Shift+Win/Option+-. And holding - gives you en/em dash on iOS and Android. Personally I love using em dashes so this whole AI thing is a real disaster for me.
I don’t want to discount your experience, but attributing a lifetime of symptoms to 5 doses of SSRIs (when you were already exhibiting an unstable mental state) seems extreme.
We know SSRI's really do cause permanent sexual dysfunctional in a small minority of people, small enough that this side effect doesn't come up in traditional FDA tests.
If a side effect is extremely rare it would be impossible or at least impractical to prove in a population.
Grandparent could be right or wrong about how the drug affected them, maybe their brain suffered from other issues and the timing of the medications was purelycoincidental, but if they are correct, your dismissive response is exactly what we'd expect given when they are saying sounds unusual/ improbable.
> If a side effect is extremely rare it would be impossible or at least impractical to prove in a population.
This is also true for a non-existent side effect. I’m not trying to tell GP he is wrong, just that from a reader’s perspective, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
This isn't a good fit for the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Grandparent's report is hard to verify, not extraordinary.
These drugs are approved based on statistical safety profiles in limited trial populations, not on a scientific consensus that absolutely nobody on Earth will ever experience a unique adverse reaction.
Also, I never said that you, the reader, had an obligation to change your worldview based on Grandparent's report.
Millions of people take SSRIs on a daily basis without these dramatic symptoms. Millions more tried them (for much longer periods than 5 days) and then desisted from treatment without major lifelong mental alterations. So yes, I would say GP’s experience is ‘extraordinary’, i.e., outside of the ordinary expectation
How did you determine that "Millions more tried them... and then desisted from treatment without major lifelong mental alterations"?
Someone literally just told you this happened to them, and your reaction was "I don't believe you," followed by a confident statistic you apparently invented.
Do you think if one person in a million took a drug and had their emotional system altered, a siren would go off? That the TV would be interrupted by an all-seeing oracle declaring a medical anomaly?
If a rare side effect occurs, it looks exactly like this: scattered individuals complaining on the internet.
You're misapplying the Carl Sagan popularized aphorism "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and apparently think the meaning of an aphorism can be determined by looking up one of the keywords in the dictionary, rather than, say, the Wikipedia article on the aphorism itself.
> How did you determine that "Millions more tried them... and then desisted from treatment without major lifelong mental alterations"?
We have lots of public data on SSRI usage (20+ million in the US alone each year) and discontinuation rates. The drugs themselves are decades old and have been through countless trials and studies, and of course there are databases like FAERS that track reports of adverse drug reactions.
Is your assertion that this is false? That in fact the typical SSRI patient is mentally/emotionally crippled by the drug? Doctors and public health agencies are hiding a public health catastrophe to sell genericized pills that cost tens of dollars a month?
Of course severe side effects can and do happen. Doesn’t mean every bad thing that happens to a person who happened to take SSRIs for a few days should be taken as a big cautionary tale.
I asked you how you determined "Millions more tried them... and then desisted from treatment without major lifelong mental alterations"?"
I took that to mean you were confident 0 out of several million people had lifelong alterations.
Any other interpretation of what you meant would suggest you are not responding to anything I wrote and simply writing non sequitors.
It seems to me you said something indefensible (0 out of 1 million people had permanent damage, there is no possibility you have data to show this) and are now trying to change the subject to something less insane (the typical patient has no permanent harm?)
Since PSSD wasn't recognized until 2019 I know you are full of hot air in suggesting if these drugs caused unusual problems we'd know about it by now:
Disclaimer: no affiliation, and in early development
DCFlight is a new Flutter framework from solo (!) dev Tahiru Agbanwa (https://x.com/squirelBoy360) that uses a React Native-like virtual DOM and Yoga layout engine to replace Flutter's widget tree, rendering UI from native widgets without the use of platform views.
It provides a set of primitive components, a plugin architecture using method channels to write your own native components, and an escape hatch to use traditional Flutter widgets within the DCFlight architecture.
This is an odd perspective to me. I'm an atheist because I don't find the truth claims of theistic religions convincing. Whether or not the centralized structure of modern religion is problematic is tangential to that
Centralized religious authority has prevented religions from evolving or being replaced by new ones. They haven't gracefully let go of their beliefs about the universe we now know are false.
Yeah, this is like keeping a sound system equalized for one album and asserting that modern mastering is always badly equalized. Tune the system to the standard, and adjust for the oddball until it's remastered.
I'm not a fan of extreme compression and limiting, but doing so in a multiband fashion (as occurs due the loudness war) actually does result in more consistent EQ from album to album, label to label, genre to genre, etc. which virtually eliminates the need to adjust EQ at playback time between each post-war selection.
