The way some diamonds (say a 2 carat round VSS1) refract light is pretty damn spectacular, no other rock or material can match it, so that may be a reason why some people want them.
There are a few other minerals that have both higher refractive index and higher dispersion than diamonds, so they could be used to make more spectacular gems than the diamonds.
However the cheaper of them (e.g. rutile, i.e. titanium dioxide) are not suitable for rings, because they have lower hardness so they would be scratched by dust.
Among those hard enough, moissanite could be used for more spectacular optical effects than diamond, though normally it is used in such a way as to mimic diamond, instead of trying to use its superior optical characteristics, to make it stand out.
As a once H1B holder I can confirm this is actually a common practice not only a FAANGs but pretty much any large and medium size tech corporation in America.
The visa is not the actual problem but the green card promise and process.
It took me 6 years to be "free" and that's considered pretty fast compared to my Indian colleagues many who are still waiting more than a decade later.
One of the teams I work with today is about 90% Indian, most from great schools like CMU, many overqualified for the job they do, all trapped in the green card promise making 1/3 of what they could be making somewhere else.
> ... all trapped in the green card promise making 1/3 of what they could be making somewhere else.
Your colleagues need to find a lawyer, then.
Visa holders don't need to stay employed in the same company to obtain a green card. And if they really are underpaid compared to other coworkers, that's a clear case of visa fraud against the employer.
We already have very good therapies and drugs to successfully treat addiction. The problem is you need to force an addict to seek treatment and once in make sure in completes it, which can takes months and years. This is a monumental task for someone with the resources and caring, supportive family/friends. For someone sick, broke and living alone on the streets is just not possible and psychedelics is not going to change that.
What I meant is that it could potentially help people who are at high risk of getting into addictions, and depending on that addiction, one that could lead to homelessness. And as far as I know, I don't know any therapies/medications that work over a period of 6-48 hours to stop addictions. I have heard of some meth/opiate addicts who, by some luck or connection, had opportunities to try Iboga/Ibogaine, and some completely overcame it, and some relapsed.
I didn't even have any history of doing therapy, but one dose of LSD on my own was enough to completely change my perspective, stop substances, and get me on the path of living healthy. Without it, I probably would've gone down a very dark path few years later; I might not even be alive today.
I’m not sure there’s anything to backup this short time frame. It worked for you and that’s great, but basing your support for something like legalizing all hallucinogens on anecdotal evidence is not ideal.
This would only be possible if you are treated by professionals. An addict whose brain is soaked in nasty chemicals will never voluntarily seek treatment even if it was freely available, let alone come up with a plan by themselves to use psychedelics to sober up.
Growing up in a communist regime I'm all in for democracy and freedom. Having experienced drug addiction while having a graduate degree I also believe regulation of drugs and alcohol is necessary. You think you are in control until that one day when you take it too far. If you don't have a strong support system of relatives and friends and access to good health care, there's no coming back from that hole.
A degree doesn't mean you're somehow less susceptible to addiction. The risk of addiction shouldn't prevent anyone else from choosing what they put in their own body.
>A degree doesn't mean you're somehow less susceptible to addiction
I could see this go either way. There are people who are, somehow, simply unaware of risks and not very interested in learning more. I'd expect at least some effect.
I propose a hearty ban on bad-faith "do you have a source for that" questions directed at negative statements. If this community is to be science-based, it must adopt the position that the null hypothesis is valid until proven otherwise.
There is no good faith in conversation-stopping, impossible asks. It's not up to others to carry your weight in a conversation. They would rather disengage because it's a lot of energy (emotional and otherwise) to hand-hold someone through an entire process of reasoning. Usually tutors are paid top dollar for their time and effort in such situations.
Impossible asks? Asking you why you believe something, a conversation stopper and an impossible ask?
Refusing to explain, or cite, or accusing others of bad faith, those are conversation stoppers.
It is not that anything not proven beyond all doubt has to fall back to assuming a null. There is such a thing as probabilistic arguments, statistics, and bayesian-ish reasoning
Sometimes, people have reasons for making negative statements. It helps to show arguments, instead of immediately launching into bad faith accusations.
There's such a large gap between "why do you believe that" and "do you have a source for that" -- for exactly the reasons you cite about reasoning techniques -- that your points here are entirely irrelevant to the question at hand.
My friend you don't even understand the topic being discussed - these things are not addictive at all, its not your usual drug of communism like tobacco and alcohol which have ruined countless lives and almost nobody gets over them once addicted. Neither are these opiates like heroin or coca extracts like cocaine, which are highly addictive.
The more you take say LSD or mushrooms the less effect they have on you (and this effect is the only reason to take them), and quickly you reach the state when normal dosage basically doesn't work. Also the experience is mentally so taxing the last thing users want after coming down from the trip is to start another one. They are so profound that some processing of experiences is required.
It staggers me how even quite a few regular HN users are clueless about trivial basics of drugs. No wonder politicians can push literally any fearmongering bullshit lies to common population even these days, and they will swallow it all without even questioning it.
With China and India successfully launching space missions a permanent human presence in the moon and possibly Mars is a matter of time, likely happening in the next decade. This is critical for both science and national security, anything from future interplanetary exploration, mining and development/testing of new materials.
People in underdeveloped nations are also unfit. Mexico has chronic obesity among children, among the worst in the entire world. 1/4 of the Brazilian population is obese. Almost all islands in Polynesia, Micronesia and the Caribbean have more than half of their population obese. There's also a lot of anxiety and depression in underdeveloped nations where you have to struggle to get the most basic things like water, electricity and food, deal with crime, gangs, brutal dictators and war. Just because you don't see mass shootings and suicides it doesn't mean people from many of these countries don't deal with extreme levels of stress, anxiety and mental disorders on a daily basis.
