jrapdx3

I've been a director on non-profit boards for 20+ years. These were small organizations, nothing at all high profile. Well-run boards with honest, dedicated members have little to worry about. Thing is, fundamental to board integrity is the concept that directors must avoid even the appearance of conflicts of interest. If directors adhere to this advice serious harm is unlikely.

The OpenAI board members were vivid examples of massive COI. It was bound to blow up in their faces. They really should have known better. Hard to believe such smart people could act so wrongly. Truly unbelievable.

Yep, "fiduciary" is about a trust relationship. A fiduciary is obligated to act in a trustworthy manner. 501c3 board members are entrusted with the welfare of the organization vs. their own interests.

I surmise that "Revlon" stands for "an entity worth billions". IOW having a component with large monetary value to manage.

Having served 20+ years as a director on various 501c3 boards, I'm pretty familiar with the requirements of the role. Fundamentally, directors have the duty to serve the interests of the organization vs. the interests of directors. This quote [0] sums it up succinctly:

    Board members are the fiduciaries who steer the organization towards a
    sustainable future by adopting sound, ethical, and legal governance and
    financial management policies, as well as by making sure the nonprofit has
    adequate resources to advance its mission.

So yes indeed, board members serve with the burden of explicit fiduciary duties to the organization.

[0] https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/running-nonprofit/govern...

Another speed test site is https://testmy.net

The site claims superior accuracy (which I can't confirm but probably someone here can evaluate one way or the other). The site offers a number of test options and other amenities.

I'll have to try these other sites to see how they compare.

Edit: Just tried testmy.net vs. internetspeed.my:

    testmy.net:       download 533.5 Mbps upload 17 Mbps
    internetspeed.my: download 549.1      upload 19.2

The results are surprisingly similar.

Relationship of sleep and depression is a very interesting topic that despite decades of observation and research is still poorly understood.

As other comments point out, the potential beneficial effect of sleep deprivation (SD) has been noted for a long time. It's also correct that effects tend to be transient and quite varied among study subjects.

A recent comprehensive meta-analysis [0] showed that overall, extant studies of sleep deprivation in depression are too inconsistent to allow drawing firm conclusions regarding its merit. To quote the authors, "...it is uncertain whether SD affects quality of sleep, health‐related quality of life, everyday functioning or length of hospital stay. Generally, the method is well‐tolerated, although the risk of switch to mania exists. Albeit the low grade of evidence, the treatment method of SD should be considered an important part of the future research in rapid relief of depression".

For clinicians, the careful scientific approach emphasizes need to accumulate clear evidence of efficacy and safety before prescribing SD to those suffering major depression.

[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7839702

Thanks! You're right about the web page, the plan has been putting up newer work to add to what's there. With a too much other stuff going on site maintenance has unfortunately fallen behind.

3D images have captivated me since I was a kid. A frequent source of amusement was the "Victorian wallpaper effect" and even without a viewer I could easily see classic stereo photo pairs in 3D. Not at all difficult to see the "hidden" objects in the article's quite nice illustrations.

While popularity of SIS imagery isn't what it was a few decades ago, programmer interest in the subject has remained quite strong.

As an artist I enjoy incorporating SIS images in my work. In the past I've used a number of open-source SIS generators. Mostly these programs weren't completely satisfactory. A common defect was producing SIS artifacts marring output image appearance.

Subsequently I wrote a SIS program (with GUI for usability) [0] that almost entirely eliminated artifacts in the finished images. Developed with artists' interests in mind, its SIS output looks different vs. examples in the article. (Using depthmap and texture/pattern image inputs, the latter determines the "surface" appearance of the SIS.) However both SIS styles have the same 3D effect capability.

[0] https://thinairarts.com/stereogram.html

> At an essential level, science can't answer how many things work...

Indeed, science provides scant information about how drugs work and that includes medications with effects (favorable or not) in the brain. The reality is that drugs have a great number of effects very few of which receive adequate study. IOW while there are useful target effects that are exploited, the fact that drugs are more or less tolerable is largely a matter of luck.

