I’m gay

  • 37 Posts
Joined 1Y ago
Cake day: Jan 28, 2022


What this doesn’t show is active users, just total. For quite some time we’ve been one of the most active large instances. I don’t remember the exact timing, but we’ve held the spot of 3rd most active for some time, we just now have total users to match that.

Thank you for the detailed reply and insight into your thoughts on the matter. In case you were curious I’m absolutely pro medication for anyone that it helps. Drugs are a wonderful outcome of medical science and the idea that we would withhold or make drugs inaccessible to those who need them for any reason (moral, financial, etc) makes me upset. People can choose to not take drugs if they want, but that should always be a personal decision, not one forced upon others.

Apologies if anything I said minimized your experience or struggles. I’ve done my best to reread everything I’ve said and I’m struggling to see what I could do better in the future to ensure no one else feels that way when I talk with them. If you happen to have the mental energy to help explain to me what would have been a better way to interact with you, I’d really appreciate the input! But if you’re feeling drained or like I’m asking for too much from you don’t worry about it at all 😅

That sounds really tough, and I’m sorry you have to struggle with a system not designed with people like you in mind 💜

I wish I had specific targeted reading, but I happen to have a degree in neurobiology and I’m a data scientist so I just happen to have accrued a lot of knowledge over the years in exactly the two fields being listed here

Things were getting a little heated between you two. Your removed comment is accessible via the modlog if you want specifics (moderation is transparent here), but mostly I just want to be sure we’re keeping things around here nice

My understanding is that we still do not have a great consensus on how our own brains operate - how we actually think. Is that out of date?

This is an incredibly complicated question. On a very basic level, the very physics of how decisions are made differ from a binary/coded system than how brains work (you don’t have 0/1 gates, you can have things encoded inbetween 0 and 1). On a slightly higher level, concepts like working memory don’t exist in LLMs (although they’ve started to include something akin to memory), LLMs hallucinate things because they don’t have a method to fact-check, so to speak, and there’s a variety of other mental concepts that aren’t employed by LLMs. On a much higher level there’s questions of what cognition is, and again many of these concepts just cannot be applied to LLMs in their current state.

Ultimately the question of “how our brains work” can be separated into many, many different areas. A good example of this is how two people can reach different conclusions given the same pieces of information based on their background, experiences, genetics, and so forth, and this is a reflection of diversity that affects everything from the architectural (what the physical structure of the brain looks like) to conceptual (how those might interact or what knowledge might inform differing outcomes).

Been in healthcare for well over a decade now, in a variety of roles. I’m currently a data scientist working in pop health for a large and world-renown academic medical center. I think my kind of neurodivergence (honestly not even sure how to label it) works really well for both the work that I do, and the work-adjacent stuff I learned to get really good at (my brain loves connecting things, so I’m very good at mapping out an org and figuring out who to talk with, how to navigate politics, etc.) which was helpful for my career. I sometimes wonder how much of my work time is spent on things I’m actually told to do, and how much comes from things I’ve found myself in charge of or involved in because I found them interesting or they were important to me (like diversity stuff).

You’re both welcome to have your own opinion, but please do not insult each other because you have a differing opinion on what behavior is acceptable in public

Hopefully a community like this where people share their experiences can help you to discover the ways in which your brain is wonderful and beautiful. I have quite a few partners with ADHD and I’ve found the following traits of theirs rather admirable:

  • When hyperfocused on something, they have a drive I am envious of, being able to hone in on, complete, and do repeated tasks that I would find draining - there’s a level of perfectionism here that results in some amazing output but not something I would be able to focus on for as long or as intently as they did
  • Many of these individuals have SO MUCH energy! I say this as someone who a few weeks ago put in over 10k kcal in dancing on a weekend (sundown to sunup mostly nonstop). I find it incredibly invigorating to be around some of these people because they’re just so alive
  • The ability to be flexible and spontaneous is greatly appreciated. I’m someone who really likes to go with the flow and doesn’t have strong opinions on many decisions, and I find that I vibe incredibly well with people who have ADHD. The spontaneity seems to lend itself well to many of these folks being the shining star or center of a party
  • I never thought of myself as a creative individual because the way creativity is typically framed by society doesn’t match with my particular kind of neurodivergence, but spending time around ADHD people who are so dang creative has helped me to both tap into my own creativity as well as to reframe what I think of as creative

I think it’s best to think of it as an umbrella term much like queer, where it’s just an acknowledgement of the diversity of human life and helping others to understand that you may think, behave, and act a bit differently than most people.

