Ross_audio

When fusion or fission occurs you get new atoms.

It's Hydrogen that's existed since the universe cooled enough for electrons and protons to make atoms. Seconds after the big bang.

That's most hydrogen.

It's never been fused into heavier elements just still sticking around and caught in the planetary part of the solar system rather than the sun itself. Or any previous suns.

There's some helium like that but most helium was formed inside suns later, and heavier elements all formed later in suns or supernovas.

But the SEO garbage sites active up to 2023 have updated since 2023 to keep up with each other.

So it works really well.

VLC

Exceptions are possible. Money isn't everything for everyone.

If you look at the graph, 0GW.

It's unlikely that the batteries stored power for several days. Highly likely that abundance of solar is the source.

"On 31 December 2009, rather than being fully privatised, the mint ceased to be an executive agency and its assets were vested in a limited company, Royal Mint Ltd. The owner of the new company became The Royal Mint trading fund, which itself continued to be owned by HM Treasury. As its sole shareholder, the mint pays an annual dividend of £4 million to the Treasury, with the remaining profits being reinvested into the mint.[58] In 2015, Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne announced a £20 billion privatisation drive to raise funds, with the Royal Mint being up for sale alongside other institutions including the Met Office and Companies House.[55]"

"Then in 2016, the mint announced plans for Royal Mint Gold (RMG), a digital gold currency that uses blockchain to trade and invest in gold. Operated by CME Group, the technology is to be[out of date?] created by technology companies AlphaPoint and BitGo.[69]"

Bring it back into public ownership. It's been partially privatised and the vultures are extracting what they can.

It's not completely nonsensical for the government to lose a small margy on making currency. It's useful and the harder it is to counterfeit the better.

But both "New Labour" and the Conservatives have a lot to answer for when it comes to our national assets being lost.

It's based on Hamlet. So Shakespeare, not the bible.

Is the internet scarier?

Or is it just millennials and "internet natives" having kids and more of them knowing better what the internet actually is.

I tell people to imagine a public place with everyone in it, the majority wearing masks or costumes. With constantly recording surveillance. Do you take off your mask.

Sure the mask is not perfect protection, and there are areas off to the side where people seem to not be wearing masks. But go ahead and choose a way to keep your kids safe.

If they cite one of the few things Freud is right about, it might not be awful. But better to cite the person who actually has a peer reviewed paper and proved it. Probably a red flag they they haven't studied properly I'd it's not buried under copious other citation.

Anyone with a main citation from Freud these days is a century behind.

People have the option of bashing their head against a wall as a patient. Someone should probably try to stop them doing that. Therapists especially. Quacks won't and that's the problem.

It's amazing you're concerned about a country with decent peer reviewed journals "biasing" articles and not the quacks who still cite Freud

The point is is anyone has a use for psychology they should pick someone alive to listen to instead of Freud.

Because it doesn't matter if he got some things right when he got lost things wrong.

But I'm glad we at least agree no one should be using what he says as medicine.

Please read the articles on Wikipedia yourself, they'll be a good starting point for you as they're usually very balanced. Unlike the other material you've read.

You're just being silly now. Urban designers do not have patients.

Victorian is a description of the time period. It is factually accurate. If you want to infer something else from the word Victorian then I can't stop you but you'll be wrong.

"Victorian engineering", "Victorian Science" and "Victorian medicine" will definitely have different connotations.

"Victorian science" has the connotation that, unlike say Darwin, it's not considered part of the modern consensus.

You should not learn Victorian science or medicine in the modern day outside of a history class.

Evidence based medicine that relies on evidence even 50 years old should be re-examined. Let alone 130.

From the article you posted.

"For example, meta-analyses in 2012 and 2013 came to the conclusion that there is little support or evidence for the efficacy of psychoanalytic therapy, thus further research is needed"

"In 2017, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials found psychodynamic therapy to be as efficacious as other therapies, including cognitive behavioral therapy"

So low to no effectiveness, trying to reach a low bar of another "treatment" which is in question.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy#Criticisms

The fact is Freud is right except in the majority of what he's said and done.

Well a lot of us went emo or goth, so black?

But then the skaters just went baggy, lots of girls went baby pink and hello kitty.

Every group had their own shape of jeans, we wore shirts on top of shirts.

A lot of it was just the cheapest stuff that could be made in the colours no one hated and it's not gone away since.

But it feels like every shirt had a logo or picture on so I'd say "graphics" was the colour of the 2000s.

Mental health is health.

If you're practicing medicine and are not medically trained or supervised by someone medically trained you're in the same bracket as quacks.

Quacks who read Freud and implement his Victorian ideas when we know them to be false are a problem.

That's why it's important to discredit old ideas, whoever they're from.

Old mistaken ideas in science are the most credible and often the most harmful pseudoscience.

Freud shouldn't be studied outside of a history class these days.

Ideas of his which have survived scrutiny will still exist. He may get passing mentions. But he really needs to be out of focus in the academic and public perception of the subject.

In general an unsupervised psychologist is not a good thing. Those capable of becoming or having their practice enforced by a psychiatrist have a place.

Those still practicing psychoanalysis with no medical training do not. Especially if they don't recognise that Freud was more often wrong than right.

Psychologists who are academic only are the ones discrediting Freud, or they're peer reviewed and told their wrong themselves.

Mental health has a huge problem with lack of professionalism and regulation in practice.