate what straterra has done for them, so it seems to vary a lot from person to person. Despite my disappointment with it, it may be worth trying if stimulants aren’t working well for you. My doctor recommended it initially because it was working well for some of her other patients.

The emperor’s new battle strategy

Oh, today I learned!

No one has mentioned Vivaldi yet. I haven’t found it slow in the years I’ve used it. It does hog memory with the amount of tabs I open, but no more than any other browser I’ve used. Fortunately it has inactive tab suspenders as an option to help with my bad habits (natively now, and through chrome extensions before that). Also, it is undoubtedly the most visually customizable browser I know, so it being ugly is really you making the sandwich.

If this was just bait, I guess it got me. If not, anon could try Tor if they value privacy, or maybe something minimalist if they really care about performance.

Socializing well is one of the hardest struggles of being a human, and even people that are naturally social still may not get along well with others. I like to recommend the book “How to Win Friends and Influence People” by Dale Carnegie. Think of it like a “For Dummies” book on socializing. It has a lot of real-life anecdotes for difficult social situations people overcome and how. I should mention I just pirated the audiobook for it though.

Also, like others have said, I like listening to Healthy Gamer on youtube/twitch. He’s a real, active therapist with a lot of experience helping people with these kinds of things, particularly for gamers. You can also just play it in the background while doing other things.

This is good advice. Interactions between people usually have loose scripts, but are mostly improv, and a big part of that is encouraging the other person to keep talking about what they are interested in. The hard part for me is usually when I find I don’t have much to add, but usually I try to agree and paraphrase what they’ve said. This shows you’re genuinely paying attention and care about what they have to say, and invites them to clarify or keep going. Really, just try to find things in what others say that you can agree with in general and you’ll likely be in a pretty good spot.