Amazing to see aspec stuff so mainstream, it’s been something I’ve been trying to push at a local level. Putting on and paying a speaker to talk about asexuality this Friday for my work, very excited for that.

Carbon health specializes in urgent but not emergency care. It’s relatively low acuity. I’ve seen gpt4 use cases like this assessed by doctors (read a recent paper on this actually) and when it’s employed in this kinda of fashion most doctors are in favor of it. They have to review it anyways, this doesn’t feel particularly different to them than reviewing what a nurse or scribe was writing up for them (or they were writing themselves) and often the LLM does a better job putting it all into plain English so it’s both patient and doctor readable.

HIPAA law holds everyone who has access to the data accountable. A single violation can be punished by up to 50k in fines and prison time. If multiple records were accessed improperly you can see absolutely outrageous fines and this has happened! It’s perhaps one of the few areas in government that is taken seriously and there’s a lot of tech jobs in security in healthcare because of it.

Hey all. I’ve introduced myself elsewhere so I’ll keep this fairly short, I have a lot of trouble with loosely defined social concepts like gender and romance. More tightly defined ones like social norms I tend to have an easier job with. I also have aphantasia and am generally just a very odd person, which is part of why I like to identify as a bunny.

Transparency on an issue with denied applications
Hey everyone We recently discovered that the end-user experience around denied applications is a bit confusing and perhaps in need of some work. As best as we can tell, if we deny an application there is no notification nor a reason displayed to the person who's been denied. We don't want this experience happening to anyone we deny (it's not particularly nice to ghost people!) and we expect that many of the denied applications are great people who are just in a hurry and not writing enough for us to assess if they're a fit for our ethos, so we wanted to make this post for anyone who tried to register and is confused about what happened or anyone still yet to register. When registering, please answer the questions in full as it helps us to understand if you'd be a good fit here. We created a post in lemmy support to get some [clarification](https://beehaw.org/post/441284) on this issue, but we're not sure how long it will take to resolve or what changes we may need to do to our process.

