Yeah, I didn't mind Eli that much. I just couldn't shake that look-alike connection once I made it, kind of left an aftertaste of amusement whenever I saw him on screen. Certainly a far more interesting character than Wesley Crusher ever was.
And the whole thing between Eli and Chloe reminded me of the SG1 clip-show episode where they jokingly portrayed a version of SG1 if it was a teenage drama.
I can't entirely fault a couple for aborting a child if a really serious and incurable medical condition is detected, but broadcasting about the abortion on social media is just... weird and twisted to say the least.
Worse is asking for sympathy and validation for it, especially from strangers on the Internet. It's pretty much exploiting the poor unborn child for attention after already murdering it.
I also remember thinking how odd it was that they used the Lucien Alliance as a major plot element there, I guess because I was never really a big fan of them from Stargate SG1. Not that their premise in SG1 was bad, it made sense, but for me, something about their execution was just a bit "meh" from the get-go.
Sort of a side-note, but I have to ask if I'm the only one who thought the young "wiz genius" character in Universe looked a lot like a younger and fatter version of the actor who played Chakotay in Star Trek Voyager?
Universe got muddied down for almost the majority of the series, trying to be too much like BSG.
Somewhere towards the end-ish I think of its run? Not sure actually when, but at some point the show actually managed to pitch a really fascinating core premise: That the Discovery's real core mission was to try to investigate what the Ancients had discovered was some kind of pattern embedded into the universe's background radiation, that seemed to be of intelligent design.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHmr80Bf0zg
That's the kind of hook that should've been in the show nearly from the start.
Ehhhh. A bit more nuanced than that. Parts of the US military there were very eager to exploit the living hell out of the group of Tolan for potential advances in technology. And the Tolan just wanted to figure out a way to get home.
It was more of a typical case of the military being power abusing assholes kind of cliche, not necessarily conservatives.
What? I typed that thing by hand you derpus. And I've never bothered to use AI to write for me or to edit my writing (save for maybe reorganizing a longass ordered list).
Admittedly it's a clusterfuck of badly paced and poorly structured writing. But it should be pretty damned obvious that it's not AI generated just based on the run-on sentences and small grammatical issues in what I wrote.
Reality and the rest of the world caught up with them.
Like look, I'm not going to pretend that everything about how society and such have "progressed" over time has been great. A lot of it's been pretty terrible. Globalism, faggoty mega corporations, LGBTQ+ agenda cults, massive surveillance and data collection, DEI and stock market bullshit, insane levels of immigration, etc.
And I also get that they wanted to just have their own community all to themselves, with their own rules and cultural norms. (Ignoring the old polygamy elephant in the room) The problem is that they both want to be part of the country and world while also wanting to be kept separate from it. They want the benefits but also want immunity, not wanting to be exposed to anything. It's a contradictory and untenable expectation, and ends up being fully hypocritical as they try to push their views at an increasingly national level, much like how the UK has been using OFCOM to try to force the rest of the world to capitulate to their idiotic rules.
The Amish by comparison at least manage to be somewhat consistent in how they separate themselves from the world's influence, and they don't try to push their views and lifestyle on others.
This is hardly shocking or surprising, in large part because of how deluded and self-righteous Mormons can be.
They have a fickle perception on the separation of church and state, and fail to see any contradiction. They think that implementing policies on an entire populace based on just their own religious beliefs is "good" and "just fine".
The state legislature wouldn't even bat an eye at outlawing and banning "foul" language if they thought they could get away with it both constitutionally and if they thought it was remotely feasible to enforce it.
They're also the kinds of people who are so confident in what "good" people they think they are that they'd stab a person in the back while offering a warm cup of hot cocoa, genuinely thinking and believing that they're doing the person a favor and helping them.
It also doesn't exactly work when it's applied to single mothers who are deliberately grifting the system and spitting out multiple kids from multiple fathers.
Mind you, I don't think some safety nets for earnest single parents who might need a helping hand is an entirely bad thing. (Factoring in widows here too, whether it be a single father or a single mother).
But there have to be some solid limits on how those government signed benefits can be stacked up.
Not sure what the best balance would be between childfree adults and adults with say, 2-3 kids, but maybe it would be sensible for adults with 5-6+ children to receive fewer tax reductions/benefits.
Or just reduce taxes across the board for citizens as a whole. Massively tax legal immigrants (illegals don't belong here and should just get the boot, bullet, or they should be forced into legalized slave labor), something that will stop fucking over normal adults who actually belong in their respective countries.
Very much so. Another huge part of the condition is the mental disorganization and management of information, memory, etc.
Which understandably can exhibit as problems with attention and hyperactive behavior, but it's a name that merely describes the observable effects, not the core symptoms/issues.
Unfortunately people have a tendency to jump to very "absolute", wide blanket conclusions.
