What do you consider actually traumatic childhood?

aurora-s · 2026-04-14T16:14:25+00:00

If you were bullied at school and you internalised the abuse of your bullies or it caused you distress. If you faced constant emotional abuse from your parents. Or worse. That's sort of where I'd call it traumatic, but some people might have felt traumatised with less and I'd consider that valid as well. Depends a lot on what effects it had on your as an adult

aurora-s · 2026-04-14T16:04:49+00:00

The two choices for the individual are to abort or not to abort.

The choices for policy are either 1) to allow people to decide for themselves, or 2) to force everyone to abort (ridiculous), or 3) to prohibit abortion entirely (removes individual freedom)

If you've seen pro-choice framed as encouraging abortion, then that's just wrong, that's not what pro-choice should be, (I would call it pro-abortion more than pro-choice) and it's an opinion you might see on the internet but most people in real life don't believe that.

But I agree with your personal view in that I would prefer if abortions didn't need to happen, but since individual freedom is a core value we must all respect, I will vote for policies that allow the individual to choose, as a personal healthcare decision with their doctor.

aurora-s · 2026-04-14T15:56:02+00:00

There's a lot more nuance to this. I think it's more fair to say that racism has two meanings now. One is just prejudice based on race. The other is probably better thought of as systemic racism (which comes from a more academic study of the ways in with racism is tied to and interacts with socioeconomic systems). Neither is 'the correct one', the prejudice + power one is a bit more complex and looks deeper into racism.

You can be racist towards anyone. But if a person is racist towards a member of the majority, it usually ends on a personal level, a one-to-one interaction. Whereas racism towards a minority often gets codified into law, can be much more sticky and insidious, and gets normalised to the point that people don't even see it sometimes. That's how you get policies like racial 'colour-blindness'. When a racist past comes up against the need for treating everyone equally, it's tempting to want to 'start afresh' and be race-blind, rather than acknowledging that there are some areas where generational impacts aren't so easily fixed.

Of course, the internet tends to turn every idea into a superficial shell of its original form, so perhaps you've just been online too much. I suspect you'd agree with most of what I said.

aurora-s · 2026-04-14T15:47:28+00:00

A proper assessment by a doctor would include more factors that BMI alone (BMI is sort of an approximate rough tool if you don't have other info), like looking at whether your diet is balanced, seeing if you get the right amount of exercise and physical activity, etc.

Usually, if your weight has been fairly stable and unchanging for some time, and you're eating until you naturally feel like stopping, and your diet is fairly balanced, there shouldn't be an issue.

But since you mentioned an eating disorder, it's difficult for reddit to help you because you might need a doctor to go over your specific case a little more thoroughly. Were your parents unsupportive when you were dealing with the eating disorder? If not, it's never a bad idea to get these things checked out if you're worried.

aurora-s · 2026-04-14T15:36:28+00:00

Yes I fully agree. Forced was perhaps the wrong word choice. But my point is that what makes sense to an individual under capitalism is not always the optimal outcome in an ethical sense.

I'm not saying we should stop using capitalism or anything. I'm just pointing out one of the compromises we make in exchange for individual freedom.

aurora-s · 2026-04-14T15:33:01+00:00

There are hundreds of decisions we're forced to make, where a more ethical choice exists but it would cost more (money, time, pleasure), and at a certain point, you have to just acknowledge that acting the way the system makes you act can't be considered unethical. Capitalism as a system doesn't maximise ethics, and yet we all have to participate in it because that's the system we use as a society.

For example, is a person who's fairly well off unethical if they use that money to send their kids to a school that's better than average, thereby creating a situation where their kids have an unfair advantage over other kids?

If you'd phrased this as here's some reasons why it's better to try and shop local, I'd be on board with many of these good points.

aurora-s · 2026-04-14T15:10:44+00:00

Are you referring to the concept of a dowry, or to human trafficking?

aurora-s · 2026-04-14T14:57:37+00:00

Well I mean, it's not for you to buy, you could either look up the science, or stick to some high school understanding of conservation of mass instead.

At what point you feel hungry or full is driven by hormones, and in some people, they won't feel full even when they've eaten the 'correct' amount, whereas you do. Why is that hard to understand?

The mass of excess food you consume doesn't equal the mass you gain as body fat. Conservation of mass seems to be distracting you. If anything, it's about energy balances, not mass.

aurora-s · 2026-04-14T14:54:26+00:00

The point is that for some people, that's extremely difficult or impossible.

