im not a bot my pfp has a little mustache

This is why the unrelated donor register was set up, as close relation donors are often not a close match. So, if your own sibling doesn't have matching HLA but some random stranger in another continent DOES give a perfect match this doesn't mean you're secretly from the same place as them - you just have the same HLA type.

So all those people claiming to be 23% Italian actually just have similar HLA types to 23% of the people who submitted their kits from Italy. They themselves may not even be Italian, they just live there and did the kit there.

#I have a suspicion that a lot of people think aotearoa is a lot smaller than it actually is #I think there's a tendency especially for europeans and east-coast americans to think of it as 'a small island off of australia' #which like #it's small compared to australia #but most countries are small compared to australia #aotearoa has a greater area than the entire united kingdom #it also spans about 15° of latitude #which is 50% more than england #and also more than any US state except Alaska

"off of australia" is also a bit misleading; the distance looks small on a map, but that's because your brain is comparing it to the entire pacific ocean on the other side.

(Source: The valley of the Wilkin from Huddleston’s run, 1877, by John Gully)

Tolkien lived during this time in British history, and Lord of the Rings is written with this same nostalgia for English pastoralism. The Shire is an idealized version of pre-industrial England, and many of the themes of Lord of the Rings are rooted in this early 1900s nostalgia for a pre-industrial society. So the fact that Peter Jackson's films merge these two elements is unsurprising. Compare the above painting of the Aotearoa with the following painting of Edoras, and then the film version of it.

(Source: Edoras and the Palace of Meduseld, Alan Lee, 1993)

(Source: Shot from The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, Peter Jackson, 2002)

But there's a downside we unfortunately all could have guessed, too, which is that actual doctors using ai assistance become more careless and lazy at doing it themselves.

https://archive.ph/whVMI

...On the other hand, though, pretty much all medical work has BEEN understaffed, pretty much always, and the staff they have is therefore constantly over-worked, right?

Virtually everyone is overworked in all industries. That's...the original reason we wanted robots.

So I have to wonder, like, is it also possible the human's "20% drop in effectiveness" is just what it looks like when something else can shoulder what was already unhealthy burden? Was the average doctor doing 20% more than the human brain and body was really comfortable handling? Would their personal efficiency have also similarly dropped a bit if they just had more human help, too?

A lot of high control groups use this tactic to isolate their members. It’s absolutely not just evangelizing Christians. New age wellness cults often encourage their members to make outlandish and offensive accusations regarding the mental and physical health of other people or their children, because they know that the backlash their members receive will reinforce the idea that the “mainstream” simply has no room for people who like crystals and essential oils. White supremacist cults will seed the vocabulary of new recruits with Nazi dog whistles that fly over those recruits heads, specifically so that they will get clocked as possible neo-Nazis and shunned by anyone who might offer them another perspective and help them to get out before it’s too late. And a lot of left-leaning political cults strongly encourage members to share their views in the most inflammatory ways possible, and then say “you see? everyone outside of this small circle is evil and cannot be relied on” when, inevitably, that produces bad results.

Sometimes I think that activists fall into these patterns completely accidentally, either because they were raised in culturally Christian evangelical environments and never unpacked it, or else because they just aren’t any good at approaching things in a non-inflammatory way and no one’s shown them how.

…But sometimes, these structures emerge in activist circles because those circles are legitimately becoming high control groups.

I think some things to watch out for especially in this regard are:

Are you being directed to behave in an extremely hostile and alienating way? (even if it’s by someone who you trust!)

Does the group you are in immediately shut down any conversation about the effectiveness of an antagonistic strategy? In particular, do they shut that conversation down using in-group stock phrases?

Is experiencing harsh rejection seen as something of a rite of passage?

Do you receive more validation from the group you are in after you have been rejected by someone outside the group than at any other time?

Have you ever been concerned that the antagonistic strategy you are using hurt someone you cared about, only to be quickly advised by members of the group that that person was toxic and that you should actually completely cut them out of your life?

These to me are all pretty significant red flags about the group in question, whatever the specific thing that brings people together there is. If you start noticing them in a group that you are a part of, be that an in-person activist circle or a Discord server or anything in between, take a step back and seriously consider the possibility that the good thing that you joined is turning into something different, and possibly dangerous.

Ok, I actually want to talk about this for a moment.

Jonestown, one of the most infamous cults in history, with a mass suicide / mass murder that left more than 900 people dead of cyanide poisoning, hundreds of whom were children… was a leftist political cult. That fact is an unambiguous and completely undebatable matter of historical record.

This isn’t a footnote in the story of Jonestown, and it isn’t a weird anti-leftist gotcha either. Jonestown attracted people to their cause with anti-segregation and anti-poverty activist work, and they did actual, meaningful good for those causes. The People’s Temple was a leftist org, unambiguously. They created mutual aid networks for food aid, and rent assistance, and job placement services, and clothing donations, and winter heating. They leaned heavily on the Indianapolis Human Rights Commission in order to push desegregation, and led sit-ins and boycotts and protests. They participated in significant voter registration efforts. They led the fight against the eviction of tenants from San Francisco's International Hotel.

People joined The People’s Temple because it was a good thing when they joined it. They didn’t start out as brainwashed cultists, and they didn’t gravitate towards the leadership of Jim Jones out of masochism, or inherent submissiveness, or a perverse love of creeping authoritarianism. They fell in line under Jim Jones because he’d built a community that was genuinely helping people, and was advancing a political cause that seemed worth fighting. They followed Jim Jones because he earned their trust.

Jim Jones then used the trust and the social capital that he had gained from all of the above in order to elevate himself to the status of a messianic figure, and abuse and profit off of his followers. Slowly but surely, he boiled the frog. It was all good – and then it was mostly good – and then, well there was some abuse, but it wasn’t that bad, and it wasn’t really his fault – and then there was a lot of abuse, but the outside world would destroy them if given the chance, so wasn’t it the lesser of the two evils? And then, eventually, it got so bad that hundreds of people poisoned themselves and their children at his command, and murdered everyone in the compound who refused and resisted.

Your cause of choice is not immune from abusers taking advantage of it!

It doesn’t matter if you’re right. It doesn’t matter if your cause is just. It does not matter if your good thing really is a good thing, because there is always the possibility that it will one day be co-opted by a monster. And if the fact that it started good is enough for you to ignore that gradual, subtle change, you could end up in a truly horrible situation.

One of my best friends in undergrad got sucked into a cult. Years later, we talked about it, and he told me something that I’ll never forget which is, it’s only when you look all the way back at things that they seem crazy. You start off with things that are totally normal and innocuous: “we’re stronger together”; “oppression is bad”; “you can accomplish more if you believe in yourself”; “empathy is important and we should all try to bring more of it into our lives”; etc. Then, you move to something that’s just a little step away from that. And then again. And then again. And then again. But it never feels like a big jump, because it’s not! A -> Z is crazy, but A -> B wasn’t, and B -> C wasn’t, and C -> D wasn’t, and…

This friend was smart, and rational, and independent, and normal, and by the time he and his wife left, they’d gone from just thinking that we should all practice more emotional mindfulness, to being terrified that leaving the cult and the cult leader would literally kill them, via the cult leader having magical powers.

If your only analysis is “Where I started was good, and no single step since then has been crazy” that is utterly insufficient to keep you safe.