Hey pepper, about your TA comment:
Sorry to hear that (I've been a TA and it goes both ways sometimes). Unfortunately, at most schools, TA's are grad students who don't get a lot of training in teaching in general, get a lot of grief from their boss about getting research/work done, and are told that TAing is just something you do to get paid while you focus on research/work and take the classes that you need to take. Sometimes TA's are jerks and take all their stresses and problems out on students (which I tried not to do).
I can see that. The thing that bothers me most about some of the more authoritarian TA's is how they treat students as if their still high school adolescents instead of adults with good intellectual and reasoning powers.
Being about 5 years older than the standard student in my classes makes me feel the effect even moreso. I've worked in a lab, I have articles published, lots of life experience in an adult world, but in a 2nd year lab I'm considered a 'know-nothing'. The pedagogy gets to me the most.
This is exactly why I decided to quit using them. Stimulants make every day life extremely boring when you have no interest or motivation to do anything. Then the remedy is of course to take stimulants again, and life feels fine. Stimulants are nasty and change my personality in a negative way under the influence, since stimulants give a huge ego-boost. I clearly notice that messages written on this forum under the influence of stimulants are different from those written while being sober. The high on stimulants is not like the high on other drugs, since your mind is very clear and you can do every day tasks like being at work or eating dinner with relatives. You don't really feel intoxicated at all, rather you feel like you actually function better than sober. Which obviously isn't true.
I would lie if I'd say the aren't good for functionality, when you're tired after work but have to do something you don't want. For example showeling huge amounts of snow or mow the lawn. But those are things that just belong to every day life and has to be done, you shouldn't have to take stimulants to get things done. They are an easy fix for people like me who are a bit lazy at times.
One thing I've noticed about myself on stimulants. I'm a lot more motivated, and I'm certainly less willing to let things slide; if I feel infringed upon, I get
pissed and put up a hard fight (verbally, intellectually). My TA altercation was partly amphetamine fueled, the pedagogy just provided the spark required.
That ego-boost is a double edge sword. I stutter less on amps, I'm more confident, I'm more inclined to be an arrogant ass-hole, but I stutter less and I'm more confident.
In my opinion, there is little point in spreading humanity's collective resources thinly but evenly over all its members. Maybe it sounds cruel, but I might as well be honest -- I'd rather let some people starve so that others can live sumptuously, than force everyone into a just mediocrity out of compassion. You can either have compassion for the poor, or compassion for the wealthy.
Of course there are some levels of obscene wealth that I would consider abhorrent. Everything within reason.
It's funny, that theory of 'there is no fate but what we make'. Should lazy people be given the same money as those who work hard? No. And as you say, exorbitant wealth of billionaires isn't completely right either.
Some people are dealt a shitty hand in life and don't have the opportunity to go to college and work hard due to poor upbringing. I understand that completely, it's a cycle. People born into shitty circumstances don't have the same perspective and opportunities as the more lucky ones. Although, some look beyond and manage to gain that perspective and see what hard work can do for them.
Funny thing happened in a metabolism lecture of mine; the prof was mentioning some very rare metabolic diseases that are genetically based (enzyme or transporter deficiencies usually), he was saying about how because they're rare they don't get the funding to look for cures for such diseases, but people still die from them and cures need to be found, so money should still be put into super-rare diseases. A guy sitting behind me (quietly talking to his friend), said "Oh come on, what about evolution? Someone with a genetic deficiency is supposed to die. Their continued life keeps the genetic deficiency in the gene pool."
I'd have to say I agree with that train of thought, but I wouldn't if I had the genetic deficiency. Should the genetically deficient be allowed to die for the sake of financial savings and health of the overall gene pool? There's a thinker. Evolution sais yes.
Wow! I am looking out my window right now at some magnificent rains! (Excuse my excitement, I live in a desert.) It's really pouring. I am assuming you are enjoying (or detesting) the same weather, Never.
I can't say I've ever heard of someone excited about rain as if it's an uncommon thing. That just sounded funny to me.
Would snow fry your circuits?
^
Enjoy the rain. It's raining here too, but it's dark and the nights are still mostly sub-zero °C so it'll probably turn into rain and snow mixed or snow later. Then it melts tomorrow morning again.
The days are getting longer here and were getting a huge warm front coming in. It's a balmy 15C and going into the 20's this week, sunny the whole time. Pretty damn nice weather for mid-March.
![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
