Peterkin

Like every other mental illness, the problem begins with a normal emotion or idea applied in excess or inappropriately. Fear is normal and healthy in cases where an animal is aware of a imminent danger or probable threat. It becomes unhealthy when extended to situation where there is no danger. For example, fear of falling off a high place is appropriate when one is standing on a clifftop and the possibility of falling over the edge is real. When standing on an high observation platform, surrounded by steel and glass, with no possibility of falling off, it's inappropriate, but still normal, because the fear is triggered by visual association. When standing on a chair, it's neurotic: a phobia, but still manageable. When standing on solid ground, afraid to step out the door, it's a serious problem. I do not see the relevance of Putin.

We have both. Up to a point. Sometimes not till it's ready to kill you. Not as obvious as a broken bone, and comes in more flavours. Lots of things cause people pain and distress. Some are obvious and easy to identify; some kill you faster than others; some are subtle and elusive; some come in clusters. To ignore any just because they're not simple is a cop-out.

I'm leery of words like 'claim'; it's pejorative by association, but too general to answer. Doctors and nurses working in that area have their own vocabulary, like every other professional community. Recently, the trend has been more toward naming in English, rather than Latin or German, so that it's easier to communicate with caregivers, relatives and the patient himself. Mental illness is difficult to classify and codify, yes; lots of grey areas. Cancer hasn't been cured yet, either, and nobody's picking on surgeons or radiologists. It's just harder to troubleshoot software; always will be: brains are more fragile and complicated than bones. Have you tried turning it off and on again? Sometimes that actually works. Psychology and neuroscience are still quite young, growing and adapting - but at least we no longer execute soldiers who suffer from PTSD.

Actually, that is the branch of which I'm most skeptical. I have never been particularly well versed in clinical psychology; my only experience is in counselling college students. The heavy stuff, I only know at second hand, from the patient's side: two close friends with long-standing mental issues who have tried a number of approaches over the years. Approaches, rather than treatments; it's really not like mainstream medicine. I understand hardware pretty well; I'm comfortable in most hospital departments. The psych ward, though, behind the closed doors with heavy wire mesh panels... that's another country - which, I suppose, is why so many people are reluctant to acknowledge it. The more interesting condition to me is chronic depression. It's a bitch of an illness: it turns bright, talented, interesting people into morbid slugs. And I'm glad somebody's willing to help them - I don't care if it's a priest, a psychiatrist or a voodoo mambo! Not every approach works - not by a long chalk! And what works for one person might be no use to somebody else. There are some constants, but successful therapies are usually arrived-at through trial and error. The other friend has ADHD, well controlled now, with a combination drug and personal routine regimen. As a child in the late 50's, he was called hyperkinetic and there was very little anyone could do for him, except the exercise I mentioned earlier. He should have become a great soccer player - except that he literally could not keep his eyes on the ball. Since the medical and educational establishments have been taking the problem seriously, he's had considerable coaching in how to manage the symptoms himself, so that he can live a normal life.

Insects can't choose a different way to act; we can. But also, some of the animals are horrible to one another because we've forced them into untenable situations and they're going crazy.

waste control arms control birth control self control IOW, maturity: GTFU

Yes, I understand that. I meant, only the [microfibre] cloth itself; it is not treated or infused with any chemical cleaning agent. Before microfibre, for 3000 years, people were cleaning items made of glass (but not coated with anti-scratch or anti-glare film) with ordinary cloth and some chemical cleaning agent, mostly commonly soap and vinegar. So people used to glass surfaces might be forgiven for mistakenly using the same method they employed with old-fashioned television screens on their non-glass computer screens, as the first reviewer did. He was comparing the Apple microfibre facecloth thingie to the very similar microfibre product amazon sells as a pack of 24 for the same price as a single two-layer one from Apple. I did not link review, because of the alcohol.

Apparently the Apple cloth is just a cloth: in use, people apply some kind of cleaning fluid. So, how clean and streak-free your screen is depends more on the fluid than the fabric it's applied with. In one test I read about, they used 70% alcohol, which may have been a mistake. Alcohol, vinegar and glass cleaner work fine on my eyeglasses (with either silk or cotton cloth), but I've been advised by my computer repair guy not use any solvents on the screen; he recommends distilled water and a mild detergent, applied with a soft, lint-free cloth. Here's a review https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/apple-polishing-cloth

I like pieces of old cotton teeshirt. Not jockey shorts: too many seams.

I take it you have been fortunate enough never to need either. Congratulations.

Yes, and in a liberal, accessible clinical environment, they all learn from one another. So the landscape of psychotherapies keeps changing, just as the social landscape in which the problems appear keeps changing.

