Pretty interesting. There was a study about Clemastine use as a potential treatment/prolonging for ALS, but it did not show any significant benefit at preventing/delaying neuron death. I bring it up ALS because there are certain treatments for MS (like IVIG Infusions) that can also be beneficial for ALS patients.
How do people read this drivel and take it seriously? I read the first 5 paragraphs of complete fluff, and then started skimming, and then realized it went on and on, and just closed it. The author had not gotten to any cogent point either within the first 5 paragraphs or the subsequent ones I skimmmed.
I'd challenge the person who submitted this to think about this rule:
"Essentially there are two rules here: don't post or upvote crap links, and don't be rude or dumb in comment threads.
A crap link is one that's only superficially interesting.
What does "deeply interesting" mean? It means stuff that teaches you about the world. A story about a robbery, for example, would probably not be deeply interesting. But if this robbery was a sign of some bigger, underlying trend, perhaps it could be."
Is there a deeper, underlying trend here? Is there something that society is missing here? Are pitbulls a greater existential threat than school shootings? I'd say -- no. Dogs are animals, they typically aren't considered to have an ethical compass. Dog attacks are unfortunate, deaths from dog attacks are usually avoidable and very sad. Many deadly attacks by dogs are the result of poor dog ownership by humans, and a lack of proper regulation by local government.
School shootings are a different problem. Unfettered access to high powered, fast-firing guns, poor mental health, and unfortunately a response from at least half of government that is unsufficient and insulting to those threatened by gun violence, where those people in government value difficult to quantify values like "freedom" over easy to quantify values like the life of a child.
And I think the parallel between school shootings and dogs is actually pretty close. In both cases, the problem is government caving to people who demand the right to own dangerous objects/animals, regardless of the risk to others. Culture plays a role in both, and mental health, doubtless plays a role in both.
Unfortunately my wife has a terminal illness, and while $10m would be quite a lot, when facing the bills of ALS without proper health insurance, that could run out very quickly. With $10m, I'd work, but do all of the things that I don't have the guts to ask for now: Go fully remote all the time (something that I'll likely have to do within the next few years to be a partial caretaker). When the bad times come, which they will, if I had $10m in the bank I'd walk away from the job and focus entirely on being the most present father that I can be.
Over the last couple years of her illness, I've become the sole caretaker of our young kids, and it's changed me dramatically. Being a parent can be exhausting, and I've always loved it, but I also loved logging into work and doing productive things, contributing to (what I thought were) important software projects, and working with my colleagues. I always loved the camaraderie of the work place and my colleagues. That's shifted entirely in the last 2 years. Other than the paycheck to maintain my kids' quality of life, other than the health insurance that we're now inextricably tethered to (something that I never had an appreciation for as a young, relatively healthy single or married-but-no-kids person), I just don't care about anything at work other than doing what I have to do to maintain those things.
Sorry to read about your wife's illness. It's such a pity that "having to work to maintain quality of life" has taken away the joy of work, even when your colleagues are comrades.
As for me, the principal reason for working is that camaraderie. I find 'establishing things together' more valuable and rewarding than the progress or productivity on itself. The for knowledge workers above-average paycheck feels like a luxury.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10568021/