eatitraw

Yes, ChatGPT is a more general-purpose and more useful tool!

> I call it a "bullshit generator" because it generates output "with indifference to the truth".

Seems unnecessary harsh. ChatGPT is a useful tool even if limited.

GNU grep also generates output ”with indifference to the truth”. Should I call grep a “bullshit generator” too?

Quantity has a quality of its own. I am proud of 80%+ of the posts I produced — and I wouldn't produce them otherwise.

I have internal resistance to giving some service my Github info without understanding how it works and what it does to it.

6 months is a reasonable cutoff for a screening tool because it allows for changes in the environment. E.g. you might cope well in high school, but you move to university and suddenly your old strategies don't work anymore and your life is falling apart.

For the full assessment with a psychiatrist, they do look at one's entire life history.

It could very well be ADHD. Depression is certainly another possibility, but if your symptoms are more or less consistent throughout life, then it makes ADHD much more likely.

It's definitely a bit tricky. Depression can cause problems with attention. But also: ADHD people have depression at much higher rate.

> When I was young I used to look at the watch compulsively to check what time it is and I never went late to an appointment.

Lots of ADHDers come up with all sorts of coping mechanisms. It's one of the reasons the test misses a significant chunk of ADHD population.

Thanks for the catch! I updated the text in the first paragraph below.

> With answers as "very often" means very different things to different people.

Agree, I think it's certainly a problem and I too wish it was more defined, but alas. Related, Literal Banana on surveys: https://carcinisation.com/2020/12/11/survey-chicken/

> In addition these general questions that a lot of people can relate to will cause a lot of people to get unneeded screening

Yes, a lot of people have ADHD. I link to the study that shows high specificity in the general population. Empirically, the tool works. You gotta start getting concerned about your symptoms from somewhere.

I heard about it but I haven't tried.

What's your experience with it like?

It's more or less ongoing sequence, with some posts being two years old. Do I still need to append (2019)?

The entire article is true. And if joke isn't clear to you, I won't be explaining it.

You do realize that everyone (especially the hosts) was in on the joke, right? I did chat to the hosts afterwards!

The two minutes is a very short amount of time — much shorter than a typical speed dating slot of 5-10 minutes. People chat about all sorts of things: from work to previous relationships to “where are you from”-style questions.

With regular speed dating I had all sorts of chats, it usually enough for 1-3 threads of conversations.

Looks like it's applying the old advice by multiplying your estimates by the universal constant _pi_.

This depends on your views on personal identity. It's not necessarily true that "you" exist from death to birth. Consciousness could be a singleton, and "You" could be everyone in the universe. Or perhaps "you" is only a single person-moment instantiated for a split second.

http://www.galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html

https://qualiacomputing.com/2015/12/17/ontological-qualia-th...

Telegram is more of a social media platform than a messenger. It has public 'channels' - read-only blogs without likes and comments. The biggest Belarusian channel 'Nexta' has 2M+ subscribers.

The SMB3 ACE is one of the most technically interesting glitches. The usual skips and saves are much more mundane.

My point here is that there is similarity between (some) human players and some AI players. Even the discussion whether exploiting a glitch is actually 'winning' also looks very similar.

> Evolved player makes invalid moves far away in the board, causing opponent players to run out of memory and crash

Well, this sounds like speedrunning. People have found arbitrary code execution vulnerabilities in SNES and used them to jump to the credits (which counts as completed the game) in less than a minute: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf9i7MjViCE

They also used the same technique to inject runnable code in the game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnZ2NNYySuE

The growth pattern is still exponential, instead of going x -> 2 * x, you go x -> 9/8 * x + 6. I think it should still be O(1) amortized, you just need to adjust your proof for doubling a bit.

> Because lists are dynamically typed and heterogeneous, does that mean the underlying C is basically a contiguous segment of memory of python object references?

Yep, it is an array of pointers: https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/3.7/Include/listobjec...

> And when the list needs to be resized and doubles itself, it's just doubling the space for object references?

Basically yes. The growth pattern is not as aggressive as doubling though: https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/3.7/Objects/listobjec...

I guess it depends on your definition of arrays, and what you expect from them. For example, Ruby calls a similar thing array: https://docs.ruby-lang.org/en/2.0.0/Array.html

To me it is kind of self-growing array that can hold objects of different types. The C++-ish equivalent would be something like std::vector<void*> / std::vector<MagicObjectBoxType> (there is no MagicObjectBoxType of course).

I think you have a point about C or C++ notion of arrays having the same type.

I'll probably rewrite that paragraph, since the main point is to tell people unfamiliar with Python that lists aren't actually linked lists.

It is indexable, and it is used as an array, so I guess it is an array in all implementations.

But good point, I should check this.

Dicts are definktely implemented differently in different implementations, and I mention this.

IIRC, vaping pure nicotine might be less addictive than smoking tobacco because tobacco contains a ton of other chemicals

How did your dogs figure out that a button gets your attention? Did you have to train them in some way?

Also, I am wondering how dogs know when to expect you back. Is their sense of time that accurate and they can easily realize that 9-ish hours passed?

> How do I, personally, define normal? Who gives a shit?

If you care enough to leave a comment on HN, please also explain _why_ you think it is poor. Because right now your comments add no substance to the discussion.

> and scares off the approaching deer

And that's exactly the way early humans hunted. The method is called persistence hunting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting

Humans run slowly, but human bodies can dissipate heat very efficiently through sweating, and this makes humans good long-distance runners. AFAIK, humans can outrun most other animal species.

So if I understand it correctly, the hunting method involves scaring your prey, running for a while(yay hyperactivity), using your big brain to figure out where the prey went and running again for a while. Rinse and repeat for many hours, until the prey literally dies from exhaustion.

I imagine persistence hunting as a series of puzzles while you literally can see your reward - no delayed gratification involved.

> All of these are also side-effects of over use of amphetamines...

Surely you are not the first person with this idea? Could it be that other people thought this too and compared unmedicated and medicated ADHD populations?

ADHD is heavily underdiagnosed in the adult population, hence it is not hard to find adults who have ADHD and who never took stimulants. IIRC, The studies show that kids medicated with stimulants actually have lower rates of substance abuse.

> 2 - Okay all psychiatric disorders use checklist and interviewing, but that may reflective of a problem with modern psychology.

And this problem being what exactly?

> It's very hard to say with any objectivity how much happiness, calmness, or attention is proper when your life situation may be bad, stressful, or boring.

And your solution is what exactly? Do nothing?

The reality is that it's not easy, but certainly not as hard as you make it to be. Most psychiatric diagnoses (including ADHD) have decent inter-rater reliability. They are certainly going to produce some amount of false positives and false negatives. But the moment humanity invent magic test for depression/anxiety/ADHD/etc, psychiatry is switching to it.

> So even if there is a biological condition that stems from brain differences, what is the R^2 between professional diagnoses of ADHD and actual biological cases of it?

Like I mentioned, brain scans are not really used for diagnosing (yet), because they are not sensitive enough to be used for diagnosis. How would you compute R^2 in this situation?

> Anyone is going to start questioning things if they see kids with a diagnosis who seem basically normal.

How do _you_ know if they are normal or merely seem normal though? What is your definition of normal here?