This reality is illustrated by instances of tragic drug outcomes despite long use in clinical practice. Of course observing for and identifying random events (adverse effects) depends on the sample size. Registration trials generally use hundreds to a few thousand people which is highly unlikely to reveal serious, rare outcomes occurring on the order of 1/100K recipients. Monitoring of after-market AEs is necessary to detect such anomalous outcomes.

The upshot is that clinical practice is at least as much art form as reliant on science. But as you say this is also the case with all science, albeit to a variable degree. It implies your statement should read "science can't answer how anything actually works" since there's no way to know what is not yet known.

That doesn't mean we have no useful knowledge, far from it, as the vast array of extant productive technologies clearly shows. But in truth we can't fully "explain" anything, we have to be content developing usable "working solutions" to real-world problems. To my mind process of science is satisfactory to the extent we accept the inherent constraints of human knowledge. With that acceptance we gain the flexibility to move forward, to find new and better working solutions, and add insightful observations to the knowledge base of science.

Absolutely, what a great addition to all kinds of cuisine! I'd never intentionally minimize the merit of chilis. I use chilis a lot, couldn't imagine cooking without them. Your point is well-taken.

FWIW, along with chilis a number of other common curry spices weren't mentioned in the article: garlic, mustard seeds, fenugreek, saffron, black pepper, cardamom, among others. So it's quite possible curries were less tasty in the past, at least to our palates. OTOH seems likely enough that they employed a range of flavorings that don't show up on the tools the researchers examined.

By coincidence I noticed this article while in the process of preparing lamb curry for dinner. The article quoted researchers studying ancient spice trade and usage: "Of the 40 tools we analyzed, 12 produced a range of spices including turmeric, ginger, fingerroot, sand ginger, galangal, clove, nutmeg and cinnamon."

Quite interesting that curries evidently haven't changed very much over 2K years. Indeed my curry contains 6 out of 8 of those ingredients. Of course many present-day technologies contribute to making spices available in abundance in food markets or online. Compared to ancient times in some ways we have it pretty easy, in today's world making curries from scratch isn't really a high challenge.

The article shows that our predecessors were as perceptive as we are, they understood a lot more than we realize. Of course while everything changes over time, fundamental insights tend to retain their enduring value.

Many years ago I visited Dachau, truly an eye-opening experience. I'm certain many Germans did care what was happening but they were quickly silenced or intimidated, ultimately powerless to stop the horrific actions of the government. I do agree that governments do not always act in the interests of citizens. Often enough there's little basis for trusting officials or the bureaucracies that rule everywhere.

> "...though weighing things out that precisely is quite challenging, especially if they are viscous liquids."

The "error tolerance" in mixing epoxy is probably at least 1% so inexpensive scales are quite adequate. The "secret" to mixing epoxy is measuring the resin and hardener in separate containers, then combining by pouring the hardener into the resin. I also put some of the mixture back into the container used to measure the hardener, mix thoroughly and add it to the main portion of mixed epoxy. This procedure assures all of the hardener is mixed with all of the resin.

BTW I use my kitchen scale every day. As you say, measuring powders, like flour, by volume isn't reliable. Then again, liquids, even water, are easier to weigh out. Besides, measuring cups aren't very accurate. Then again being only as precise as necessary for the job is what efficiency is about.

Having mixed, and used, quite a bit of 2-part epoxies, I concur that measuring by weight is far more satisfactory vs. attempting to measure volumetrically. Most industrial epoxies are mixed at ratios of 2:1 to 5:1 (resin/hardener). The 1:1 varieties are mainly consumer products. As a rule if the 1:1 ratio is a bit off it doesn't noticeably affect results.

Some manufacturers/suppliers provide volumes and weights for proper mixing. For example, West System instructs mixing 1 quart/2.4 lb of their "105" resin with .43 pint/.47 lb of "205" hardener. (Ratios: by volume: ~4.6, by weight: ~5.1) Of course the savvy user can mix smaller/larger quantities proportionately.