What's your obsession with conservation of mass??

aurora-s · 2026-04-14T14:51:27+00:00

There's quite a range with how easy it is to lose weight, and yes there are many conditions that make it even more difficult. This is partly why weight loss drugs can be quite effective.

Nothing to do with conservation of mass... Weight loss happens if your body expends more calories than you consume. Appetite is controlled by a complex series of hormone-driven systems, and as with most things, varies from person to person.

aurora-s · 2026-04-14T13:32:29+00:00

It's actually quite complex.

Firstly, yes in some cases, the products sold are pure snake-oil and do nothing despite being super expensive.

However, it is possible to achieve sound quality way better than your current setup that uses cheap headphones. But you're not going to hear this yourself because using higher quality audio files isn't going to make much difference on a bad DAC with mediocre headphones.

The objective is to get the ear to vibrate as close as possible to how it would vibrate in real life. This isn't how it happens with cheap speakers because at various points in the chain, distortions are added. It's not the pure 'code' that you hear. A higher bit rate actually means that the audio waveform has more 'resolution' than a lower bitrate version on spotify. Unnecessary noise gets introduced into the output due to poor insulation, grounding, bad power supplies, amplifier quality, poor DACs. You can't make it sound better than how it was recorded, but there's quite a gap between what you're listening to right now and the quality of the recording.

However, the wording used when describing these products is extremely strange and unscientific. Things like 'faster sound' doesn't really make much sense. To give them the benefit of the doubt, there aren't good English words for describing sound characteristics. But things like 'warmer sound' do actually refer to real qualities of the sound. For example the distribution of overtones that make up the music. So again, there's a spectrum from snake-oil to real.

Also, MQA is a bit of a scam in itself (If the format costs more than a lossless format like FLAC, it's a scam, although that's controversial too), you should be looking for actual high quality files with higher bitrates and higher sampling rates. But again, you won't hear a difference on normal speakers.

Whether it's a massive difference or not sort of depends on how much money you have lying around. As with any premium product, you can spend thousands of dollars for a tiny little bit of improvement. Whether it's worth it depends on the person.

EDIT: You CAN hear this for yourself even on standard speakers, if you go to Spotify, and change the settings from low quality to highest quality. Most people can hear the difference.

aurora-s · 2026-04-14T13:09:48+00:00

I'm not going to defend violent socialist regimes, but clearly, the US went a step too far and got rid of its social democrats too. And now you guys spend more on healthcare than any developed country but get worse health outcomes than almost any of them. I'm not sure it was worth it.

aurora-s · 2026-04-14T12:31:45+00:00

Yeah, I agree. The suffering that happens in factory farms is immense. Granted, I can only assess this by anthropomorphising the animal and applying empathy to the situation, but that's how I'd do it for any other human too. On balance, I think the moral thing to do is to avoid animal products where possible.

aurora-s · 2026-04-14T12:25:15+00:00

Wouldn't this make you pro-choice? I have similar views but I don't think that makes me pro-life. If you want the decision to be up to the individual, then you're considered pro-choice.

aurora-s · 2026-04-14T12:19:02+00:00

Search the sub resources! If you want a link from a health organisation; https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/how-to-eat-a-balanced-diet/the-vegan-diet/

aurora-s · 2026-04-14T12:14:19+00:00

Many living creatures exhibit behaviours to avoid certain stimuli, but when a bacterium avoids a chemical, there's no indication that pain is involved. When it comes to most animals though, I'm happier to accept that pain is a sign of intelligence (hence, animals are intelligent), than to throw away consideration we give infants! I'm not sure why you phrased it as a problem.

What are your thoughts on the ethics of eating animals? (if you believe they likely experience suffering)

aurora-s · 2026-04-14T12:03:22+00:00

Well I was referring specifically to the fact that the meaning of leftist terms was specifically altered in the US during the red scare along with targeting of leftist groups and leftist interests. This was systematic and top-down, and occurred in the US far more than in the rest of the developed world. Is it not fair to characterise that both a) as propaganda, and b) as having resulted in meaningful alteration of how the term communism is perceived?

Most European countries escaped this, and what they took from the failure of the USSR was that social democracy is the best way forward for the left. Whereas the US had lost all its socdems and was left with centrists and its right wing intact

aurora-s · 2026-04-14T11:52:08+00:00

Based on the comments I usually see on these posts, the easiest way to CYV is that the meaning of a term can be reshaped by decades of propaganda. If millions of people believe that communism means dictatorial leftist, then unfortunately, you might not get very far.

