nonce42

By the way, the author of the article is also the writer of the McMansion Hell blog.

I agree. The sudden influence of the separatist movement does match what that book (Foundations of Geopolitics) says: "Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States and Canada to fuel instability and separatism" (quote from Wikipedia). I don't want to be a conspiracy nut, but I have to wonder how many separatist and protest movements are unknowingly getting external support to produce geopolitical disorder.

Agree on the Donor Advised Fund (I use Fidelity). If you have highly-appreciated stock, you definitely should look into a DAF. Another benefit is that it is extremely easy to donate to a charity; click and submit and you don't have to worry about paperwork and putting each donation down on your taxes.

A similar paradox applies to interpersonal relationships: in many cases, if you try to reduce someone's workload, they will take on more tasks and end up where they started. E.g. Wife: "I'm too busy; you need to do more". Husband: cleans more. Wife: takes on the PTA fundraising auction. "I'm too busy; you need to do more."

Midazolam/Versed sedation seems pretty close to a p-zombie. You can have someone who seems completely awake, walking around and interacting normally, but if you ask them later they were completely unconscious from their own perspective. So self-reported consciousness isn't always accurate. And it also seems that consciousness is very closely tied to memory.

(I'm not arguing a particular position, but trying to figure out what to make of this. Also, this is based on what I've read, not personal experience.)

What I find interesting is that this seems to be an obscure philosophical thought experiment, but it's actually highly political and turns up all the time on, say, Twitter. Specifically, how do you compare "factual knowledge" and "lived experience", and which is more important, and who is the "expert" on things.

To make this concrete, consider expertise on England. Suppose Prof. Smith has never been to England, but has studied it in detail for decades. And suppose Mr. Chav has grown up in England, but is uneducated and isn't even sure who is the Prime Minister. Who is "allowed" to talk about England? Smith, who knows all the facts, or Chav who lives there and knows what it's like? Can Smith tell Chav that he's wrong about England, or does Chav's lived experience matter? (I'm using England as a less controversial example, but this usually happens in discussions of race or gender.)

I had no problem getting my colonoscopy without drugs, and I recommend considering this route. It's very cool to see what's going on—how often do you get to see your appendix? Discomfort was minimal; I get more pain from my abdominal workout at the gym. (Although I suspect my doctor was unusually good.) For the most part, it was kind of like watching a procedure on TV, with occasional reminders that I was the subject: "You're watching in Cramp-O-Vision!" It was nice to have zero recovery time and drive home.