Wikileaks was never really a beacon of free speech its always been more of a platform where people can leak information about goverments and other powerful individuals or organizations doing bunch of shady or downright evil stuff behind our back. These often offer rare glimpse behind the scenes allowing us to be little less blind when voting during whather elections comes next.

When WikiLeaks first came about it’s original goal was aimed at leaking information about authoritarian governments, primarily China and some countries in the Middle East. It was pretty big news at the time because assange had wrangled together a team of some pretty high profile Journalist and privacy tech people.

However, most of those people were never really involved in the organization, and were mainly utilized as a marketing scheme. The rest slowly left the organization as works in their fields within WikiLeaks stagnated, or left over security and leadership concerns.

Imo Assange has always been a duplicitous attention seeker. However, if that were illegal, pretty much everyone involved in media would be thrown in a cell. I think his biggest failures that should tarnish his public image is his handling of the leaks. Him rushing to release information against the advise of his security experts, information that hadn’t been properly vetted to protect the whistle blowers from prosecution.

Multiple people have had their lives ruined because he didn’t take the time and effort to protect his sources. And not because they didn’t have the ability to, or lacked the proper protocols, but because Julian didn’t care so long as his name got air time.

Talk caucasus to me baby…

If no one has screamed or made confusing racial accusations, are you even doing it right?

This is a trick question.

Azerbaijan is a mythical location found in many Turkish fairytale, often set in the very real country of Greater Armenia. The answer is obviously Yerevan…

I don’t think that specificality really affects the argument. Any effort to reduce a significant amount of biomass is going to have untold amounts of consequences on an ecological scale.

Whether that’s beneficial or not depends on who you’re talking about.

There have always been areas with large populations of mosquitoes, especially in warm wet climates around the equator. However in the last hundred years they have been utilizing urbanization to spread further north and south, mainly because cities lack biodiversity and have offer almost unlimited food Sources

I think you’d have to define beneficial… Any species with sufficient biomass will become part of the surrounding ecology, with several other species adapting over time to predate upon that biomass.

Both tics and mosquitoes are huge sources of food for animals like birds, bats, fish, amphibians, and especially other insects. Completely destroying them would likely lead to an ecological disaster, just as it does when humans attempt to sanitize any aspect of nature.

The sanitizing process of urbanization is one of the largest reasons mosquito populations have exploded in North America in the last hundred years in the first place. Instead of mosquitoes laying eggs in ponds and waterways that are filled with frogs and fish that normally control their population. They are laying their eggs in urban environments that the animals who normally govern their population cannot thrive.

Lol, If was in it for the money I wouldn’t be working at a children’s hospital run by one of the poorest states in America.

My concern isn’t even particularly with the the creator, she’s an artist. My problem is when people try to pass it off as a medical device that can help disabled people.

An even larger problem is when hobbyist start making medical devices for children. There are inherent problems they do not understand, because they lack education in the field. Children are so adaptive that if you don’t provide them with a device that actually provides sufficient utility they will adapt to not wearing a prosthetic at all, severely limiting their future mobility/functionality.

Dani Clode -Senior Technical Specialist at the Plasticity Lab, Cambridge University | Formlabs 3D Printing Ambassador.

Nah, she just partners with a university lab. This happens all the time at universities, basically just a PR project to attract funding.

Another useless prosthetic designed by 3d printing enthusiasts…

I work in orthotics and prosthetics, and the majority of the articles written about the “next gen” prosthetics are just marketing materials trying to wrangle up VC funding.

Nothing about this makes sense. First of all, no one intuitively knows how to usefully operate a “third thumb”, so the learning curve on this is going to impede its adoption. We already have a hard time getting upper limb patients to use their prosthetics, and that’s when we’re purposely mimicking something they already know.

Secondly, the utility of thumbs in general is that they are opposable. With the placement of their “thumb” the only digit you can utilize with it is your other thumb… Which means adding a thumb negates the advantage of thumbs in the first place.

Finally, and most the important aspect to any prosthetics is utility. If this is meant to help people missing their other arm…how do they get the prosthetic on in the first place? And when you do manage to get someone to help you put this on, we’re supposed to use our big toe as the action controller? Okay, so that means you can utilize this thing while walking?

