Exactly the same, just that I don’t use a screen protector either.

This thing has been dropped so much that I think it’s just undestroyable, the new Nokia 3310

Also I don’t think it’s worth the effort to teach my parents yet another messaging app, like signal.

My friend, just set up Signal on their phones, put it in place of the Telegram app and watch them not even notice anything changed.

Honestly, why not ask Discord support? It’s literally their problem they’d want to fix most likely :D

In the context of cold random approaches, women almost never do that. They don’t need to, because so many men are approaching them that they simply don’t have to do the work. Why would you risk rejection when you can just chill and be approached and thus get guaranteed interest? They just mostly pick out of the approaches they get. Gender roles might be theoretically dead, but practically, they’re very much alive.

One of the indirect ways is simply looking at you and looking friendly. That is them indirectly approaching you by showing you that you can approach them. How to make sure that is their intention is almost impossible because different people have different mannerisms and you don’t know what the person you’re looking at’s mannerisms are. They might just generally look at people and look friendly. For someone else, they might look but look bored and that’s their face for them wanting you to approach them. Or someone looking at you but quickly looking away when you look may be wanting you to approach (they were just embarrassed for staring), but they might also just think you look weird and that’s why they stared.

Approaching someone is not wrong, but it’s almost impossible to know if someone wants to be approached unless you approach them. It’s a paradox without a proper solution.

If you don’t initiate, you rely on others to give you what you want. If you approach yourself, you’re making what you want happen.

There is no “role that never needs to initiate”. Women have always been initiating, just less than men and maybe in a more indirect way. If women want something, they also make sure to try and get it.

In the end, the only thing you’re doing is not taking responsibility about your own happiness.

I see, that’s probably something only Americans would generally understand :D

What do the numbers mean?

Setup an autocorrect phrase :D

Of course you can create it basically anywhere. But if you’re going to allow posting of pictures of women in bikinis, your community will be mainly used to masturbate, that much is guaranteed. So if that is the case, it makes complete sense to put it on lemmynsfw.com.

I’m not sure how many are actually interested directly in bikinis. I.e. if there was no woman attached to them, would people actually like and comment on pictures of bikinis, or start discussion threads about topics related to bikinis? I mean sure, there are probably some people, but I’m also pretty sure they’re vastly outnumbered by people interested in bikinis because a woman is clothed by them.

The reason this is as public as it is is because an archive like this is more useful the more is archived. If you manage it in an entirely hidden way, you basically won’t get it accessible from the clearnet and are relegated to keep it on Tor or similar. And once you do that, a lot less people will use it and thus it’ll be a lot less useful.

Also, they are not only fighting for an archive to exist, they’re fighting for it being a societally acceptable thing to exist.

It does indeed work on Firefox mobile with tampermonkey. I should know, I implemented this and am using it that way mostly :D Don’t like many of the apps.

I use this on the Android Firefox browser :D didn’t like the apps at the time I made this, that’s why I made sure that it’s compatible with mobile Firefox as well.

I can actually perfectly answer your question on how you would describe yourself. And it’s literally impossible for anyone to argue with me.

You would describe yourself as « Je suis né au Chili mais je réside à France maintenant. »

Of course I know docs need continuous learning. But do they get all knowledge from that? Of course not. There are still gaps in their knowledge, and like I say, also gaps in scientific medical knowledge itself.

Which interpretation exactly? Can you elaborate please? I’m actually curious in what you think I’m wrong about.

This is a good approach imo, and if you truly didn’t get the doctor you talked to to take you seriously and fully address your concerns, then they might be a lost cause. Some people are simply not capable.

As for your idea, it does definitely make sense. The question I would personally pose would be more like, how does it help you? What do you actually want from the doctor? Do you want their understanding or do you want medical help in some way? What’s your goal there?

Theoretically, if you want, you can just look for studies or other information on your particular situation. But usually, a doctor will be much better at this, because they have contextual knowledge or other kind of advantages that will help them find the correct studies more quickly, or interpret them more accurately. The hard part is getting them to do it. I had success with this by pointing out inconsistencies in the symptoms, by asking for explanations, by asking them where they got their information from.

The thing with doctors is, you have to do your own work to disrupt their standard way of working. It’s actually really hard, but it’s possible. You have to basically be persistent but very polite and understanding of them. You have to keep asking questions until you are either satisfied or are sure that they can’t help you because they’re too closed off. You can’t let them dismiss you even when they try.

You have to basically make them think of you as a person rather than a patient. Doctors can be very empathetic and helpful when you manage to do this, because then they remember why they became doctors, because they want to help people. But it is work on your side to get them to this state, which is annoying and not always possible, so I can completely understand why you wouldn’t want to “waste your time”.

It certainly sounds like there’s something missing in the doctor’s knowledge, or in them explaining it to you. Doctors very often dismiss patients because they are also only human, and they work in a terrible system that encourages them to quickly get rid of patients.