I wouldn't characterize psychometrics as the staple of psychology; I would rather call it a branch. Psychology was not born as a science; it's more a convergence of medicine (as medicine grew and became more sophisticated and compartmentalized in the 20th century) and ministry (spiritual guidance, usually provided to a community by its shaman or religious guardian). People have always suffered from disturbances of the mind, but these were not always considered medical conditions. They are insubstantial - no boil to lance, no rotten tooth to yank; no fever, shooting pains or vomiting; no spots or rashes or lumps to examine. They manifest in ordinary behaviours in what is considered inappropriate situations - except what is considered appropriate and inappropriate varies by culture and situation. It manifests in moods and feelings that are normal in some situations, in some degree and duration, but are considered abnormal in excess - except that the assessment of excess is also cultural and situational. It manifests in distress felt only by the patient, but judged by other people, who cannot see, touch or feel it themselves. Consider the range of intelligence, sensitivity, temperament and resilience of human beings. Project that onto a big white wall. Superimpose the range of normal emotions, reactions and ideation of which beings are capable. Superimpose the range of philosophies and attitudes of societies to what is considered 'normal'. Superimpose the range of parenting style, influences, expectations and circumstances of childhood. Superimpose the list off the 'aberrant' behaviours people display. Superimpose the symptoms of exposure to chemicals in food, the environment, therapeutic and recreational substances. In front of that great big busy wall, put one young man who says: "Help me. I'm afraid to go to sleep." Where do you start? Trying to address that kind of dis-ease, to classify, codify, diagnose, trace to its cause and alleviate it is never going to be a slide-rule kind of problem.

In order to catch that moment of change, the subject would have to literally live in the laboratory with electrodes on his scalp (unless he's a rhesus monkey, in which case the electrodes would be shoved inside his skull) so not that many volunteers available. Yes, MRI is being tried, though not strictly within the purview of psychology. Work is also being done on the chemical front. So, far, no single definitive diagnostic tool, and unfortunately, no cure in sight. But they haven't given up. The reason psychology continues a soft science is that its subject matter is so elusive. ADHD is particularly elusive : it presents in almost as many guises as there are patients and frequently co-exists with other, more readily-identifiable conditions, such as substance dependency, which may, in fact, be due to the pre-existing disorder it masks. Jaundice is easy to define and pin down; ADD is complicated. And this - a situation I have encountered personally. https://ct.counseling.org/2011/08/the-challenge-of-diagnosing-adhd/

It's dealing with humans - how hard should it be? It's difficult to replicate experimental results when you're not allowed to drop subjects off high buildings, freeze and thaw and dissect them. And juvenile humans - they're more unpredictable than weather! ADHD is not really a lot fun to live with, either for the patient or for the family. You can't study; you can't sit through a movie; you can't read a book or listen to symphony. You make people nervous with the fidgeting and jumping up every few minutes and you make them angry, interrupting and getting distracted while they're talking to you; they don't like to be around you. It's hard to play games, make friends or go on a date. And you scare yourself, wondering all the time if you'll suddenly do something impulsive and dangerous, cause an accident, hurt somebody. You're not in full control - and that's an awful feeling. A good deal of work has been done on ADHD, so that the management of symptoms is improving. https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/adhd/facts.html

It also had no power uphill and was reluctant to start on rainy mornings when we were late work... I wonder why it was so damn popular that they made a knock-off for the new millennium. Our much later GM pickup, now, that beast had heat to spare! But they're on it! https://gmauthority.com/blog/gm/general-motors-technology/general-motors-propulsion-technology/general-motors-active-thermal-management-technology/

You can maybe try this at home: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Schematic-of-an-ORC-for-engine-exhaust-heat-recovery_fig1_307616733

When does this happen? Why does this happen? Trace the heating of the engine back to the cause and you will see the answer to you question.

I don't know about games, but this is a pretty cool learning aid https://www.edumedia-sciences.com/en/media/696-human-body Not so sure about this one https://www.edumedia-sciences.com/en/media/696-human-body looks scary

This is a proven web site https://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/guide/vitamins-and-minerals-good-food-sources so is this one USDA An official website of the United States government. Yes, several. Unlikely. another informative site Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020-2025 and Online Materials

You don't know approval agencies! Neither do I know what would be involved in this particular procedure. Well, let's hope you're right anyway.

Yes, where it doesn't obstruct navigation, whale migration, salmon spawning, etc., yes. Once the initial cost and deployment problems are overcome, it's certainly one good source of energy for the coastal cities and towns. The Bay of Fundy could serve one good-sized city, maybe two, and a dozen small towns. The Atlantic is potentially and even (easier, anyway) better source. It doesn't travel well to inland settlements. Canada has a large land-mass between oceans, great big open prairies, and a good deal of wind and hydro energy - that I don't think is properly distributed.

Environmental concerns should always be at the forefront, of course, but I don't see any reason why tidal generators can't be made safe. The avoidance method is probably more expensive, and obviously more complicated, than simply building a fence to keep sea-creatures out of harm's way. It depends on how the turbines are located with respect to the shore, and whether fishing is an issue, etc. Whatever safeguards are implemented, they will add to the initial cost and maintenance costs. That makes private investors wary, especially as the returns have not been that great, so far. New technology - growing pains. A good, accessible overview, designed for students. The one in the Netherlands seems to be working satisfactorily. It's the biggest, I think, to date.

Yes, I see what you mean. It sounds as if this could be a simpler and faster and potentially less painful procedure than those available previously. I imagine you would need four very precise cuts, which is still a lot of surgical exposure - pelvis is a whole lot harder to get at than leg bones. Again, I would have to caution for a balance between body-identity and vanity. Another aspect I would be concerned about - though I know it's not everyone's concern - is the amount and kind of experimentation that would be done on animals, probably, in this case, dogs.

Worth every penny!

Only if he's uninterested in the number of people it can eliminate. B-2 bombers: potentially unlimited civilian-kill; LHC - zero. What good is it?