Why on gods green earth did they not use myoelectrics? We’ve had them since the 70’s, why is this “cutting edge” prosthetic going backwards in technology?

Oh wait, I can tell you… Because it was designed by a 3d printing lab with no experience in actual prosthetics. 3d printers are successfully being used in prosthetics, but only when the person utilizing them has a background in prosthetics or biomedical engineering. Ends up it’s a lot easier to have a prosthetist learn about 3d printing than it is to teach a 3d printing enthusiast about a field of study that requires education in physiology, anatomy, material science, and fabrication…

That’s fair, though it doesn’t seem to bother the little critters like rabbits or racoons for some reason. But yeah, it’ll def make the deer scamper off.

As an avid backpacker, I’m not stoked about the plan to reintroduce brown bears to my state.

I do a lot of hiking as well, and yes brown bears are definitely more of a pucker your b-hole scenario. But for the most part as long as you don’t sneak up on one accidentally or accidentally get between the bear and the cubs, they’re fairly harmless. Ya just gotta have something that makes some noise when you’re hiking, I have buddies that just strap a cow bell on their packs.

It would still be pretty rare for one to outright attack a full grown person, they are generally aware that peeps be dangerous.

It’s kinda why I never got the whole would you rather thing. As a fairly big dude, I’d much prefer the bear over a man or a woman. The bear is more than likely just going to scamper off. Even decent people in bad situations are very dangerous creatures, and more than likely, I’m just going to have to take care of a complete stranger in the woods.

Reading comprehension is still hard for you? My argument was about Cathartic theory, which includes several emotions including sexual urges… It is a theory from freud, of course it covers sexual urges.

You and the other guy just have no idea what you’re talking about. How about providing any kind of source instead of talking out of your ass?

But I do recognize a logical fallacy when I see one.

I doubt that, so far your argument has been based on the anecdotal fallacy mixed with a bit of the appeal to authority fallacy.

The point is you can reduce anything to its origin.

Okay, but how does the modern version of cathartic theory differ from what freud postulated?

I agree you can’t reduce things based on its original alone , which is why I included a scientific source as evidence…

Lol, you were the one who first dismissed evidence because it was 20 years old…

Let’s see here, listen to my therapist who has decades of real experience or a study from over 20 years ago?

Your therapist is still utilizing Freudian psychoanalysis?

Well, if age is a factor in your opinion about the validity of the care you receive, I have some bad news for you…

understand that the theory supposedly applies to other areas as well, but as you so helpfully pointed out: the theory doesn’t seem to hold up.

My original claim was that cathartic theory in and of itself is not founded on evidence based research.

but at the same time, the theory is totally correct! (when it’s convenient to you, that is)

When did I claim it was ever correct?

I think you are misconstruing my original claim with the claims made by the cathartic theory itself.

I don’t claim that cathartic theory is beneficial in any way, you are the one claiming that Cathartic theory is correct for sexual aggression, but not for violence.

Do you have a source that claims cathartic theory is beneficial for satiation deviant sexual impulses?

then the claim of a link between sexuality and aggression is also without support, until you provide a source for that claim.

You are wanting me to provide an evidence based claim between the two when I’ve already said the overarching theory is not based on evidence?

The primary principle to establish is the theory of cathartic relief, not wether it works for one emotion or the other. You have not provided any evidence to support that claim, I have provided evidence that disputes it.

but is not relevant to the topic at hand.

The belief that indulging in AI created child porn relieves the sexual deviant behaviour of being attracted to actual minors utilizes the cathartic theory. The cathartic theory is typically understood to relate to an array of emotions, not just anger. "Further, the catharsis hypothesis maintains that aggressive or sexual urges are relieved by “releasing” aggressive or sexual energy, usually through action or fantasy. "

follows the same patterns as aggression. that’s a pretty big claim! i’d like to see a source that supports that claim.

That’s not a claim I make, it’s a claim that cathartic theory states. As I said the cathartic hypothesis is a byproduct of Freudian psychology, which has largely been debunked.

Your issue is with the theory in and of itself, which my claim is already stating to be problematic.

but is also entirely off-topic…

No, you are just conflating colloquial understanding of catharsis with the psychological theory.

Lol, my source is about the cathartic hypothesis. So your theory is that it doesn’t work with anger, but does work for sexual deviancy?

Do you have a source that supports that?