Plenty of people are making that bet. Work from home is important to a lot of people and its not something you can take away without employees seeing it as a pay cut.
So if my pay is being cut, and you are taking an extra 2 hours of my day in commute again, then I guess that becomes my reward for hard work?
To be fair the dynamics do change from business to business. My current one is a good example of making poor decisions with workforce and not expecting the blowback.
Some workplaces are so poorly run they dont even fire people clearly collecting paychecks.
Ive literally seen management prevent someone from being fired for telling off a customer and swearing at them, because “we need them!”.
It does seem absurd that this stuff is tried in front of supreme court justices.
Could we do something like you say that involves experts in the field weighing in on the pros and cons, and costs?
Is it that the supreme court justices shouldn’t hear these cases at all, or that they are just so corrupt they can’t rule fairly?
I honestly have no idea what point you were trying to make here.
I never said that those factors should be ignored.
The point I’m making is that when people frame this as “some people just aren’t built to handle it” they put people into two groups: the easily addicted, and normal people.
People want to be part of and prove they are in the normal group. Something is wrong with you if you are in the addict group. Those in the normal group feel protected by being part of it. They think they aren’t capable of addiction that they must have gotten lucky.
I think that’s an incredibly dangerous framing of addiction. Everyone is capable of becoming an addict. Just because some never do, doesn’t mean they had some special mutation that protected them. Addiction is an incredibly social disease, and with how little we know about it we should be more cautious rather than callous when discussing it.
To be fair I’m probably being oversensitive to it, but if you want to be technical about it, someone could read your post and think: “I should try street opiates and see if they have an effect on me, and if they don’t like this poster, then I am very likely to have ADHD.”
Let’s imagine for this person, they struggle mentally all the time but can’t afford or get to a doctor or proper care, and so this actually becomes the most reasonable test for them to administer themselves.
I understand I’m nitpicking and creating a scenario in my mind doesn’t make it real, I just personally would choose to play it safe and at least word things more carefully.
Again I’m not saying you can’t day what you said, just that there technically is a non-zero risk to it.
Or just maybe you shouldn’t share information that could cause someone to harm themselves.
“…appear to have diminished or zero response whatsoever to opiates.”
I still think its dangerous to post things like this on a forum without any sort of actual citation.
I understand its your personal experience, but there are so many compounding factors, it’s nearly impossible to say why you had that experience, or if it would happen again if you tried some street fentadope thats available now.
For me it was only a problem when I had to drive two cars:
A pickup with the shifter on the steering column (makes me sick thinking of it, horrible design)
A jeep with an absurd shifting handle which made the gears miles apart.
To be fair nearly all my concerns about manuals are from stories others have told me. We have had two manual cars for maybe a decade now and haven’t had a single bit of trouble with the transmissions or clutches.
I even taught myself to drive stick driving one of them home from the dealership. Plus I didnt become proficient at it for a bit of time after that.
I really prefer manuals at this point. Feels simpler.
It takes a little time to get on the ride at first. If you never used two days in a row then its not crazy you never got hooked. Even with recreational opiates, taking home a 20 bag one weekend isn’t going to end your life. There are actually weekend warriors who only use on weekends and do relatively fine, if they can stick to the limits they set.
Also opiates properly prescribed (the least amount needed for relief) are actually not too tricky to kick. I’m talking about 7 day or 30 day scripts that are take as needed or taken daily. You will likely experience nothing more than what feels like a minor cold or flu, symptom wise. You might have a few rough nights sleep.
There are variations to things, there are many additional gears left to shift into, so to speak, I’m just warning you shouldn’t test them out because first gear didn’t scare you.
Adderall is what’s called a mix of amphetamine salts, containing both dextroamphetamine and levoamphetamine in a ratio of 3:1.
Vyvanse is Lisdexamfetamine which is converted in your body to dextroamphetamine and lysine.
The main difference between the two is that vyvanse has to be converted to be used, and that conversion produces lysine which slows down the action of the amphetamine.
This results in softer slopes of onset and can feel less intense than adderall.
Keep in mine though that both adderall and vyvanse have about the same abuse potential once you reach about 100% over a given prescribed amount. It might be that adderall is more likely to be over prescribed or given to stimulant naive people, whereas vyvanse is more likely to be given as an alternate medication and where the slowing of its action makes higher doses feel like less.
I think both of y’all have a rough understanding of addiction. There is no such thing as people who get addicted to substances after a single use. There are instances of people trying a drug and then continuing to use it, usually due to availability.
Its a lot like any other opportunity that enters your life. Sometimes its really hard to turn down the idea of using to fix whatever problems you have in the short term. Noone plans to use forever you know.
Is it so shocking that average people are just as capable of addiction as the people they see at their local methadone clinic?
Please dont test out your theory of “I’m immune to opiate addiction”. I promise you that you aren’t the unicorn.
And how would you say “most reliable” is figured? Is it like a 15% success rate and the next best test is 13%?
Is this more of a gut feeling thing or is there some sort of data to back up the claim?
I’m more worried about beating the transmission to death, but I didn’t know about high rpm lockouts so thanks for sharing that.
If you dont know the shifter well you can definitely put it in the wrong gear though.
Well mortgages and rent costs are pretty close these days aren’t they? Its the down payment and closing costs that price people out of buying a home then? Why not take away the down payment requirements so that renters could participate in the buying market. Maybe there can be deals where someone sells you there home for 1-2 years for 50% market rate but they have to give the house back at the end of the term?
I think the point being made is that this landlord stuff almost rarely works out well these days so why not change?
There’s very few cases where renting is the best option, and for that group they usually are well off enough to have options.
Society is concerned with folks who can’t afford to buy a home right now, even with the mortgage price being less than the cost to rent in some cases. That group has no other options, and because that group is expanding at the moment, its increasingly likely to be affected either personally or via those in your community.
I’m saying unemployment isn’t actually a risk. You just keep saying it is. Plenty of people ride dying companies into the dirt and move on, its not a crazy scenario to imagine.