One solution fits all kinds of assumptions, assumptions that just because a tool/treatment might not work for some then it must mean it's totally tainted and completely unsafe or unusable. And assuming that just because a lot of apples (doctors) are rotten that not only is the whole barrel bad, it "must" mean that the entire apple industry is totally wrong about every possible thing and is "surely" just rotten to the core.
No problem. I know what it's like to have those kinds of concerns. Concerns about whether or not I screwed up my brain up by doing xyz years ago and things like that, especially where medication is concerned.
Sometimes you have to break away from what you're worrying about and take a fresh perspective by focusing on what's logically probable based on the variables involved.
And another thing to keep in mind is that the human body and the brain are usually pretty adaptable and can do a pretty good job of undoing or repairing things, returning things back to their former state or by forming workarounds, so long as the damage isn't particularly severe.
Not very likely. Stimulants like that don't exactly stay in your system for very long and they don't have many lasting effects after they've worn off. They don't have the kind of pharmacological action like SSRI's and some other kinds of medications that can potentially tinker with a lot of different receptors throughout the brain and other nerves throughout the body. And even that's something I consider an unlikely risk, but comparatively, I think the risk is far less pronounced with most ADHD medications.
The biggest risk with stimulants would be if you took a really massive dose (or a lot of multiple doses) at once and if you caused some mini strokes or something. Mind you, this would have to be like 1/4-1/2 of a full bottle or something.
Edit: Also of course there's maybe some potential risk if you've been consistently taking heavy stimulants for 10-15+ years. But I was guessing that you probably hadn't taken them for quite that long, based on your wording.
Admittedly, I might not mind this in the case of property that was previously bought up by Blackrock and the like. Although I'd rather the property be sold to proper tenants rather than community or government ones.
And that's admittedly with a total disregard for legal procedure, which would be a total mess. So not an entirely serious thought but at the same time, fuck Blackrock.
Depends on regional laws too, and how much you can trust a doctor, but generally you're right. There's usually laws on the books that allow, possibly even encourage a doctor to break doctor-patient confidentiality if they think a patient might be a "danger to themselves" (or others).
Depends on the person I'd wager. For some patients the symptoms or effects aren't so bothersome, for other patients it might cause a lot of impactful issues when they go without any treatment.
Having a difficult time being able to relax at all, no matter the situation, isn't always fun. Nor is it fun to live with mental overload every hour of every day because there's no filter on the information flow, usually in a chaotic and disorganized mess.
Some people are perfectly capable of managing though. Some people thrive on the chaos. Doesn't mean it works for everyone. Also doesn't mean everyone needs treatment either to get by.
It's a case by case scenario, which is something I think professionals need to factor in a lot more. Diagnosis and treatment should be handled with more of an optional opt-in approach rather than something that's marketed as a necessity.
I agree that the diagnostic methods are completely worthless hogwash. Which isn't exactly uncommon across the board in the medical and psychiatric fields.
The condition itself isn't entirely bullshit though. Poorly defined, named, and explained though, but I can attest to it being an actual problem that can exist. And the kinds of medication you're likely referring to are nowhere near as potent as actual amphetamines, but I can understand some degree of caution and concern, especially when the diagnosis sounds a bit dubious.
Oh, and I generally wouldn't trust a GP when it comes to this kind of shit at all. Most of what they understand about psychiatric conditions practically comes straight from a handbook with almost no formal training or education in neurochemistry or psychiatry. They're bound to over or under-diagnose, over or under medicate because they're pretty clueless.
And there's a lot of terrible psychologists and psychiatrists out there in general. Patients have to do 90% of the work in these and medical fields themselves to figure out what's going on and to investigate effective treatments.
Very much agreed. And Outlast Trials gives players a little more semblance of control over how they play than DBD does. Like being able to chuck bottles and bricks at enemies. DBD feels like an overdressed run of the mill ratmaze sometimes.
Outlast Trials at least takes it self seriously as an actual game. I'd put it more closely in the same category of game as Dead by Daylight. Both games do unfortunately tend to revolve around fairly simple formulas with occasional modifiers/mutators tacked on.
Some are made by legitimate developers intent on making something interesting and with substance, but a lot of them are cheap cash grabs or games for milking customers with trickling content updates.
I felt moderately more positive with REPO and Peak than I did with a lot of previous iterations like Lethal Company and Among Us. And Among Us pales in comparison to Unfortunate Spacemen imo (made by the same studio that made Abiotic).
The main reason I ever get dragged into the games in the first place is because of other friends who see the low price tag as easier and more approachable, even though I usually find the entire genre of games pretty bland, with a few exceptions that took a little longer to annoy me.
And it can be handy for occasional shortcuts to small, quick (temporary) solutions and implementations that might require a second pass anyway, even if it had done by hand.
Personally I prefer to just use some separate standalone AI to point me in the right direction if I really need to figure something out and don't want to spend extra time researching it. I usually know enough to identify and decipher anything wrong with the AI's results, and can figure out where it maybe didn't go far enough to do an optimal job.
Sadly yes, it means a lot of idiots will use it to try to put out slop and market it. Not exactly a new problem though.