4,632 karma · joined October 1, 2015
This is a silly and short-sighted blanket statement. People used to love getting catalogs, which are just big books full of ads. In the right context, people appreciate being informed of products that can help improve their lives.
Example: Valve in the early 2000s before or as they were building Steam to challenge the video game publisher model. 20 years on and Valve is still printing money, while Sierra Online doesn't exist.
This is a poor justification for making something illegal. Chocolate and cocaine operate on the same neural pathways, but one is clearly more detrimental than the other. Following this reasoning, we should ban chocolate, and being able to see comment scores on hacker news, and like counts on Instagram photos, and reach on Twitter, and retirement account balances because they produce the same effects in the brain as illegal drugs do.
This is a self-defeating statement. It's false on its face. If there is no such thing as truth, then this statement can't be true because it would mean there is at least one truth.
What worked for me instead of medication:
- Get on a sleep and wake schedule that follows natural sunlight. Try to wake up soon before or right around the time the sun comes up. Plan backwards on when to go to sleep to get the proper amount of sleep you need (I almost always wake up six and a half hours after falling asleep with no alarm, whether I want to sleep in or not), so I usually go to sleep around 11:30 to wake up at 6:00 AM.
- Get on a meal schedule. Whether it's 3 meals or 5 or 6 meals, eat them around the same time, every day. No more skipping lunch, or working through lunch then eating it at 3:00 PM.
- Eat some kind of protein and fat for breakfast. Don't eat breakfast made of sugary carbs (like bread or cereal). Eggs and a breakfast meat are really good. Steel-cut oatmeal cooked in a rice cooker and eaten with peanut butter and fresh fruit is also very good.
- Workout regularly. I lift weights in the moring 4x a week, and I'm on a program that uses progressive overload, meaning I'm making continuous (but slow at this point) progress. Having a goal that improves yourself is the key here.
- Spend time away from your phone and computer outside. Hiking, birding, fishing, surfing, hunting, etc. Do something that takes you out of your four walls and puts you into a place with plants and animals, and do it regularly.
- Pay attention to your behavior. Be wary of getting into a hyper focused flow for hours where you ignore everything else (like lunch). Similarly, pay attention when you find yourself bouncing around. Becoming aware of when you're doing this is a big step to breaking the habit and forcing yourself to focus or take a break. I'm not saying getting into a state of flow is bad, I'm saying staying in a state of flow for hours on end where you ignore everything else isn't healthy or sustainable.
The concept that time is relative to the observer is where the theory of relativity gets its name from.
Orbit is when an object is traveling so fast that it reaches the horizon of a body before the body's gravity can pull it down to the surface, but perpetually. It's basically perpetually falling around the body. Imagine one of those guys in a wingsuit skimming along the surface of a mountain, never actually touching the surface. It's similar to that, but at a much higher scale.
It's the same tired nonsense as when regulators try to tax a business that's already operating on thin margins and act surprised when the business passes the cost to their customers instead of eating it.
I'm not upset with the intent of what they were trying to do, which was noble; the upsetting thing is that it was patently obvious their hamfisted implementation would lead to this outcome, and they did it anyway, knowing they could count on people to deflect blame away from them.
As someone who was diagnosed with ADHD a decade-and-a-half ago in my 20s: You don't. You don't even think about using your diagnosis as an excuse or a shield for behavior that is unacceptable. You never consider thinking that you deserve special treatment because you were diagnosed with ADHD. You accept that there are tradeoffs that come with it, some positive, some negative, and that you will have advantages in some areas and disadvantages in other areas and you don't let it define you or your behavior.
OP said:
>all these mmos were popping up saying they were the "WoW killer"
Guild Wars and WHO weren't positioned as WoW killers. They were positioned as WoW alternatives that prioritized or PvP or had an endgame that revolved around PvP. Which is probably why they did well - they offered something that WoW wasn't good at instead of trying to eat WoW's lunch.
"Um, I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you're, that you're using here. It didn't require any discipline to attain it. Ya know, you read what others had done, and you, and you took took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses, uh, to accomplish something as fast as you could..." (Emphasis mine).
He's churned, but he hasn't rejected the service. He just doesn't need it anymore because his circumstances have changed. If he needs the service it offered, he could presumably re-subscribe to it later.
Incredibly cynical and reductive. I cast my vote on prop 22 based on my personal beliefs about where the government should sit in a relationship between two consenting parties. I haven't used a ride share app in about 2 years. It has nothing to do with the money spent on the campaign, or my loyalty to any company, or marketing through an app.
Despite what people on the internet like to think, people actually have beliefs that aren't based on cynical, simplistic, one dimensional worldviews. People who've never used a rideshare app might object to the government demanding companies solve a problem few people had. Especially in California, where the State is extremely paternalistic and overbearing.
That isn't what universities are creating though. They're creating people who think one specific way about the world. The problem is that they only teach Marxist ideas about the 20th century, and you have to go elsewhere to get a balanced and realistic view of what actually happened. My humanities classes 20 years ago all glossed over the horrors of Stalin's gulags, the horrors of Mao's great leap forward, and all the death caused by Marxist ideas being put into practice at a wide scale in the 20th century. I had to learn about all these things from my history classes. My humanities classes were all talking about the evils of capitalism while glossing over the 20-100 million dead from starvation and exposure under totalitarian communist regimes. I can't imagine it's gotten any less biased and one sided in the past 20 years.
I get it when people say this, but at the same time, I don't. Why are you basing the effectiveness of the institution in modern times on what it was designed for half a millennia ago? The world has changed since universities were introduced. Do you do the same thing with other institutions that were around at the same time? Do you talk about how marriage customs were different in the middle ages and what we call marriage now is not originally in the spirit of marriage the way it was practiced in the middle ages? Do you talk about how the catholic church was run in the middle ages and how organized religion is different now, and how we should consider what religion was used for centuries ago? Why are universities some special exception that get to be downright reactionary and not move forward with the times?
It's fun to think about civilizations coming before us, but we're the first terrans to reach the level of technical sophistication so that we can change the world on a global scale. Period.
Thank you. This trend where people recast everything in the 20th century to be racially motivated (but can't provide any proof, because it's like complicated) is exhausting.
Isn't this just outcome bias though? You're arguing that because there are 346 deaths, the system is necessarily broken. That may not be the case. From what I've seen, it probably is, but it's not a foregone conclusion, and we shouldn't look for evidence supporting that conclusion. 346 deaths might actually be a very small number compared to what could have happened had the system actually been broken. The point is, it's a logical fallacy to say that because there were 346 deaths, the system is broken, and we need to work back from there. This could have been a rare combinatorial explosion of bad luck.
It seems pretty clear to me, I think you're missing the point of the post. It's that this person is protecting his business in a way that's effective because the government isn't, and this is what he's forced to do when dealing with agencies that claim they're looking out for his best interests.
Stack Overflow offered a better alternative to expertsexchange, which was fighting with google over how to show content (remember the scroll to the bottom of expert sexchange to see the non paywalled answers hack?)
In an age of Instagram and twitter, it's baffling and enraging to most Americans that the media pushes a narrative that video and photographic evidence from many different, disparate sources easily disproves. The obvious example in September 2020 is the notion that only peaceful protests are happening, despite much evidence of looting, rioting, and general wanton destruction.
It's not about designing APIs, it's about designing your software to reflect the reality you're encoding into your software. It's a book of first principles that you can apply to any software you design.