I've lost many beloved pets throughout my life, it's devastating for sure but i've also felt the pain of losing both of my parents, for me, it's not even close. You make a good point about irreplaceability. It doesn't bother me that my kids didn't get to meet my childhood dog, but it really hurts they will never get to meet their grandparents.
I tend to agree here when i hear people equating love of animals with love of children and it kind of bothers me when people make such an equivalence. I've had many pets throughout my life, and my love for them pales in comparison to the love for my children. I'm certain i would give my own life to save any of my children, i can't say the same for my dog.
I was sympathetic to her plight up until the 'personal impact' part. It seems to me that the author is using hyperbole when describing her physical/emotional impact on herself and her family to gain some form of sympathy from her audience. With statements like this:
>This strife has shattered all of our lives like nothing else before.
Based on this statement it seems to me the author and her family have yet to face any real travesty. There are varying degrees of severity in harassment and to me this case seems mild to moderate and not in any way a cause for the health effects described. I also believe it also offers some insight into character and possible extreme sensitivity to perceived injustices/slights. I also agree with other posters here in regards to only getting one side of the story, much context is missing.
There is evidence that meditation can help with anxiety/depression. I've experienced depression through varying life circumstances although never clinical depression. In these times of distress i began meditating, and have not stopped as i find it helps me.
> Americans they need to reduce carbs and fat and increase protein to move towards a healthy diet
The majority of Americans consume more than the recommended daily intake of protein, the source of which is mostly red meat, which is arguably a less healthy diet. I do agree that the average American consume to many carbs, and again, from sub-optimal sources. What need to happen is an increase in fruits and vegetables which most American are sorely deficient in.
So your personal, cultural instilled, biased intuitions is what drives you? And you think this is more reliably than science? A methodology designed to control for such things, that has brought us antibiotics, vaccines, pretty much all of modern medicine. You know what else feels good? Cocaine, but that doesn't mean it's good for me. The dangers of tanning isn't something invented by colluding scientists and Hawaiian tropic made up to push more sun tan lotion. It's testable and repeatable scientific fact that the sun emits harmful UV radiation that can cause premature aging, cancer etc etc.
>Modern day humans no longer trust the instincts they have developed over millions of years ... or what kind of foods to eat.
Really? This is a naturalistic fallacy. It's out precisely our instincts that cause us to overeat. As has been pointed out our instincts haven't adapted to the abundance and availability of food seen today. In an environment where food is scarce it is evolutionary advantageous to ensure your body had enough calories to make it until the next available meal. And this didn't mean picking the most nutritious food sources, we didn't have that luxury, it meant picking the most available. Only as directed by science do we now know what foods provide the most benefit or determent to our health.
This is hindsight bias. The markets could have easily went the other way. Market timing is notoriously futile. If you want to play "what if?" and pick arbitrary dates then he could have as easily put his cash position into equities lets say beginning of October 2008? Then his advice would seem very wise indeed.
I think the correct term is survivorship bias. I like this quote from Nassim Talebs book The Black Swan - "The cemetery of failed restaurants is very silent". I also very much like this example of the bias:
"During World War II, the statistician Abraham Wald took survivorship bias into his calculations when considering how to minimize bomber losses to enemy fire. Researchers from the Center for Naval Analyses had conducted a study of the damage done to aircraft that had returned from missions, and had recommended that armor be added to the areas that showed the most damage. Wald noted that the study only considered the aircraft that had survived their missions — the bombers that had been shot down were not present for the damage assessment. The holes in the returning aircraft, then, represented areas where a bomber could take damage and still return home safely. Wald proposed that the Navy instead reinforce the areas where the returning aircraft were unscathed, since those were the areas that, if hit, would cause the plane to be lost."
Exactly. Apple isn't just promoting ad blocking for purely benevolent reasons i.e "for the best web-browsing experience possible" - they obviously have other motivations.
>giving users the best web-browsing experience possible
Do you really believe this is Apples paramount motivation? The only reason this is acceptable is exactly because they have nothing to lose, only everything to gain by hurting competitors that rely on advertising revenue. Ask yourself this -- if apple iAds was wildly successful would they be taking the same action? To ensure the "best web-browsing experience possible"?
> Better privacy for their users! Breaks analytics and ad targeting? Who cares?
Maybe companies that generate revenue using these tactics? Again if this was Apples bread and butter they wouldn't be implementing any security measures might interfere with their bottom line, user experience would surely be taking a back seat to profit.
Premium products usually cost more to make justifying the price. The point being made is that the cost to manufacture the iphone isn't any more than say an android device, so your just paying apples exclusivity tax.