They still need to send their orders to an exchange, which is often done with FIX protocol over TCP (some exchanges have binary protocols which are faster than FIX, but the ones I'm aware of still use TCP)
Weird to be wondering if men are to blame here when women are typically the ones who have the final say as to when and with whom they decide to settle down and have kids with. Personally I think it is a combination of couples not wanting to have kids for a variety of reasons (not wanting to sacrifice their quality of life, lack of economic security, anxieties about the future), women delaying childbirth for longer to focus on education and career (and possibly waiting too long and not being able to have children by the time they are ready), women becoming pickier with who they choose to date and marry with the reality of hypergamy (women with higher educational and career attainment typically want to date men who are at least as successful as they are, and women are increasingly outperforming men in education and career these days). I'm sure men have some blame in this too, but most single men I know would prefer to not be single, but can't seem to find anyone interested.
I didn't say it was men. Unfortunately I haven't seen any studies looking at if women have also had a decrease in testosterone levels. Like I said though, it could be another hormone.
Sure, we can find plenty of excuses...but to say that people don't want to have children anymore is like saying they don't want to have sex anymore - which seems to be happening more and more as well. Teenagers are having less sex than ever, in a time where knowledge about sex and birth control is at an all time high. I think something is screwy.
> There is a complete lack of empathy toward those affected by the consequences of hoarding (family etc)
> The hoarders I've met tend to be very intelligent and manipulative (and verbally abusive) if they suspect someone is going to try impress change upon them. (A situation they perceive to not be in control).
I'm sorry, but this is just a horrible way to characterize a group of people with clear mental health issues. The reason extreme hoarders are extreme hoarders is probably because their drive to hoard stuff is stronger than literally every other emotion they have, including any empathy they have for those affected. Maybe the hoarder you know is manipulative and has low empathy, but the hoarder I knew was very empathetic and not a manipulative person. She had a ton of shame about it and refused to talk about it or address it.
Hoarding does have extremes and a multitude of rationalizations. I have several hoarders (I am the oddball thank god) in my family and the rationalizations are across the board from the “saver of past relics” to “the gatherer of all matter” to “the engineer hoarder of tools and hardware”. At the core, they do seem to be related to a sense of insecurity either about oneself or about the stuff being “wasted” and them being the “rescuer”.
If we were to judge by the historical standards of human life, to the intuitive human brain, it all seems wasted. Everything was scarcer back then. A cereal box? Don't waste it, you don't know when your handmade clay bowl will crack. (Not an exactly apt example, but I think you got the point.)
As an adult child of alcohol and drug addicted parents, I can say that the interplay of empathy and anger for a parent with a destructive mental illness is a pretty complicated and personal thing.
That's fair, I'm not saying it's their daily persona. It is what happens when family try to intervene. I agree it may not be the same for every individual
> There is a belief that if they are just persistent enough, their target will see their attempts as affection and fall head over heals for them.
Depends on the kind of stalker. I think you get these delusional obsessive people, but you also get abusive exes who stalk their ex to keep them from moving on or try to scare and intimidate and sometimes assault or kill their new partners.
CBT-I worked for me. The key for this to work (as with all CBT) is to actually do the exercises given and not just read it/try to do it in your head. Good luck.
I mean, if you're focused on reading all the terrible things going on in the world all the time, you aren't actually living in reality. You're living in a reality created by journalists whose job is to get you to click on their articles - usually by reporting the most depressing or terrifying news with a strongly negative bias.
Or just continue raising interest rates. At least where I live, the majority of the excess demand during the pandemic came from investors. It was easy to leverage up and buy more houses using home equity loans while interest rates were low and home prices were appreciating rapidly. Higher interest rates should in theory pop all of these asset bubbles we're seeing.
I agree with your last point on growing wealth inequality and lack of upward mobility, but I would say the global financial crisis and pandemic are notable because of the severity and consequences of each event. I don't blame gen Z and millenials (of which I am one) for wondering what global catastrophe is lurking around the next corner and changing their behavior in anticipation of it.
Definitely not the same. I feel when you dream you feel some time has passed. I've lost consciousness a number of times for different reasons and the common feeling is it doesn't feel like any time has passed. One moment I was awake and the very next I'm on the ground, my head hurts and have no idea what is going on.. for the first 30 seconds I wouldn't be able to tell you my name, where I am, what I was doing, etc. Then it all just comes back after a minute or two and you realize what happened.
I am not an expert in philosophy by any stretch so feel free to poke holes in what I'm about to say, but I somewhat agree with the author's points here, assuming we take nihilism to mean "to both believe and feel nothing has meaning". I think the author may have the causation in the first point backwards though. To truly feel like nothing has any meaning, I think you must first be quite miserable - I doubt anyone first chooses nihilism and then becomes miserable because of that choice. Imagine all of your relationships, your career and all of the other things people usually care about feel meaningless - you would probably be miserable and depressed. It is one thing to believe that life is objectively devoid of meaning. It is a different thing to subjectively feel that nothing in life has meaning.
If you accept that a true nihilist has to be depressed, I would agree that the third point follows. Acknowledging a depressed individual's viewpoint that it is okay to feel everything is meaningless - that this viewpoint is not indicative of a mental health issue that should be addressed - would probably erode societies ability to improve the lives of depressed individuals (assuming improvement means they suffer less).
As to whether other people's suffering matters to you or not, I suppose that depends on the individual. The author seems to think it is not ok for people to suffer, but obviously not everyone would agree with them here.
I define a nihilist as someone who believes that nothing has objective meaning. The universe, relationships, and suffering have no objective meaning; in a few years anyone who remembered any of it will be dead, and its cause-and-effect consequences will be recursively finite.
I wrestled with this in my undergrad, which plunged me into a depression that I had never known before. This was doubly troublesome for me because I had previously believed that God existed and had a plan for my life– some kind of universal determinism, destiny, or fate. Going from that mental model of the universe, to one in which the universe is random, cold, uncaring, and devoid of meaning is quite a shock to the mental health.
My happiness came back significantly once I discovered Existentialism, which the author seems to dislike. Existentialism is the belief that while there is no objective meaning to the universe, there is a subjective meaning. I can love my wife, enjoy my job, and enjoy a few brews with my buddies. All of those matter to me, and they don't have to have universal significance. They don't have to have objective meaning. Hell, people might not even be truly conscious or free anyway. It's not going to stop me from having a good time and loving life.
The author makes broad assertions with very little explanation and few references to back them up. I'm still not convinced nihilism makes you miserable and ineffective. I'm still not convinced that that wouldn't be ok from an objective standpoint (although I'd have a problem with it, subjectively). I'm not convinced that it erodes our culture's ability to tackle problems or change people for the better (in fact, maybe it's the first step). And even if it did, who is to say that isn't okay? Obviously those who lose out will not like it (subjective meaning). But there is no objective meaning to any of this. It's random, inconsequential, cause-and-effect bullshit from top to bottom. Who says it means anything at all?
But if it means something to you, then that's great.
