The title.

From my understanding, dopamine is a "feel-good" brain chemical and having too much of it causes psychosis. But if someone had too much of it, wouldn't they be generally happy or at least normal because they feel good? From a chemical standpoint, how can someone have both an overabundance of "happy chemicals" and too little of them at the same time? What am I missing here? I know that depression treatments often try to increase seratonin, but I looked it up and couldn't figure out how it was functionally different than dopamine.

I sort of get it but I sort of don’t.

The investors were right. The Internet changed the world beyond all imagination, and it isn’t even close to done.

They valued it correctly. So what is the problem?

Why does the distinction matter or is it just a verbal placebo?

When cost of goods and services fall, people could buy more with their money which is the opposite of inflation. Why is this bad?

Apparently a lot more people had it in Europe around the 15th/16th/17th centuries, but it's really rare now. Why did more people have that specific delusion back then and what actually caused that type of belief?

So I got a new pair of headphones. They're very clear in sound quality, but what makes the sound?

We all get several per day, and we all hate it, but with the volume of bots out there it seems like we should be getting either zero or 20,000 per day.

So I live in a fairly wealthy area of South Jersey, yet there are multiple stores, sometimes almost entire malls that are closing due to increased rent cost. The store closes, everyone leaves. Then the building/lot stays empty for literally years on end. This is happening all around my area. How is this profitable to the landlords who jack up prices? How are they not hurt but having zero rent coming in now for years from that location? How is it sustainable when entire chains or shopping centers are closing down? What's the plan here???

edit oops! I realized after posting that it was photons and not electrons, but my question is the same. How did they design a detector/detection system with 100% absorption or a test that excludes any foreign particle interactions? How did they exclude any unseen particle interactions that could move the photons as they passed through the slits? The act of observation still requires some form of interaction, does it not? How were they able to exclude variables enough to assume the observation was strictly neutral?

Technology aside, how is it that they become paler than before? I still can't wrap my head around this TT

I'm sure there are a multitude of reasons for the diabetes epidemic in India, but the two I keep hearing about are a diet primarily of rice and wheat, and an increasingly sedentary lifestyle.

If this is the case, how do you explain why diabetes is significantly lower in places like Japan, which also follows a primarily rice- and wheat-based diet and where so much of the population works in offices? Not to mention how much junk food is readily available in Japan.

I recently switched to 10gbs internet and I was remembering how when I got my first place at 18 there was still only dial up and just how far we’ve come in a short time. Are internet ISPs just constantly making new infrastructure or something?

The United States was strong enough to continue developing weapons that evolve real fast, why didn't they make a weapon designed just for tunnel rats to use since the Vietnam war lasted for 20 years anyway?

​

There are an enormous number of possible viruses, bacteria, and other foreign molecules. If the body hasn't encountered a particular one before, how can immune cells have anything capable of recognizing it in the first place?

As above, so below.

This shadowy vaguely human shape is described as a visitor of people who had an episode of sleep paralysis is described so similarly by so many people, it makes it difficult to attribute it to cultural influence. So what's up with my shady scary friend there?

I made a post about considering manufactured homes, one person commented to watch out because they depreciate in value and the land is the key contributor to a property appreciating. I replied saying that it's the same even for stick builds, as in actuality the land appreciates faster than what the structure depreciates. Then I got grilled for what I said and apparently stick build structures by themselves (no land) also appreciate in value and I cannot understand how.

Can someone explain this to me? How can a company realistically expect to never stop making more money. Surely they must realize that it can't go on forever.