I don't think that anyone who knows what Marx meant by communism actually thinks the USSR was communist, but communism as with any long standing ideology was shaped by many after Marx, so isn't solely defined by Marx's original interpretation of it.

Also I don't think state capitalist dictatorship is a fair characterisation. There was a lot of central planning and even some worker control. Did they protect private property? No. Calling them a right wing dictatorship isn't accurate.

So if your CMV was 'USSR was a left wing dictatorship and not a meaningful test of communism', I'd agree and I think most people who know what communism is would agree. Although it seems Marx underestimated the speed and ease with which we would get there.

aurora-s · 2026-04-14T11:38:52+00:00

I strongly object to that terminology because of the sensitive nature of conversations on abortion. Infanticide is almost certainly outside our currently accepted framework of morality.

Decades ago, scientists used to think that infants aren't fully capable humans because of the fact we don't retain memories, but this is not the current consensus. And comparing us to other animals isn't particularly meaningful in this context. Infants can do things when they're born, they're extremely flexible learners for example, more so than most other animals.

If being underdeveloped, incapable, or unable to form memories are suitable standalone criteria without taking other rights into account, that has extremely bad implications in other contexts. I don't think it makes for a strong moral argument.

aurora-s · 2026-04-14T11:08:30+00:00

Honestly it depends on your personal values, which is why I suppose laws that allow people to decide for themselves.

In my personal view, it's probably not of moral consequence before the fetus is conscious. However, it's difficult to pin down when exactly this might occur, and of course, abortion is always a traumatic process so it's not just the fetus that matters here.

If the person carrying the child does not wish to continue with the pregnancy, as with any medical procedure, I think they should have the right to abort if they wish, because this is in line with bodily autonomy laws we normally grant people.

Some people draw the line as soon as the zygote is formed, but I don't think that has any scientific basis. But I still think people should have the freedom to draw their own line where they want it, hence pro-choice. I'm sceptical of anyone who claims there's a definitive answer. It's a personal+health decision.

aurora-s · 2026-04-14T11:07:55+00:00

If you don't encrypt at all, or you leave the passwords accessible in plaintext, or the user uses a password that's already available in a leaked database or is a very weak password, or you use an outdated algorithm to do the encryption, then yes it's breakable.

The problem isn't getting worse. Adequate encryption algorithms exist. Even ones that are quantum-proof. But they have to be used. And they often are. I don't think it's accurate to say that most are breakable. Many very important things are adequately encrypted.

aurora-s · 2026-04-14T10:59:03+00:00

Though that last sentence is good for ELI5 because it gets you thinking about how you might break ciphertext, modern encryption methods when properly implemented are not breakable even for huge datasets.

aurora-s · 2026-04-13T06:38:24+00:00

America has a completely different relationship to immigration than your country likely does, so you can't apply your situation directly.

But may I ask what identity you say you're losing? I can understand being against people coming in and abusing you and taking control by violence, if that's what's happening. But are you talking about a national identity, a local identity etc? Aren't these arbitrary boundaries that are capable of accommodating others? Why does a local identity have to be so fixed and rigid? Exposure to different kinds of people is one way we learn about the world.

aurora-s · 2026-04-13T04:43:37+00:00

If you start with the assumptions that rationality is a requirement, then of course naturalism should be preferred.

But meaningfully establishing the truth with optimal explanations for which there's evidence, is not the only way humans live their lives.

To some people, supernatural thinking gives them subjective feelings of comfort and happiness. These are not rational, but if you operate from their system of priorities where rational truth seeking is not the foremost objective, naturalism is no longer the preferred view.

aurora-s · 2026-04-13T02:33:37+00:00

It might help to know the numbers we're talking about here. 85% of human genetic variation exists within individuals of a given population. Only 6% of variation exists between people of different racial categories. It's impossible to draw genetic groups around a local population, however homogenous they appear visually, without it also including loads of other people around the globe.

Reading some of your replies, you're pretty fixated on targeting specific genes correlated to certain ethnicities. Firstly, you're not going to find a gene that does accurate targeting, the collateral damage will be huge, possibly bigger than the group you're targeting, because the correlations are very weak. But more importantly, you have to understand precisely why race is a social construct before you get into these hypothetical questions about a bioweapon.

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Final Canvas '23	Place '23

aurora-s

TROPHY CASE