I see many down-votes. I assume these are the positions people are having (please correct me if I'm wrong or mischaracterizing):

• JubilantJaguar: There is no evidence for harsher punishments having an effect any more than moderate punishments. I even go as far as saying that punishment at all is not beneficial.
• Comments critical of JubilantJaguar: How can you say that punishment doesn't work when rich criminals basically can go home for free after committing their crimes? How can you say that punishment doesn't work when domestic abuse used to be widespread?

While looking for the middle ground or a compromise can be seen as absurd, the evidence seems to support parts of both of these stances. For example, moderate punishment has been shown to reduce crime much more than harsh crime.

A simple example is how many countries around the world no longer execute people in public as a form of punishment. For the vast majority of those countries, violent crime has been reduced drastically. In the light of these two facts (less executions and less violent crime), is it really tenable to argue that "harsher punishments result in less crime"? So, what is actually causing crime to be deterred?

Some people have thought long and hard about this problem, and we now have the evidence to understand what drives crime down. Here's one such person and their summary of their findings: "An effective rule of law, based on legitimate law enforcement, victim protection, swift and fair adjudication, moderate punishment, and humane prisons is critical to sustainable reductions in lethal violence" (https://igarape.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Homicide-Dispatch_1_EN.pdf)

I know lethal violence is different to non-violent crime, such as wage theft. However, imagine a CEO making the decision to steal wages. Where is he located? Who, if anyone, surrounds him? What is his demeanor? Now imagine a society with "an effective rule of law, based on legitimate law enforcement, victim protection, swift and fair adjudication, moderate punishment, and humane prisons". What kinds of institutions would this society have? How would you feel walking in the streets or laboring in this society? Now, think about the CEO and the society at the same time. Are those two compatible? Would that criminal CEO really go home free in a society with those characteristics?

I assume there is an impulse to say that capitalism leads to classes of people who are treated fundamentally differently. Indeed, there is clear evidence that capitalism can lead to persistent inequalities (e.g. Piketty, Shaikh), which can enable extractive political institutions. Money can buy political privileges. However, capitalism is not the only force that shapes the world. Democracy is also incredibly powerful. They are two different vectors, two different carts pulling societies around the world in different directions. Without democracy as a counterweight, we wouldn't have the kinds of protections, rights, and guarantees that so many of us have. Are we ready to deny the legacy of democracy by insisting that we cannot remotely bring justice to wealthy criminals? Are we ready to deny the democratic values that so many of us have today? Are we ready to deny the effect that collective action for democracy has had in our institutions?

I'm really glad you found something that works so well for you! Self-love is indeed wonderful. For others reading who might want to try affirmations, it's worth noting that research has found they affect different people differently. What helps one person might not help another, or could even decrease mood in some cases, especially if the affirmations don't feel authentic to where someone is in their journey.

If you're curious about building self-love, you might want to experiment mindfully with different approaches to find what resonates for you personally - whether that's self-compassion practices, ACT, gradual behavior change, or other methods. Pay attention to how different practices actually make you feel rather than how you think they 'should' make you feel.

1. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy exercises. I learned them well, and now I can do them wherever, whenever. Life changing.
2. Visible Thinking Routines by Harvard's Project Zero. Every time I want to learn something, I think visibly about it!

Depending on who you ask, feminism includes the entire LGBTQIA+ spectrum.

For example, Hélène Cixous points out that there are ways of thinking that are rigid, hierarchical, limiting, and usually patriarchal. This way of thinking creates all sorts of barriers. "Men have to be like this." "Women have to do this and be that." "Transexuals? They have to not be like that."

To break free from rigid and limiting thinking, Cixous proposes to "write from the body". When you pay attention to your own experience, without rigid categories, you can be free. You can define your body in any way. You can act in any way. You can interpret the world in any way.

This, in Cixous' view, is feminism. Feminism is about breaking down barriers and empowering people to be free. A woman can choose to work and buy property without being rejected. A man can choose to be vulnerable with his male friends without being rejected. A woman can choose to accept a woman as a partner and not be rejected. A transexual can choose to transition and not be rejected. A man can choose to not have sex and not be rejected. It is all valid. And it is all feminism. In this view, feminist terms and LGBTQIA+ terms serve exactly the same function: they all help break barriers and empower people to choose the lives that they want to choose.

