>What do you think happened with the Golf 3 engine design? They made the camshaft structurally weaker, so the engine will blow up more easily.
Wow, talk about an oversimplification. The Mk3 moved from an 8-valve to a 16-valve engine; yes, this adds more valvetrain failure modes but also brings myriad other benefits, increased power, better fuel economy, reduced emissions…
The idea that a carmaker would purposely engineer flaws into core engine components in order to drive future sales doesn’t make much sense.
> The idea that a carmaker would purposely engineer flaws into core engine components in order to drive future sales doesn’t make much sense.
There is a legend that Mercedes 190D was built like a tank and this caused customers to not buy the next iteration. Mercedes solved this, making cars a bit unreliable.
>The idea that a carmaker would purposely engineer flaws into core engine components in order to drive future sales doesn’t make much sense.
You need to realize modern business revolves not around one-and-done, but around recurring revenue streams. To the "business minded" the only thing that doesn't make sense is leaving money on the table.
Selling people grenading engines is not a great way to build recurring revenue streams. And building performant, efficient, and reliable engines is hard enough without intentional sabotage
Nevertheless, as long as everyone else optimizes to the same metrics (minimized Bill of Materials, and building for assembly, not service), it may not be great, but it undeniably works.
Shift+Win/Option+-. And holding - gives you en/em dash on iOS and Android. Personally I love using em dashes so this whole AI thing is a real disaster for me.
I don’t want to discount your experience, but attributing a lifetime of symptoms to 5 doses of SSRIs (when you were already exhibiting an unstable mental state) seems extreme.
We know SSRI's really do cause permanent sexual dysfunctional in a small minority of people, small enough that this side effect doesn't come up in traditional FDA tests.
If a side effect is extremely rare it would be impossible or at least impractical to prove in a population.
Grandparent could be right or wrong about how the drug affected them, maybe their brain suffered from other issues and the timing of the medications was purelycoincidental, but if they are correct, your dismissive response is exactly what we'd expect given when they are saying sounds unusual/ improbable.
> If a side effect is extremely rare it would be impossible or at least impractical to prove in a population.
This is also true for a non-existent side effect. I’m not trying to tell GP he is wrong, just that from a reader’s perspective, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
This isn't a good fit for the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Grandparent's report is hard to verify, not extraordinary.
These drugs are approved based on statistical safety profiles in limited trial populations, not on a scientific consensus that absolutely nobody on Earth will ever experience a unique adverse reaction.
Also, I never said that you, the reader, had an obligation to change your worldview based on Grandparent's report.
Millions of people take SSRIs on a daily basis without these dramatic symptoms. Millions more tried them (for much longer periods than 5 days) and then desisted from treatment without major lifelong mental alterations. So yes, I would say GP’s experience is ‘extraordinary’, i.e., outside of the ordinary expectation
How did you determine that "Millions more tried them... and then desisted from treatment without major lifelong mental alterations"?
Someone literally just told you this happened to them, and your reaction was "I don't believe you," followed by a confident statistic you apparently invented.
Do you think if one person in a million took a drug and had their emotional system altered, a siren would go off? That the TV would be interrupted by an all-seeing oracle declaring a medical anomaly?
If a rare side effect occurs, it looks exactly like this: scattered individuals complaining on the internet.
You're misapplying the Carl Sagan popularized aphorism "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and apparently think the meaning of an aphorism can be determined by looking up one of the keywords in the dictionary, rather than, say, the Wikipedia article on the aphorism itself.
> How did you determine that "Millions more tried them... and then desisted from treatment without major lifelong mental alterations"?
We have lots of public data on SSRI usage (20+ million in the US alone each year) and discontinuation rates. The drugs themselves are decades old and have been through countless trials and studies, and of course there are databases like FAERS that track reports of adverse drug reactions.
Is your assertion that this is false? That in fact the typical SSRI patient is mentally/emotionally crippled by the drug? Doctors and public health agencies are hiding a public health catastrophe to sell genericized pills that cost tens of dollars a month?
Of course severe side effects can and do happen. Doesn’t mean every bad thing that happens to a person who happened to take SSRIs for a few days should be taken as a big cautionary tale.