So I fully encourage you to go back, or go to a different doctor, and get a fuller picture of the problem, make them explain, and get all your needs met.

However, your explanation is extremely far-fetched, you jump from different concepts that are not proven to be related to others. You also need to consider that you might be wrong, you can’t only assume by default that the doctor is wrong. They have assimilated lots of medical knowledge which you have not, which doesn’t mean they will have good knowledge about your particular situation.

But maybe they do have good knowledge about your particular situation. Maybe you just didn’t understand them because you yourself are missing knowledge. It’s their responsibility to help you understand, but it’s also your responsibility to be open to gain a new understanding, which you don’t seem to be. You seem to be very sure of your explanation, which you, at least from what I can see, you have no real reason to be sure, at least not more than the doctor.

Don’t get started about doctors being competent because they got themselves a degree.

Obviously someone who hasn’t studied knows less than someone who got a medical degree. But a medical degree is the absolute minimum, the base knowledge. Current research goes way beyond anything a medical degree can teach, and quite obviously so. Medical knowledge is vast, no one is or will ever able to know all of it. Getting a degree gives you a base, a knowledge about the most common ailments, theoretically the ability to get more knowledge if necessary, the ability to assess which new knowledge is useful, and so on. But unless you are specifically well-read in a particular topic, even a doctor with a medical degree is unlikely to know the full picture about a particular ailment.

And even if someone is well-read in a particular topic, human medical knowledge is still incredibly bad, there’s so many things we just don’t know. Even with perfect, up-to-date knowledge on a topic, it’s easily possible to have no explanation or no solution.

So doctors, just like any other humans, go around acting all knowledgeable, and yes, they are more knowledgeable than others. And yes, for common ailments, that have been well-studied, and that they have done additional reading about, they may give good advice. But all doctors are also fallible, they’re all prone to normal human mental biases, like confirmation bias and so on. And they work in a deeply flawed system, completely overworked, too many patients, too little time per patient, and so on.

So it’s very likely all this medical degree, all this knowledge in a doctor’s head is entirely useless for the current situation. You may go to a doctor, and they might not have read the current literature on the ailment you have. They may not identify the ailment you have correctly because it’s very similar to another one. They may not be very thorough, as they may have personal issues or just pressure in a terrible system.

And then someone comes to them with a little bit rarer thing. They slap a “common thing” label on them quickly because they pattern-match from their own incomplete knowledge. As a patient, you’re left feeling like something is missing, and there likely is. It’s very very simple to know more than doctors, research is mostly public, and no doctor has read all research, and you may just hit their specific knowledge gap. In total, they still know much more than you, but in this very specific ailment, you might suddenly know more than the doctor, at least partially, just because a doctor can never know everything.

And then you try to explain to them that there must be something more to it than they know, than they say, and what is the result? “Do you have a medical degree? No? Why do you assume you know more than me?” It’s not an unreasonable argument, and patients are often exactly as stupid and filled with mental biases as doctors are.

But if a patient’s needs are not met, if the “common thing” diagnosis does not satisfy them, if there are unexplained things left, this “I am the doctor, I have the degree” is utterly irrelevant, it is necessary to listen and to consider alternatives, and to also consider one’s (the doctor’s) knowledge might not be enough. It’s necessary to be empathetic and take your time, something rarely done by doctors. It is necessary to explain. Necessary to work to come to a common ground. All not done by doctors, or any human, very often.

I guess what I’m saying is, if there is a question still in a patient’s mind, then the doctor didn’t do a very good job. And most doctors do a very bad job.

I agree with you conceptually. Society is bonkers.

However, it is possible for everyone to build themselves a subset of society that is adapted to them. It is possible for everyone to build a community, a group of friends, that share values. No matter how “out there” it is.

And let me tell you, what can be read from you is quite “out there”. If you go to a scientist/doctor and talk about magic, it can be easily expected for them to dismiss your words. I’m not saying that’s right of them. Magic can or can not exist. I’m talking about knowing reality, and reality is that if you talk about magic in front of scientifically minded individuals, your words will likely be dismissed. You will likely make this experience again with the same approach, and if you want people to listen, you have to veil your true beliefs, so what you say is acceptable to them. This is a sad state of affairs, I certainly agree, but people are not very open-minded usually, and you have to adapt your approach to whoever you talk with.

I’m not saying anything you think is either right or wrong. The only thing I would like to say is that you seem like you “know” more than you actually can know. We should always come from a point of “not knowing” by default, and only believe/know something if we can be very very sure about it. “Not knowing” is very scary though, it’s very hard to “not know”. I can always understand the need for explanations. But clutching to explanations based on fear leads to missing scrutiny of beliefs, leading to possibly wrong beliefs. Holding wrong beliefs is very problematic, as any prediction you make can be off, leading you to make wrong decisions.

In any case, I wish you well, hope you can find people to truly listen to you, and hope that you can also truly listen to people.