In some cases measurement by weight isn't mentioned by the producer. However it can be inferred from product density. The info is usually given in the product's SDS. The "205" hardener SDS states it weighs 8.85 lb/gal, whereas "105" resin is 9.6 lb/gal. With this info on hand, it's straightforward to compute the required quantities of the components.

Manufacturer of epoxies explicitly advise not to alter the mix ratios. IMO measuring by weight is the easy way to mix epoxy accurately.

Just curious, I have an SC800 (the model has been discontinued). I've used the printer (fairly lightly) and not run into issues (yet anyway). Not real clear what limits to number of prints or other EOL criteria you've observed. Interesting that up to now haven't heard/read about such problems.

You make a number interesting points. FWIW I've been a printmaker for many years and know many artists "successful" and not.

Museums acquire work through purchase and donation, the ratio varies among museums and divisions within a museum. Several years ago a collector donated several thousand pieces to the major museum in my region. Fortunately a few of my pieces were included and are now part of the museum's "permanent collection".

Obviously museums prefer donations but only if the museum gets the kind of work they're seeking. It's a lot like academia, very competitive among curators to have the "right" high-valued work in the museum's possession.

And it's true that an artist's success is largely a marketing game. Artists who are good self-promoters will do the best. Those who aren't typically remain obscure. Of course success doesn't necessarily indicate artistic merit. That's often not decided until much later, like 50 or 100 years down the road.

Conservation of work is a complex subject. Oil-based paint was the only real option from the 1400's until ~1960. Oil paint dries by polymerization of fatty acids, problem is it doesn't know when to quit.[0] A paint film continues to harden, eventually the film integrity fails and the paint flakes off the substrate (canvas, etc.). Oil paintings are very likely to require restoration after 100 years if not sooner.

Worth noting: unlike works on paper, oil paintings are less affected by light exposure. That's why museums often display paintings in brighter areas (200 lux) vs. drawings, prints, photos being exhibited in dimly lit galleries (50 lux).

Interestingly many great artists were lousy technicians. Da Vinci is said to have experimented with various additives to paint which affected stability. Fascinating subjects indeed, and certainly contribute to keeping conservators employed.

[0] https://justpaint.org/aspects-of-longevity-of-oil-and-acryli...

Yeah, that's how I remember it too. Back then I wondered why some people I knew bought SUVs even though they were only needing to commute to/from work.

In the early 2000's my own situation changed, I was needing to haul relatively heavy/bulky items. I acquired a Honda Pilot because of its rated 1300 lb payload, better than a small pickup. After a while that need ended, but I kept the Pilot and still drive it. However since then it's used <3000 mi/year, a good thing with price of fuel being what it is now.

The Pilot was/is built on the same platform as the Honda minivan, albeit with slightly modified drive train. Pilot and minivan have essentially identical mileage ratings. So with these models switching from minivan to "SUV" makes no difference in fuel usage.

Can't disagree that old-style "station wagons" were more fuel-efficient than minivans and similar size vehicles. However, station-wagons seem to have disappeared from the scene at least to my observation. Out of fashion I suppose. And from the fuel usage point of view that's unfortunate.

EVs are the future but expense factors will keep ICE in the picture for some years to come. Do you suppose the current increased fuel prices will inspire a resurgence of smaller vehicles for routine transportation? In the interim that would be a good thing.

Printmaking has been an activity of mine for decades so I found this article particularly interesting. Of course a great number of printmaking methods have been employed over centuries. Classics include block printing, etching, engraving, lithography, monotype. My preferred method has been screenprinting which like the other techniques has many variations. All told I imagine there are about as many ways to make prints as there are computer languages. ;-)

The author writes about using the Risograph which I knew nothing about before reading the article. The idea of using heat to transfer a toner-like material sounded rather familiar. It reminded me of the "solid-ink" printer made by Tektronix a long time ago. I owned one of those printers and used it for quite a few years. It worked by melting blocks of dye-containing resin and spraying the molten "ink" onto the stock. It produced some pretty interesting prints, but alas the problem was lack of archival performance. Seems the dyes used were subject to fairly rapid fading. In terms of the intended purposes of the Tek printer that was acceptable. After all it was nominally a business tool, definitely not sold for artistic creation.