A few thoughts on Beehaw’s design
We've been fielding a lot of questions about the design and layout of the site, and like the previous philosophy posts, I think it's time again to detail our thoughts and explain why we do some things a bit differently than the rest of Lemmy. This is not a reddit replacement --- This is not and is not meant to be a Reddit replacement. The original community here has decided to carve out a space for itself because we grew increasingly upset with modern social media. Modern social media has become a breeding ground for hate speech, for trolls, and for bad behavior. We don't want to recreate that environment. We want to explicitly make a nice little corner of the internet where we can hide from racist, sexist, ableist, colonialist, homophobic, transphobic, and other forms of hateful speech. We want a space where people encourage each other, are nice to each other, are supportive and exploratory and playful. We think this can incorporate many wonderful features and aspects that made Reddit and other link aggregator and discussion based communities popular on the internet but it is not meant to be a replacement- we are and want to do something different. If you're looking for a straight Reddit replacement you should look elsewhere. If you happen to register on another instance you're still more than welcome to participate in our communities but we will hold you to the standards we're looking for, namely that you're nice when you're participating here. Communities --- We may be the only instance on Lemmy that has community creation restricted to admins. One of the big first discussions we had about communities was whether we should allow porn or certain kinds of NSFW content. In short, legally speaking, this is an incredibly risky move. We're not a VC with a bunch of capital and lawyers on retention and we're not particularly interested in taking on any of that headache. NSFW spaces on the internet inherently break a lot of social norms. I'm not sure the diversity of behavior seen in NSFW spaces can be easily moderated or is particularly compatible with our core ethos - creating an explicitly nice and safe space. If it is compatible, it involves answering a lot of complicated questions about acceptable behavior that I don't think any of us have the time or energy for. Another reason why we've locked down community creation also has to do with creating an explicitly nice and safe space here. One such suggestion we've seen discussed many times since our inception is a space on mental health. As many of you have rightly pointed out, these spaces often invite trouble for a number of reasons. To be perfectly clear we all take mental health very seriously. I've been in and out of therapy my entire life (diagnosed depression in the 3rd grade being my first introduction to mental health) and I'm extremely supportive of destigmatizing mental health. I can't speak for all the admins, but I highly suspect they hold similar opinions on the importance of mental health. None of us are mental health professionals and ultimately if you're seeking mental health care, we highly suggest that you speak with a professional. Communities like mental health often require users to be willing to hold the proper and healthy amount of space for someone to work through a problem (as working through these problems can surface strong emotions) and ultimately become a better person. Unfortunately, this can run counter to the need for members in the community to feel respected, to be treated nicely, and to be safe from feeling any need to carry anyone else's emotional burden. Mental health is often an emotionally charged subject and even though we're all human and want to hold space to allow this kind of healing, a dedicated community would be inviting the need for a lot of moderation to make it successful and compatible with our ethos and guiding principles. Mental health isn't the only community where we might potentially run into the issue of playing nicely with our only rule, to be(e) nice. Sometimes our hesitation comes from how we've seen communities focused on a particular subject play out across the rest of the internet. A few examples of this that you're probably familiar with are incel and men's rights communities (often misogynistic), free speech communities and platforms (often allow a lot of hate speech), and certain kinds of communities focused on taking pictures of humans (often becoming dominated by [thirst traps](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirst_trap)). We don't want our communities falling into any of these traps or creating a non-nice space on Beehaw, so this may be the reason behind a hesitancy towards creating certain highly requested communities. In my experience, small communities on the internet need to reach a level of activity to sustain itself. People are typically not willing to eternally refresh and revisit a website that is not receiving a ton of traffic or populated on a reasonable cadence with content. Small communities remain dormant for a very long time until some kind of viral attention brings enough content to sustain the community on an ongoing basis. This is part of the reason that we have not split out communities such as gaming into tabletop gaming, specific platform gaming, or even genres of gaming. This will likely happen at some point in the future as the example of gaming is a rather popular community but it’s the reason behind our encouragement to post related content in the most appropriate existing community. I personally think that there is a lot of benefit to not getting hyper specific with communities, because too much granularity can lead to people not discovering related content organically (imagine communities only existing at the level of each video game, rather than at the level of platform gaming, video gaming, or gaming as a whole). However, this needs to be balanced against overall activity and the ability to interact with and comment on posts. If a community gets too large and the majority of the community is focused on a particular kind of content (such as just video games in the gaming community), then it warrants splitting the community or creating more granular communities so that people can find the content that they're looking for rather than getting lost in the noise. #### Hitting a character limit, post continued [here](https://beehaw.org/comment/84235).

Any of y’all have a NAS? What’s your setup?
Curious what you've got installed on it. What do you use a lot but took awhile to find? What do you recommend?

Is there a targeted channel for instance owners or the sysadmin side of things?

As an aside, in case anyone reading this knows I saw someone offhand remark that another instance owner helped them set up hetzner volume storage and connect it to their instance (probably for pict-rs) and would very much appreciate a link to a guide or someone to talk to about connecting volume storage

An easy way for instance owners to chat with each other?
Is there a matrix channel or something for instance owners to chat with each other? We've had a small amount of growing pains in the last few days and being able to quickly talk with people running other instances could be useful to crowdsource knowledge. Does such a space exist?

It’s also done purely on college students aged 18-40 in a specific locale. I wouldn’t read into it too much, but it’s an interesting hypothesis.

