There are still many environments with <=250GB, below that I wouldn't call it negligible. And let's not forget that the price per GB has appreciated a LOT!
They are already de facto inside. Hence the argument to have a vote at least.
They are already paying the price for not being de jure members. (Currency exchange costs, rate hedging is also costly, and they don't benefit from EU unified foreign policy - the current Trump scare for Greenland could come for them too - hence the argument to join.)
which is obviously getting progressively reduced for the things that matter and more things moved to different forms of majority, and for good reasons too because the EU is already dysfunctional enough as is
people whose life is amazing don't go through the process of getting stimulants (or even SSRIs) prescribed to them. psychiatrists know about this. the plan is usually to cycle the meds. is this great and works every time? no. is this better than the alternative? yes.
ADHD is not great. and in many cases it's so bad people die from "not paying attention", and Ritalin (methylphenidate) is visibly helping people avoid those early deaths.
> One should question the rate of which it is diagnosed, and who is getting diagnosed.
The medical consensus after multiple enquiries in the UK has come to:
1. The rate of diagnosis is far too low (the evidence of this being we're catching people as adults who should've been caught as children).
2. Our diagnostic criteria aren't inclusive enough (we have historically missed inattentive presenting ADHD, we have historically missed ADHD presenting in women)
These results are politically unpalatable so the enquiry is I think currently being run for the third time, but signs point to ADHD overdiagnosis being a hoax/fake news/whatever you call it.
The issue is that ADHD is not real in the organic sense. Well, at least the evidence is scant. It's more of a description than a disorder. It's not something one "has."
I like to compare ADHD to racial categorization of people. Race is not real in a biological sense, but it's definitely real in a social sense.
I am probably butchering what I am trying to say so, just read this if you want to understand someone(s) that can communicate eloquently.
The set of symptoms is roughly recognizable and treatment protocols are established. There's some data and bad theories, and informed consent based on all this. (Imagine how informed the patient can be downstream of this!)
So yes, just as with depression, where we have only very crude understanding of how SSRIs work. We have the RCTs, cohort studies, and we know that it's better than placebo.
Some people fight with depression through their whole life. Just as with ADHD.
As with Alzheimer's we are painfully in the dark with regards to etiology, prevention and treatment, but that doesn't mean it's not real.
There's multiple Alzheimer's (there's the early onset familial version, and it has something to do with APOE4 / amyloid, but there's the rest which is a big question mark), it's also not real yet, because the biomarkers we have are almost useless. Still we try what makes sense, and try to help people who are suffering from it. Same as with ADHD.
And just as the heritability of any complex behavior (intelligence and susceptibility to depression) is not a simple thing it doesn't mean it's not real.
> These results are politically unpalatable so the enquiry is I think currently being run for the third time, but signs point to ADHD overdiagnosis being a hoax/fake news/whatever you call it.
And here's one for you: hundreds of thousands of scroungers and workshy young adults are saying they have ADHD to get pip and other perks... Because this is even less of a charade than back pain used to be, you can legit go on holiday with ADHD, they even give people mobility passes in the UK for ADHD, screwing over people in actual wheelchairs who really do suffer in society
One should ask if the benefits outweigh the costs regardless of arbitrary thresholds for diagnosis.
ADHD medications are generally safe, and many objections to their use appear to stem more from normative objections to medicating attention and behaviour than from evidence-based concerns about patient welfare.
My anecdata as a college aged kid on ADHD meds with friends who want a stimulant prescription:
Psychs will put you on an SSRI first, and then atomoxetine (non-stim ADHD med) before prescribing the good stuff.
The kids who want to party and/or study harder don’t take the stuff that doesn’t get you high. The kids that are struggling with basic stuff bear with it, and usually follow up to me with surprise that the non-stimulant is actually helping them.
Of course, we usually do graduate to the good stuff. So I understand the sentiment, and often question my own reliance on the drugs.
The only medication for Premature Ejaculation that exists currently is a megadose of a special SSRI which has a short half life.
