_dibly

Growing up I was perscribed ritalin, however I stopped taking it within a few months because my middle-school brain was not enjoying the side-effects (mostly drowsiness). Now I'm perscribed Adderall and it works great. It can be annoying because every college student under the sun is taking adderall to cram last minute but it's a different drug when you actually need it to function. For most people Adderall just keeps them awake and hyper-focused so they can do whatever they need to get done, regardless of the hours it takes them. For someone who has ADHD, it really just brings us to what that baseline is for most people.

I can focus on my work all day with no medication if I'm doing something that I find personally interesting. However, when I have a week's worth of online coursework and boring bookkeeping to do it's impossible to get more than 5 minutes done without staring out the window, putting something on in the background, and twiddling my thumbs. I can still buckle down and get work done without it, but it's so much more mentally draining to do a week of work without any medication than if I were just to take what the doctor recommends. YMMV obviously, I just wanted to suggest something for people like me who have been 'proudly' living with ADHD un-medicated.

This was an interesting read but, as an adult with ADHD, all I get out of this is that medication is even more of a benefit to those with real difficulties coping with their ADHD. I've always been one to 'just deal with it' but after a few years of working through school and seeing my younger brothers go through the same thing with medication, I realized that I was essentially just handicapping myself.

Now I take medication in the morning before I get to work and it basically lasts me through the work/school day. When I was younger I was perscribed ritalin, and it just made me sleepy so I stopped taking it. Now I take a more modern medication and it works wonders. The negative stigma against medication really harmed me in school, and I wonder how different things would've been for me if I had started taking an effective medication at 16 and not at 25.

Is it ignorant of me to wonder if the majority of the issues raised in this piece are either portrayed/worded poorly or just not very compelling?

>First, Google has the incentive and ability to favour the adoption of Fitbit over rival wearables on the user side, and to simultaneously undermine the ability of others to offer competing products to insurers and health providers.

I guess the argument is that Google buying Fitbit would mean other non-Apple wearables would be at a disadvantage by nature of there being a first-party alternative, but is that inherently monopolistic or anti-competitive? Isn't that essentially what Google has been attempting to do with Nest or the Pixel phone line?

After multiple reads, I fail to understand what blocking this merger does other than temporarily delay Google from doing what the tech industry is going to continue to do, exploit the ignorance of policy-makers and the general public to harvest and sell our personal information. Does blocking this merger even accomplish anything other than delaying what will be inevitable without legislative action?

E: forgot some words

I mean you're the one who called this independent blog post a 'public crucifixion in front of 7 billion people' but sure, let's make this a "no u" thing.

I mean if you want to go out of your way to portray the company in the best possible light and OP in the worst possible light, sure.

Most people wouldn't consider a multi-million dollar corporation that is beholden to federal regulation their 'friend' though. And if we're continuing your painfully hyperbolic analogy, if said friend kept insisting that they had or were in the process of giving me back my pencil any time I asked them over the course of a year, I would have some grounds to complain.

Oh, my bad. By complain on a small independent forum I really meant 'crucify him in front of seven billion people'. My mistake.

So you're basically saying we should give them the benefit of the doubt on not complying with GDPR because they have a good track record?

It would be one thing if OP was receiving cookie-cutter responses from CloudFlare's support team, but the CEO repeatedly personally intervenes and makes assurances that simply aren't true (and he's already made the same promises in this thread). How can those promises be taken at face value when it's still a problem a year later?

I mean he's had the issue for a year now, and each time you personally say something along the lines of "I'll look into it" or "I've raised that internally" but he waited an entire year before he posted this.

Saying 'sorry, should be fixed now' is kind of unacceptable and more than a little patronizing to the people here.

This just further exemplifies the entire issue with podcast exclusivity deals. At this point, shows like JRE are signing away the independence that typically comes with podcasting.

I wonder how this will change Rogan's show going forward, he might be more gunshy about having Alex Jones on for 5 hours if Spotify can come in at any time and censor his content.