Sure you can find some issues if you look at it hard enough. In the real world scenario, it's very possible to ship a performant, functional app in Flutter and has been for some time now. It also brings some of the best development experiences with Dart, consistent declarative paradigm & hot reload. Like all things, it's a trade off, for me it's very hard to merit maintaining 2x native apps.
There are many, many people out there shipping Flutter apps, and many, many users using those apps. So please stop the hate maybe?
This seems like a pretty defensive comment in response to pointing out some objective flaws in Flutter. It’s fine to admit it’s a trade off, but a trade off necessarily means there are some downsides.
Flutter apps on iOS just do not feel native, that’s a fact. It doesn’t mean you’re a bad person for using Flutter.
It's not a fact, it's the opinion of a rather small group of elitist iOS super users. Native is an utterly overrated concept these days and in no way the solution to build an app with good UX. Users don't care whether you use SwiftUI, Components or Widgets. Users don't even know what a native app is. Stop acting like it's the only true holy way.
I’m curious to hear where you think this is a showstopper. I’ve been testing some Flutter apps lately and other than some mismatches in platform UI elements they have been smooth. I wonder what you would think of apps like Kagi News.
I don’t mean to say it’s a showstopper, but it is certainly noticeable to anyone accustomed to using iOS devices. I suspect the situation on Android is better where Google has access to the native platform code.
Flutter has a secondary problem which is (IMO) a dearth of well-made libraries and showcase apps. Most everything feels half-baked.
The Kagi News app, which I have just installed, doesn’t seem to fall into this category. But like most Flutter apps the fully Material design makes it feel very out of place on iOS. Flutter typography is still broken, with characters tracked out way too far. And the scrolling and touch interaction feels, well, Flutter-y. It’s inherent to the platform
Partially, yes? I don’t
see that as particularly controversial at this point. We are beyond consensus manufacturing and into explicit governmental crackdowns on anti-Israel voices in the US.
Are things you disagree with bad by definition or assumption? Or because you were told… because unless you have a front row seat, everything you know is because someone else already parsed that info for you.
What’s bad about finding waste? Many appropriations are expired yet still keep getting paid out. That’s crazy.
The liberal media echo chamber is preventing people from using common sense. When media and congressional democrats literally call us “Nazis” — it’s hard to take any of it seriously.
“Trump is a fascist”
If that’s true, he’s the first fascist in history to attempt to make the government smaller.
Apparently being interested in free speech and smaller government and reducing waste, fraud, and abuse is fascism.
The problem with it is that if you're claiming Musk gives a rat's ass about free speech, there are many, many examples that disprove it. He has literally banned people on X or taken away their checkmarks or added checkmarks to people because he didn't like what they had to say. He's not a free speech absolutist, he constantly censors people who say things he doesn't like.
In theory, DOGE isn't a bad idea, but you look at the implementation, and you look at the moves Musk has made to remove his enemies from their positions, and you look at the things they won't touch - their goals align more with making the billionaire class richer than anything relating to free speech or reducing waste. Musk lies constantly, with and without reason. I personally think he's so used to it, he can't help lying at this point.
People are upset partly because the new administration is taking the law into its own hands, and partly because it seems to be acting without any planning or research, and seems to be going about it recklessly and without concern for consequences.
Regarding USAID specifically, it was set up in the aftermath of the Foreign Assistance Act by John F. Kennedy, and as an agency it was later established as law by Congress. Trump cannot legally shut down USAID without another act of Congress, and he cannot legally redirect its funds, which have already been appropriated. The administration is well within their right to change how the funds are allocated, but so far the stated intention has been to shut off all foreign aid, not change what aid is provided.
The fact that Warren Christopher etc. wanted to get rid of USAID 27 years ago is irrelevant, since that plan was never adopted and did not call for shutting off foreign aid, so it's not comparable. It's just misdirection.
It's also difficult to take arguments for "government waste" seriously in the case of USAID. First, the agency has a tiny budget of around $50B (2023), 16x less than Medicare, or around 0.8% of the entire state budget. Secondly, it was explicitly set up to give away money. Waste is its raison d'etre! Reports show its admin overhead being around 7.7%, which is very low for an aid organization.
It's pretty clear that USAID isn't cut because of waste, but because the Trump administration wants to stop giving aid to poor foreign countries. However, they're not so inclined to say that out loud.
It's also a self-own because USAID is an important soft power tool. It's one of the ways the US can project a positive image on the world, something it has been very good at since the post-war period.
reply