Hamartiogonic

Here's another exploit. You and your academic buddies could each have their own Journal and use them for publishing without any suspicious traces leading back to you. Let's say Sally starts SPLAT, the Studies in Pointless but Laughable Academic Topics. Nelly starts NOPE, the Journal of Nonsensical Observations an Preposterous Experiments. Meanwhile Pete starts POOP, the Proceedings of Outlandish and Outrageous Postulations.

Nelly can be an editor of SPLAT, while Pete can publish all his papers there. Likewise, Pete would be an editor of NOPE and Sally can publish her papers there. Finally, Sally would be an editor of POOP and Nelly would publish her papers that way. It's a happy love triangle where everyone wins.

That's how you play the game!

I'm going to take this as evidence that OP travels through time in the opposite direction. From their perspective, the microwave was dirty, so they put a bunch of popcorn and a paper bag in it. All the mess jumped into the bag, and the microwave became clean.

Can confirm. For example, Egypt made university education free (or very cheap) for all Egyptians. Nowadays, they are pumping out countless medical doctors who get employed all across the Middle East. Probably not the highest quality medical care, but it's still better than nothing.

Now that I think of it, many countries offer free or very affordable university education for their citizens. What's wrong with America? Even poor African countries make education accessible.

That's like using a mining bot in Minecraft. You just go AFK, and when you come back you have a stack of diamonds.

But wouldn't that mean you end up with as much debt as a small country?

Paul Erdős found an exploit in the end game. All you have to do is collaborate with everyone you come across. It doesn't even matter how small your role is in each paper as long as your name appears somewhere in it.

How do you choose when every major’s terrible? That’s the thing — you don’t. Gotta catch them all, amarite?

Approximately 300 years ago, chemistry was still in a phase that resembles modern psychology. Instead of talking about electrons and atoms, chemists spoke about the affinity two compounds have for each other. Chemists observed reactions and made an affinity table of the results. Have a look at that picture, and you’ll see how messy it was back then.

They didn’t know what their materials were really made of or why they reacted. They were just observing the results, just like psychologists are still doing these days. Sure, there were interpretations and opinions, but most of them went out the window as soon as it became possible to analyze the elemental composition of the materials.

Since autism is defined based on its symptoms, the definition is inherently very nebulous. In medicine, you don’t clump every headache into the same category, because there are a million things that cause the same thing and in many cases you can find the root cause. You just need a few samples and long list of biochemical analyses to find most of them.

Psychology isn’t so lucky. Who knows how many different things got lumped into one big pile we call autism. Same goes for all the disorders too. I would argue that terms like depression and anxiety are about as useful as those 300 year old affinity tables.

Thanks for taking the time to share. Was a very interesting thing to read.

Speaking of autism, this is in the realm of psychology, which is still in its infancy. The terms and theories are far from stable, so you can expect everything to change within the next century. I’m pretty sure the term autism will eventually be divided into a number of distinct phenomena with overlapping symptoms.

Current psychology doesn’t really have the analysis methods that would allow us to formulate and test more proper theories. Currently psychology is largely based on observations, symptoms and opinions, which isn’t really the kind of foundation you would want for a serious science that makes serious predictions.

As a result, anything you read about psychology should be taken with a grain of salt. It’s a work in progress, so the results are only qualitative at best and completely wrong at worst.

It's also entirely possible that OP is an extreme case where even low doses can trigger various symptoms. It's all very complex when psychosomatic factors are involved, but you still have to consider the physiological factors too. In medicine and toxicology, it's really common that different people respond very differently to the same dose of the same compound.

If OP is a rare exception, their opinion should be viewed in that light. BTW that makes the opinion equally rare, and consequently unpopular.

Even UV (10…400 nm) can be harmful. Not all plants can handle that very well. Intensity plays a role too. Just a little bit of <400 nm radiation should be fine, but if you increase the power output, it’s going to start damaging the plant. Some plants actually produce compounds that mitigate the harmful effects of UV radiation.