It's probably worth mentioning that the paper printouts of ordinary laser printers can be used as a kind of lithographic "plate". That works because the plastic-matrix printed areas are inherently oil wettable. So dampening the paper and using an oil-based printing ink to coat the laser-printed areas allows producing a limited number of prints from the laser-printed matrix. The result is a low-medium resolution print that with the right image can be quite attractive. Anyway laser printing is another heat-based process printmakers have exploited.

Always fun to learn about a printmaking technique I didn't know about before!

I think that's often right, in a sense anyway. Let's put it this way: there's a crucial difference between selfishness and actually having a self. (That is, taking responsibility for all that belongs to oneself--much more easily said than accomplished.)

Yup, changed SSH port from 22 to another, the attempts to barge in continue but don't succeed. The motivation for trying to intrude escapes me. I mean if a site is well-known it would make more sense. An obscure and obviously personal site, hard to fathom what breaking in would accomplish, unless some really bored or antisocial people out there consider it a sport of some weird kind.

My site is currently >100 pages, so it's modest in scale. Like many sites it consists mainly of static pages but there are dynamic features too, such as basic user comments and messaging. The generator program outputs the html, css and js needed. Written primarily in object-oriented Tcl, pages are generated from source files expressed in a generator-specific DSL. In practice it's way simpler and less exotic than this description suggests. To me "proof of the pudding" is that I can easily pick up where I left off even after being away from the project for a few months.

A goal for the generator is to finish packaging and documentation, then releasing as open-source. Not that there aren't already a million ways to create websites, but I figure one more can't hurt! ;-)

Like so many others I also have created my own website to show my artwork (photography, printmaking), recipes for the benefit of others with dietary restrictions (low-sodium), and software projects.

But to me it's much more than a website. Behind it is a set of software tools I've been developing for website generation. The public-facing website is in effect a major demo of what the tools can do. The programming challenge is what makes it worthwhile, stretching the site's capabilities is highly rewarding. Also improving the site's performance and efficiency is a benefit of "roll-your-own" site creation. Polishing it to excellent results contributes to a sense of accomplishment.

Anyway it's pretty easy and cheap to use a modest VPS to host the site. If a person has the knowledge running a self-managed host is quite practical and allows maximum freedom and minimal risk of "deplatforming" that was going on a while back even if the risk is near zero.

I never expected to get a lot of traffic, though there is some. One surprising aspect has been the number of attempted "break-ins" (e.g., via ssh). Properly configuring a firewall is a necessity. But that stuff is just part of normal administrative responsibility.

Appreciate the kind words. Whenever I do something actually useful, it's a real thrill!

Amphetamine has such an interesting history. Synthesized in 1887, first used in the 1930s, and in 1937 discovered to have a remarkably favorable effect on hyperactive boys. Methylphenidate (Ritalin) came along somewhat later.

85 years later these two drugs are still the mainstay of ADHD treatment. Sure delivery systems have proliferated and drug variants have been available. Stimulant-class medications remain first-line treatments. Amazingly even after nearly a century nothing better has ever been developed, and it certainly hasn't been for lack of trying.

Prior to 1970 there were relatively few restrictions, but widespread abuse lead to legislation establishing the DEA and tightened regulations. Drugs of abuse were sifted into a schedule of classes 1 to 5, where class 2 drugs were legal to prescribe but subject to limits intended to reduce diversion and misuse.

BTW one of the legal schedule 2 drugs is methamphetamine, approved for ADHD. We know it can be misused, leads to severe dependency problems, but used properly is an effective and quite tolerable treatment for ADHD. Indeed I have prescribed it for a number of patients in the past.

With the huge opioid crisis that's emerged in recent years scrutiny by state licensing boards has increased regarding prescribing patterns. This is making many prescribers nervous to the max. While the thrust of regulators has been in regard to opioid drugs other scheduled drugs such as stimulants, benzodiazepines are caught up in it as well.