Casual reminder that you can report content
If you haven't had a chance to review the two posts on the sidebar and can find time to do it, please do. In as short a message as possible, the guiding principle here is to be(e) nice to each other. This is explicitly a safe space for all, a kind space for all, and a nice space for all. If you see behavior that is not nice to you or doesn't seem in line with this ethos, please let us know by hitting the report button! I expect the next few weeks there will be some level of adjustment to all the new activity and that there will be a decent number of people here that just don't fit in well to our community. A little bit of patience and a little bit of help will go a long way to making sure we keep this place a nice little refuge from the rest of the internet.

I’ve always found it weird the push back against looping polyamory under the queer umbrella. Yes, there are some cis straight poly folks out there, but if you’ve ever been poly you’d realize that they too get a lot of identity erasure, face stigma from talking about having multiple partners, etc. Obviously everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but if queer is supposed to represent non cisheteronormative behavior, I think its fair to call monogamy another kind of normative behavior and celebrate diversity in human attraction and relationships.

Some of these laws are absolutely insane. In some of these states they’re trying to make it illegal to get gender affirming care at any age. It’s pure mask-off and it’s fucked up that anyone buys into it or supports it.

Apologies, upon re-reading my comment I see that I didn’t really spend enough time to word this appropriately. Vapes are not harmless. There is absolutely a harm to inhaling any vaporized liquid, or just inhaling hot gas in general. We don’t know the full extent of the harms it causes, but we have a decent amount of knowledge from similar hot inhaled substances to draw some high level conclusions.

I was mostly speaking towards the harm reduction angle and how many places around the world have taken a hard stance on this - banning the substance because it is problematic. It always struck me as rather shortsighted, especially when presented with the alternative, a much more adulterated and toxic substance, still being legal. In general drug prohibitions do not work and I appreciate an article talking about the intricacies of that.

Thanks for this article, it starts out with a strong Scientific background. What I personally found interesting as I started to investigate nicotine vapes a few years back was the lack of solid evidence out there which showed any real harm from nicotine vapes and also how shoddy nearly all the science on how addictive of a substance nicotine was (almost all of it is conducted on cigarettes, failing to control for other chemicals or used outdated animal models of addiction which exaggerate addictive quality).

As we’ve seen throughout the entirety of human history, making substances illegal does not stop people from using them. I’m glad someone has taken the time to investigate this, and I hope we can learn in the future that banning substances doesn’t work. In fact, all the evidence points towards declining usage and increasing safety as drugs are legalized and controlled as they become less adulterated and the taxes can be used for purposes such as fighting addiction.

This is incredibly anecdotal story. It’s one that highlights the experience of one elder doctor and how they don’t like the expansion of a technology they don’t understand and don’t wish to adapt to. There’s countless studies and even metastudies out there about how incredibly useful and important telehealth is. Hell, there’s even reviews of metastudies which highlight how useful this technology is and how abundant we have data to prove its efficacy. The article doesn’t spend any time touching on the other side of the argument. It’s hyperfocused on this one doctor’s opinion of healthcare, and their perception of it. The one patient he focuses on, is exactly the kind of patient for which the kind of telehealth he was practicing (zoom style narrative only telehealth) is not particularly well suited. There’s a reason that there’s telehealth devices which exist to allow the use of a sphygmomanometer, stethoscope, otoscope, and other important checkup tools or are a hybrid telehealth environment where a nurse can do these and report findings to a doctor who’s present virtually.

As an aside I’m not sure what to think of the publication openmind magazine. They’re relatively new and they claim to have a focus on unbiased reporting, but they also claim to be here to address and debunk conspiracies and deceptions and controversies. If this is meant to be a think piece, the lack of addressing the obvious scientific gap between this anecdotally based thinking about a very well established scientific field makes me think twice about whether this is truly out here to be based on fact or whether this actually just a conservative mouthpiece trying to pass itself off as focused on facts.

