No, I don't have anything like that. I have a friend with diagnosed OCD and that is an entirely different beast. And I have tried cutting that stuff out (was never big on most of it anyway) and it did absolutely nothing for this sort of thing lol.
Tinnitus really is the best way I can describe it. I didn't even realize how pervasive it was until it shut off.
It's more like...you just don't want them? It's kind of wild. The first week I took them, I discovered there was a loop in my brain that was constantly thinking about food, and I never realized until it got switched off.
That's the best way I can describe it. I could basically always eat before and now I just...don't feel like it lol.
I will say, they are rough when you first start out on them. During the 1st 6-8 weeks I had several instances of maaaaaybe five seconds of warning between feeling nauseated and vomiting.
It settles down after a couple months and it was never bad enough to be a dealbreaker, but it's a fun time.
Not...really? It's pretty normal. Tech companies share intelligence and knowledge all the time -- there are a lot of birds of a feather and consortium groups out there.
Since a lot of places are close in proximity, companies sometimes run private fiber lines and such to let peers download updates without competing with the entire world lol.
Everyone's fighting the same fight. Sharing and collaborating are normal things.
Threatening to revoke the rights and freedoms of your fellow citizens and put them in a hellhole is pretty antisocial and sociopathic behavior, my
dude. That makes me suuuuper uncomfortable.
Oh no, better throw you in jail so I don't have to think about you. Don't mind the moldy bugs in your food, that's just extra protein.
Considering that's where all the people and money are in this country, it's clearly not a problem for most folk. You're entitled to your outlier opinion, of course.
I'm hearing this high pitched sound, does anyone else hear that?
I clicked and scrolled through several of those studies, and those snippets are incredibly misleading. I would recommend not using these in debates, unless you want to come across as a poor researcher acting in bad faith.
The very last one says nothing about genetics at all, that's saying the justice system is biased.
The second to last is part of a much more nuanced section talking about environmental impacts and the role that can play in biological expression. It literally says:
> Thus, just as biological mechanisms can influence environmental responses, environmental stressors can affect biological expressions.
There's nothing to discuss? Clearly this is someone who doesn't want to communicate, and politely asking them to go elsewhere is appropriate. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Mmm. What have you done to make sure you're not letting your ideology lead you into misinformation and misunderstanding?
In my experience, people who get mad about "decolonization" tend to either not understand what's actually being discussed or they got ragebaited by something inconsequential that they've blown up to ridiculous proportions.
I assume you don't think you're somehow immune from this phenomenon?
> As far as negative feedback - yes, but isn't that what quarterly/bi-yearly/yearly reviews are for?
Absolutely not, no. The opposite of that. You never want to hear negative feedback for the first time at an annual review.
You don't want to be giving negative feedback every week, sure, but you do want to give feedback as close to the behavior as possible. Otherwise, you're just letting someone fuck up for months when they could be learning