Values guide action. Humans can use cognitive rules to exhibit entirely new behaviors in entirely new situations, behaviors that are consistent with the cognitive rules. Theory may not be relevant if the situation doesn’t activate the relevant neural networks, but if someone doesn’t have ‘ally values’ how do you think they will behave in the future?

I MISSED THE EQUIVALENT OF PLACE IN LEMMY? Does anyone have context?

Edgy meme: agile bad

NASA: "Yep, we use agile" https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20160006387/downloads/20160006387.pdf?attachment=true

Your comparison is interesting, but let's consider some historical facts. The Apollo program, which successfully put humans on the moon, actually employed many principles we now associate with Agile methodologies.

Contrary to popular belief, it wasn't a straightforward Waterfall process. NASA used frequent feedback (akin to daily Scrums), self-organizing teams, stable interfaces so that teams are an independent path to production, and iterative development cycles - core Agile practices. In fact, Mariana Mazzucato's book Mission Economy provides fascinating insights into how the moon landing project incorporated elements remarkably similar to modern Agile approaches. Furthermore, here's a NASA article detailing how Agile practices are used to send a rover to the moon: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20160006387/downloads/20160006387.pdf?attachment=true

While it's true that building rockets isn't identical to software development, the underlying principles of flexibility, collaboration, and rapid iteration proved crucial to the missions' success. Programs like the Apollo program adapted constantly to new challenges, much like Agile teams do today.

Regarding Kanban and Scrum, you're right that they fall under the Agile umbrella. However, each offers unique tools that can be valuable in different contexts, even outside of software.

Perhaps instead of dismissing Agile outright for hardware projects, we could explore how its principles might be adapted to improve complex engineering endeavors. After all, if it helped us reach the moon and, decades later, send rovers to it, it might have more applications than we initially assume.

1. Of course, people should donate to make Lemmy sustainable.
2. I recognize that this is true of any website that is not enshitified or, more broadly, is designed to maximize profits. Websites made with libre software are the public libraries of the internet!

Masturbation is totally normal and healthy, and you're spot on that it shouldn't be demonized or shamed. In men, it might even reduce the risk of prostate cancer.

At the same time, it's important to have a balanced and psychologically flexible relationship with masturbation and sexuality. As psychologist Steven Hayes, a leading expert on psychological flexibility, explains: getting too fixated on any one activity or coping mechanism, even a healthy one, can lead to psychological inflexibility if it is used to avoid experiencing your life fully (For a thorough explanation of how this works, feel free to check out A Liberated Mind by Steven Hayes). Psychological inflexibility here means getting stuck in rigid behavior patterns to the point that it messes with living a full and meaningful life.

So while I'm totally with you that masturbation is healthy and that bullshit social taboos against it should be rejected, it's also good to be mindful about your motivation behind doing it. Are you doing it because you're escaping pain? Or are you doing it because it aligns with your values and makes your life meaningful? If you rely on masturbation too much and don't have ways of accepting your emotions and connecting with the world, it could potentially tip into unhelpful psychological rigidity and a frustrating life. The key is to be able to experience masturbation while still staying flexible enough to show up fully for the rest of your life too.

It’s about time Instagram enshittifies in a grotesque way, grotesque enough for people to realize it’s shit (because it’s enshittified).

I think the way to formally prove this is to find the difference between the Fibonacci approximation and the usual conversion, and then to find whether that series is convergent or not. Someone who has taken the appropriate pre-calculus or calculus course could actually carry it out :P

However, I got curious about graphing it for distances "small enough" like from Earth to the sun (150 million km). Turns out, there's always an error, but the error doesn't seem to be growing. In other words, except for the first few terms, the Fibonacci approximation works!

This graph grabs each "Fibonacci mile" and converts it to kilometers either with the usual conversion or the Fibonacci-approximation conversion. I also plotted a straight line to see if the points deviated.

Edit: Here's another graph

So it turns out:

• Fibonacci-approximated kilometers are always higher than the usual-conversion kilometers
• At most, the difference between both is 25%. That happens early on in the terms.
• After that, the percentage difference oscillates around a value and comes closer to it.
• When talking about more than 100 miles, the percentage change approximates 0.54.

TL;DR:

• Yes, the Fibonacci trick is true forever as you go higher in the sequence if you're willing to accept a 0.54% error.