I asked you how you determined "Millions more tried them... and then desisted from treatment without major lifelong mental alterations"?"
I took that to mean you were confident 0 out of several million people had lifelong alterations.
Any other interpretation of what you meant would suggest you are not responding to anything I wrote and simply writing non sequitors.
It seems to me you said something indefensible (0 out of 1 million people had permanent damage, there is no possibility you have data to show this) and are now trying to change the subject to something less insane (the typical patient has no permanent harm?)
Since PSSD wasn't recognized until 2019 I know you are full of hot air in suggesting if these drugs caused unusual problems we'd know about it by now:
Disclaimer: no affiliation, and in early development
DCFlight is a new Flutter framework from solo (!) dev Tahiru Agbanwa (https://x.com/squirelBoy360) that uses a React Native-like virtual DOM and Yoga layout engine to replace Flutter's widget tree, rendering UI from native widgets without the use of platform views.
It provides a set of primitive components, a plugin architecture using method channels to write your own native components, and an escape hatch to use traditional Flutter widgets within the DCFlight architecture.
This is an odd perspective to me. I'm an atheist because I don't find the truth claims of theistic religions convincing. Whether or not the centralized structure of modern religion is problematic is tangential to that
Centralized religious authority has prevented religions from evolving or being replaced by new ones. They haven't gracefully let go of their beliefs about the universe we now know are false.
Yeah, this is like keeping a sound system equalized for one album and asserting that modern mastering is always badly equalized. Tune the system to the standard, and adjust for the oddball until it's remastered.
I'm not a fan of extreme compression and limiting, but doing so in a multiband fashion (as occurs due the loudness war) actually does result in more consistent EQ from album to album, label to label, genre to genre, etc. which virtually eliminates the need to adjust EQ at playback time between each post-war selection.
Sure you can find some issues if you look at it hard enough. In the real world scenario, it's very possible to ship a performant, functional app in Flutter and has been for some time now. It also brings some of the best development experiences with Dart, consistent declarative paradigm & hot reload. Like all things, it's a trade off, for me it's very hard to merit maintaining 2x native apps.
There are many, many people out there shipping Flutter apps, and many, many users using those apps. So please stop the hate maybe?
This seems like a pretty defensive comment in response to pointing out some objective flaws in Flutter. It’s fine to admit it’s a trade off, but a trade off necessarily means there are some downsides.
Flutter apps on iOS just do not feel native, that’s a fact. It doesn’t mean you’re a bad person for using Flutter.
It's not a fact, it's the opinion of a rather small group of elitist iOS super users. Native is an utterly overrated concept these days and in no way the solution to build an app with good UX. Users don't care whether you use SwiftUI, Components or Widgets. Users don't even know what a native app is. Stop acting like it's the only true holy way.
I’m curious to hear where you think this is a showstopper. I’ve been testing some Flutter apps lately and other than some mismatches in platform UI elements they have been smooth. I wonder what you would think of apps like Kagi News.
I don’t mean to say it’s a showstopper, but it is certainly noticeable to anyone accustomed to using iOS devices. I suspect the situation on Android is better where Google has access to the native platform code.
Flutter has a secondary problem which is (IMO) a dearth of well-made libraries and showcase apps. Most everything feels half-baked.
The Kagi News app, which I have just installed, doesn’t seem to fall into this category. But like most Flutter apps the fully Material design makes it feel very out of place on iOS. Flutter typography is still broken, with characters tracked out way too far. And the scrolling and touch interaction feels, well, Flutter-y. It’s inherent to the platform
Partially, yes? I don’t
see that as particularly controversial at this point. We are beyond consensus manufacturing and into explicit governmental crackdowns on anti-Israel voices in the US.
Wow, talk about an oversimplification. The Mk3 moved from an 8-valve to a 16-valve engine; yes, this adds more valvetrain failure modes but also brings myriad other benefits, increased power, better fuel economy, reduced emissions…
The idea that a carmaker would purposely engineer flaws into core engine components in order to drive future sales doesn’t make much sense.
reply