If you are a man, SSRIs are very likely to make you last longer in bed, and that is often a very bad thing.
If you are a woman, whatever the SSRI is treating may leave you better off than before, if you found the depression or anxiety to be an obstacle to your satisfaction.
Many people however don't have an effect that makes a meaningful difference.
That subreddit is awful though. It's full of the same energy as health woo communities.
>It's tragic that this time we won't be able to enjoy GTA 6, after we were able to enjoy Gta 5. Damn everyone who invented these destructive drugs.
it's completely ridiculous that some comments are demonizing OP (who actually cares about the outcome that management told them) when anybody who ever sat in a lame corporate meeting knows exactly what bullshit OP does not want to put up with.
there are so many people just phoning it in, or even worse being (both) socially and technically incompetent.
by what OP said we don't know their usual M.O., and just because they said they can and do cut through bullshit in meetings, does not mean that they are not compassionate with the people who are aligned with the outcome that management wants.
simply because OP does not achieve world peace we shouldn't assume they go around sloshing kerosene everywhere and giving out free hand-held sparklers.
...
and probably the reality is much more mundane and boring. usually technical people have absolutely reasonable concerns , yet most of the time they misjudge the cost-benefit ratios.
If that's the case, maybe they shouldn't describe themselves as a hired gun who comes in, does what their boss for that day says, grabs a bag of money and leaves?
I believe that how someone presents themselves tell a lot about them.
and probably the reality is much more mundane and boring. usually technical people have absolutely reasonable concerns , yet most of the time they misjudge the cost-benefit ratios.
Are there "technical people" who will volunteer to refactor an Excel monstersheet instead of suggesting a complete rewrite in whatever framework with an ORM?
For example after an hour of process of elimination it finds the bug, reproduces it, then it recommends a ~1 line fix. Then that's where one should spend their attention budget, and think through the consequences, weighing positives and negatives, and then either asking for a different fix, not merging, or accepting it. This is a lot more productive IMHO.
but let's say friends sending links to group chats (or through direct messages) and you open it, and uh you see you got messages from other people on Instagram, or on Facebook you see that someone had a baby/wedding/whatever, and ...
also I see that people install these limiter apps on their phones, and then just override them many times a day.
and of course if every few days you spend 30 minutes giggling while looking at funny cats/dogs, sure, great. but on bad days you end up doing it for hours and escaping into it, ignoring something else, or using it after stressful meetings to "clear my head" (which becomes a coping mechanism for anxiety)
the problem is obviously (right?) that this happens to everybody. kids are probably more susceptible, but in general we withdrew into our screens and do our flight/fight/fawn/freeze responses online (videogames, outrage porn, porn porn, food porn)
HN is social media only in strictly technical sense of the term.
HN isn't optimized daily for engagement like FB and IG are. There isn't a single image, or video on website. Ads (for YC companies) sometimes show up and are rare. Color scheme-wise it is very plain (and should stay like that). HN is not hidden behind login wall. It is not tracking you. You can access HN fully anonymously, and create throwaway accounts for posting.
there's no need to "optimize" it already has the basic loop. stochastic reward (interesting news, interesting comments/replies), gamification (points go up!), and no real social interaction. (no connection, some performative elements, ie. comments are written not just to one known person or a small group of people you know.)
the things you mention all exploit this loop for monetization. I agree it's great that HN is not, but that doesn't mean it won't tickle our brains.
Sure you can. Click a user, see their comments, submissions.
I would say hn is in a group of systems that include Facebook.
It's true that contemporary commercial social media tends to be associated with these big corporate services that have already been thoroughly enshittified.
But they didn't start out that way - and alternatives are possible and desirable (hn, lobste.rs, many niche forums, IRC channels, discord servers[d] etc are proofs by example).
Maybe a loose definition would be communication system that leverage the network effect?
And good social media aligns with the end-user, and bad aligns with user-hostile forces?
[d]: (I don't particularly like discord, but it is much closer to a tool that does what I want: connect with people - than something like tick-tock or Facebook as it exists today)
