Recent comments in /f/science

ncktckr t1_jb6e0ca wrote

Depression isn't a little switch you turn on and off, at least not clinical depression which is what I presume the study is talking about. You may mean the colloquial-used "depression" aka situational/reactive depression that many use to mean "really sad for a while" but it's not the same.

See this article from UC Berkeley for an explainer. Here are some quotes:

> Clinical depression is a serious medical illness that negatively affects how you feel, the way you think and how you act. Individuals with clinical depression are unable to function as they used to. Often they have lost interest in activities that were once enjoyable to them, and feel sad and hopeless for extended periods of time. Clinical depression is not the same as feeling sad or depressed for a few days and then feeling better. It can affect your body, mood, thoughts, and behavior. It can change your eating habits, how you feel and think, your ability to work and study, and how you interact with people.

> Clinically depressed people cannot "pull themselves together" and get better. In fact, clinical depression often interferes with a person's ability or wish to get help. Clinical depression is a serious illness that lasts for weeks, months and sometimes years. It may even influence someone to contemplate or attempt suicide.

> Feeling sad and depressed is often a normal reaction to a stressful life situation. For example, it is normal to feel down after a major disappointment, or to have trouble sleeping or eating after a difficult relationship break-up. Usually, within a few days, perhaps after talking to a friend, we start to feel like ourselves again. Clinical depression is very different. It involves a noticeable change in functioning that persists for two weeks or longer.

9

IamPurgamentum t1_jb6dwx8 wrote

Does that not follow though? I mean, you would expect it to be exponential. My point is more that there is still a huge amount of time in between now and then. That's without getting to the 'how did they do all these things and what's their purpose' bit.

It seems logical that there would be more advances even back then.

The sumarians who came before the Egyptians were also quite advanced, and again you're talking about 1000s of years between the two civilisations.

It just seems strange to me.

−6

distortionwarrior t1_jb6arqe wrote

What you're saying is that you want people to completely blow up their lives and cities so they can take up your hobby of bike riding, whether it works for them or not. As with all conversations like this, I say you can do whatever you want up to the point that your freedoms do not take away other people's freedoms. You can be a gun owner, you can be a bike owner, you can be a presbyterian, you can be a vegan, but don't force any of that on anyone else. You are free to ride your bike and set up your life in any way you like, but where I live, it doesn't work for me or my city, and the juice just isn't worth the squeeze. Childcare is horribly expensive and waiting lines are months or years long, jobs are far away, housing in the city is small and horribly expensive, and the government should not be in the business of taking away thousands of our very limited parking spots so some people can have the privilege of riding their bike on the main road instead of one block in either parallel direction.

−1