With all of that being said, I do think there’s an important consideration to be made in healthcare, and one that’s been discussed in extreme depth in the literature - what kinds of care are better for telehealth and which are best for in-person (or at least, what tech would we need for the two to be comparable). There are absolutely important considerations on what specialties and workflows do well in the telehealth field and which ones are not well suited. Emergency and trauma care, for example, are unlikely to have any telehealth components for a long time. Dermatology and mental health, on the other hand, are extremely successful in the telehealth space and were early adopters. There’s also a specific set of skills and a way of approaching diagnosis that are fundamentally different for those people you see in person and those you see via telehealth and if you are not adequately trained on these considerations it makes a lot of sense that you might not work well in between the two mediums.

Every day we stray further from the light… I’m so sick and tired of the middle of this god forsaken country

New version bugs - Language undetermined error, Subscribed/local/all not defaulting
If you haven't set a language in your profile and you try to post, the default option is "undetermined" and anything you try to reply/post will give you the unhelpful error of language_not_allowed. To an end user this doesn't provide any guidance on what happened or how to fix it. Similarly if you haven't set a new default since updating, going to the main page of an instance will show whatever your previously saved option was among the options subscribed, local, all but it will always show all (since that is what it defaults to on your profile).

What is Beehaw? Where we came from and what makes us different
First off, I wanted to say hi to all the new members we've had join in the past month. Thank you for joining us here at Beehaw. A community doesn't exist without its members, and it's exciting watching this instance grow. I've always been a proponent of keeping explanations as simple as possible and allowing discussions to clarify the finer points, but I've noticed that I've been repeating myself a lot recently with the influx of new users and lot of fantastic questions about what we are, what we're doing, and why we're different. This is to be the first post of a series in which I'm going to share my own thoughts on the vision of Beehaw and how I hope it can be brought to fruition. It's also a place for me to share my thoughts on what's wrong with other social media platforms, such as some of the major pitfalls of most moderation systems. To be clear, I don't speak on behalf of everyone who's been involved in starting this instance and I certainly don't speak on behalf of everyone here, so this isn't meant to be a manifesto, or a set of rules etched into stone tablets for you to obey. I will try to frame ideas that I hold through my own eyes (I), and ideas which I believe the establishing community holds through the lens of our eyes (we). # A condensed history of the formation of Beehaw --- The group of users who created Beehaw used to exist on another platform. Many of us came to that platform from many other platforms before it. We were sold on the idea that it was a different platform, where discussion would be encouraged, and things would be different. While the platform was still small, there was a much higher feeling of cohesion and community and users being aggressive or hateful to each other was incredibly rare. When they were mean, it was often over emotionally charged issues and typically resolved itself with apologies or slight changes in who interacted with who. Over time this platform, like many others before it, got infested with a group of people I like to refer to as rationalists. I'm simplifying their mindset to that of the rationalist, because rationalism touts itself as a belief that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge, rather than belief or emotional response, and they often touted such ideals. While I agree that beliefs and emotional responses can get in the way of important work, the kind of rationalist that I take qualms with is someone who doesn't understand that their own beliefs or emotions are clouding their judgement. At times they repeat racist, sexist, or otherwise bigoted narratives because they are not as learned as they think. They often end up causing a lot of harm to minority individuals who already struggle to get society to listen to them because bigoted notions dominate the common narratives found in society. On this platform I attempted to address this emerging problem of rationalism. To be clear I do not view these people as bad people. I simply think they are misled or unintentionally ignorant. When I was younger, I found myself in possession of many of the thoughts they discuss because I was also taught them through the lens of a colonial oppressive system. It took a lot of work to undo some of the brainwashing that I had gone through and to realize the harm that I was causing by 'debating' these issues online. Unfortunately for me my attempts to address this problem on said platform were met with ire by the creator of said website, and I was told in no uncertain terms that I should cease these meta-discussions altogether. That message and that final thread that I had created on the matter lead to a discussion on an informal community for the website where likeminded individuals began to lay the groundwork for what we felt was wrong with this system of moderation and the problems we saw in modern social media platforms. # The spirit of Beehaw --- The issue as I see it with modern social media is the way in which rules are enforced. There are many good reasons to itemize specific behavior which