Maybe you had trouble re-reading your own comment but I can tell by how you responded here (a cascade of links/references) and a snarky comment ("I can keep going if you'd like") that I'm sure the doctor was glad to be rid of you.
You didn't say the doctor disputed you had a fever. You said the doctor told you the fever wasn't concern until 100.4. Which I'm guessing is your fault for misinterpreting. If you google around, it's very easy to see the fever thresholds.
Here, I'll even paste a summary for you, and I can keep going if you like:
Key Temperature Thresholds
- 100.4°F : The standard definition of a fever.
- 103°F : Contact a healthcare provider
- 104°F : Seek medical attention, particularly if it does not come down with - treatment.
- 105°F : Emergency; seek immediate care.
In one of your own links (clevelandclinic.org), here's an excerpt for you:
When should a fever be treated by a healthcare provider?
In adults, fevers less than 103 degrees F (39.4 degrees C) typically aren’t dangerous and aren’t a cause for concern. If your fever rises above that level, make a call to your healthcare provider for treatment.
A fever is 38c, great. What the parents said was that you may have misheard because a fever isn't serious until 104. Which is line's up with the language you used.
> and they said it's not a concern until...
Parent is not suggesting that a fever isn't at 100F, they're suggesting that it's not "a concern" until 104F, a number strangely similar to 100.4 that you claim you heard, presumably, while you had a fever.
They aren’t objectively incorrect. You are conflating two things:
- You aren’t considered to have a fever until you get to 100.4. Anything less than that isn’t considered a fever, let alone a concerning one
- A fever isn’t considered concerning (ie dangerous) until it reaches about 104. Anything between 100.4 and 104 is just a regular fever and isn’t considered concerning.
This is because "dismantle and replace" (or perhaps in other words, "defunding") is not a serious, viable solution to many of the societal issues we face.
Things were ruined slowly. They unfortunately will need to be fixed very slowly too.
I don't think that's going to work. We need broad political change and then that has to work rapidly to legislate this. I don't think slow and steady has done anything but lead to the decay our institutions over the last 70 years.
I think that both this and GP are misguided. The pace of societal change in a given direction is neither inherently proportional to the pace of change in a different direction (GP) nor is the pace part of the direction (you).
You have to engage with the specific historical events/factors that led to the direction and the pace in order to change either. Broad statements like "society is big so change has to be slow" are just as unwarranted as "slow change results in decline".
There's a correct answer to "how quickly can change in a new direction be achieved". It will probably only become known after the fact. It will certainly not be model-able as a function with variables for "progressive or not" and "speed of change".
My argument is more along the lines of "slow change has resulted in decline observably for the time period I have observed it and we should try catalyzing something else"
I grant that whether that winds up being fast or slow even if the attempt is intended to be fast is out of my or anyone's hands for the most part as the system dampens that barring total collapse and chaos :P
> They unfortunately will need to be fixed very slowly too.
this can work until you hit a crisis point; i think one issue is we are sliding faster in the wrong direction (increasing bureaucracy, increasing fees, wait times, overwork etc) so "slowly" can work but only if its "fast enough" if you get what i mean (people are really suffering out there)
The ambiguity - that this could apply to anyone, that people are so caught up in their belief of choice - is part of the obviousness, at least to me. I would expect more people to be aware of this, than to actually believe that it's talking about, say, Americans in particular.
I do agree that it’s obvious in the way that you describe. But I still think it’s a point worth making—that it could apply to anyone. Because I don’t think that thought is likely to occur to a lot of people, regardless of their particular belief of choice. And that is a problem.
One can’t say that proposition is obvious to the population at large. Else, “we” (as in Earth in 2026) would have very political dynamics. So maybe Banksy felt inclined to do a public service announcement.
The younger generations aren't really that stupid. They know what a DVD is for gosh sake.
They also know the conditions they have to endure - economic, climate, whatever - are not normal or okay. They're well aware of who to blame for those.
The kids are memeing heavily with AI. I don't understand it, but then again, my parents wouldn't have understood rage comics or other memes from back in the day.
Really not sure what GP is referring to - lots of humor still going around - but I can probably guess.
Does anyone else not understand what people mean when they refer to the "friction" supposedly inherent to these power user tools? Almost none of the configs/scripts/etc I use for my heavily-customized and terminal-heavy setup get changed for years at a time.
If you are frequently having to use other computers, a heavily customized setup has much more friction either to setup the machine like you want, or remember how to do things without all the customization (if you can't customize or it isn't worth the time).
When I graduated college I used Dvorak and Emacs on Linux. Six months of having to use shared Windows lab computers extensively beat me down to surrender all of those points - my brain just couldn't handle switching, so I conformed my desktop to match. Then later I switched jobs to a group that was all Unix, but of many varieties most of which only had vi, not Emacs. And so I learned vi. Sometimes minimizing friction means going with the flow.
Arguably NixOS is the most config heavy platform but it solves the pain point of having to reconfigure on different systems. Especially in the LLM era where I can configure Emacs and my OS decoratively.
How do you nixify your Emacs configuration? I've looked into it but at the time the advice was to specify dependencies both in Nix and in .emacs.d, which seemed redundant to me. Is there something like callCabal2Nix for Emacs?
Edit: Or do you mean "declaratively" in the sense of using something like straight.el?
I use a doom emacs overlay that uses pgtk so it works flawlessly on wayland, since I only learned recently that it uses X by default. You can inspect my dotfiles here: [[https://github.com/ArikRahman/dotfiles][ArikRahman/dotfiles: Arik's Dotfiles]]
reply