is not allowed, but the downside is that extremely specific rules are easy to maneuver around. We've all experienced someone who's a real jerk on the internet but manages to never get banned because they never explicitly violate any rules. I'm not sexist, they'll claim, but happen to post a lot of articles calling into question modern feminism or criticize the wage gap. I think many people today would agree that someone 'debating' the benefits of phrenology in the open would constitute racist behavior, but there was a time and place in the world where it was considered real science, despite many scientists distancing themselves from this field very early on and critics writing scathing commentaries on this emerging field. This same guise of civility is frequently exercised by bigots, with modern examples of sexism, homophobia and transphobia being easily found on nearly any major social media platform. Humans are pretty good at figuring out when someone is being a dick online, even if they are acting within the defined rules, and one solution to this problem is to recenter humans in our online social platforms. The idea of not having a ton of explicit rules, and instead having simple rules like "Be(e) nice" is a startling one for most, because it upends what we've come to know and expect from the internet. However, by keeping the rules simple and instead attempting to enforce the spirit _behind the rules_, we're able to deal more effectively with problematic individuals and create a space in which you aren't worried about whether you're going to have explain to someone why you're a human and why you shouldn't be subject to incessant bigotry online. # What is (and isn't) Beehaw --- That brings us to the fundamental question of what Beehaw is and isn't. Beehaw is a social media platform. So, we do want you coming here and sharing links to news articles, websites you find, starting discussions, connecting with others, and in general doing what you see on other social media websites. We want you to do this while being nice to each other. If you aren't nice, we'll remind you to be nice. If you continue to be problematic, we'll escalate from there, but it's going to be on a case-by-case basis. If your first reply when we ask you to be nice to each other is to fuck off, I'm going to respond in kind. I also understand that being emotional is a normal part of being a human and that some of us struggle with anger more than others, and I'd like for this to be a community which is open to the idea of reversing actions, such as bans, if you're willing to talk with the community about why you think it should be reversed. Of note, we simply do not tolerate intolerant behavior. Being explicitly racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or bigoted in any other fashion is not tolerated here. But how might one determine when it's okay to be intolerant towards people you _believe_ are being intolerant or who are being intolerant but doing so because they are uneducated or have not spent time deconstructing their own privilege? Many philosophers have written extensively about this subject, and I simply don't have time to write an entire manifesto. In simple terms, I am not advocating for tone policing. I believe that being outraged and angry at people who are destroying our society is a good thing to do. When the supreme court removes protections for abortion, it's okay to be outraged and to take action into your own hands - they have done something intolerant. When someone advocates online that you don't have the right to your own body, it's okay to tell them to fuck off. In fact, I greatly encourage it. This is being intolerant to the intolerant. However, when someone online shares an opinion and it feels like they might be intolerant and you jump to the conclusion that they are intolerant and you launch into a tirade at them, this is not nice behavior. You didn't check if they have the opinion you think they have, and that's simply not nice to someone which you don't know. It gets even more complicated when you consider someone who is sharing an opinion they have which is actively harmful to many individuals in the world, but it's due to their ignorance. I personally believe that so long as this person is not actively spreading this intolerant viewpoint and are **working on themselves to become a better person**, that it would not be particularly productive to launch into a tirade against them. I understand, however, how someone could be quite rude in response to such intolerance and I agree that this person may desperately need to be educated appropriately, but there is no way for that discussion to happen on this platform in a productive manner while lobbing insults at each other. I can understand why, at first brush, some might consider this tone policing. However, I disapprove of the intolerant viewpoint, and I approve of it being corrected, but I also approve of the intolerant person attempting to become a better person. The only way for a platform which is hoping to exist as an explicitly nice place online to avoid taking sides in a situation like this is to withdraw from the quandary entirely. This kind of nuanced political and philosophical discussion is just simply not meant for Beehaw. I'd like to think that I'm aware and learned enough to avoid 'debating' things like phrenology, which are obviously racist, but I'm also smart enough to realize that there's likely some ideas which I've internalized or been taught by a colonialist western society which are _harmful_ to other minorities. I want to be able to learn about how everything I was taught was wrong, and to be corrected, and that space can only exist when we don't let users berate each other over ideas they project on others (whether that projection happens to be correct or not).