Primary care docs are affected by the zealous "witchhunt" in regard to prescribing practices. Hospitals, clinic administrators, etc., are equally touchy about docs prescribing scheduled drugs. So prescribers anticipate getting static if they prescribe stimulants however reasonable it may be. Especially true for PCPs who lack specific training in managing ADHD--harder to defend their actions if challenged by admins.

Among psychiatrists (who should know about ADHD) other factors are operating. Some don't like dealing with ADHD patients, notorious for poor follow through, don't show up for appointments, lose prescriptions, don't pay their bills, etc. Also ADHD cases are frequently more complicated than average due to comorbidities, social issues (marriage/family problems, difficulty at job, etc.), potential for substance use disorder.

Patients without ADHD are more likely to be comparatively more straightforward to deal with, so ADHD sufferers aren't accepted as patients.

Yes indeed, "pill mills" have made everyone's life more difficult. But it doesn't mean every doc who prescribes scheduled drugs operates a pill mill. The tendency to throw out babies with their bathwater is fearsome to many doctors.

Here's my advice to colleagues: every patient deserves a thorough diagnostic evaluation. If ADHD is one diagnosis, it should be treated vigorously within appropriate clinical guidelines. If stimulant treatment is indicated start with a low dose, titrate gradually until reaching an effective and tolerable level. Do not neglect behavioral treatments, these are essential. (Book-length description in progress.)

The SECRET to successful treatment and keeping regulators at bay: excellent clinical documentation. I never was "in trouble" over prescribing, I had the records showing rationale for every prescription, so nothing to be afraid of.\

Your story isn't unusual, there's a shortage of qualified, and willing, providers in this domain. Combined with a cultural bias against and misunderstanding of people with ADHD the treatment situation is troublesome. Educating providers and the public is badly needed. If that's done, over time availability of high-quality care for people with ADHD will improve.

> I think you’re purposely pretending like you don’t know what I’m talking about.

No I wasn't. Though I'm aware of the effects you mention in this comment. Adderall or any amphetamine, including methamphetamine acts similarly. But I do think "euphoria" and "focus" are kind of antithetical, so likely not happening at the same time.

However people with ADHD don't experience these things, not euphoria or energy anyway. "Focus" is more like decreased distraction or clarity of thought. With medications ADHD people typically are calmer, more "centered" and more appropriately motivated to get done what they need to.

Ironically the "stimulant" medications aren't stimulating to those with ADHD. IOW they don't feel anything in particular from the medications, it simply allows them to function more fluently. Of course if the dose is way too much, even ADHD folks will have side effects (usually jittery sensations, anxiety, interference with sleep, and other effects).

Naturally I can't recommend using prescription and DEA-controlled drugs without a good medical reason, but of course I'm sure you knew I'd say that. :)

Yes, it is a problem finding clinicians with interest in and experience with ADHD adults. In larger cities there are usually a handful of people who qualify, sometimes associated with teaching hospitals. Another possibility is asking at a college or university health clinic (even if you don't attend there).

Organizations like CHADD, local or state psychiatric associations have referral lists that can be useful. Likewise some insurers publish lists of clinical specialists. Other folks with ADHD who are in treatment might have a practitioner with room to see a new patient.

Pays to keep trying to find a provider you can work with, it will happen sooner or later and will be well worth all the trouble you went to.

> "Growing up, ADHD was my biggest enemy in life and I didn't even realize it."

That corresponds to what many ADHD adults have experienced. Based on what I've observed among ADHD patients, early response to treatment is a reason for optimism. Chances are ongoing treatment will support continued improvement for months if not years. And not just the patient but also the person's family and beyond. Differences in outcomes are decidedly non-trivial.

> "I mean, anyone benefits from Adderall whether you have ADHD or not."

What benefits of Adderall are you referring to?

Drugs like Adderall can have distinct adverse effects, like cardiac arrythmias, increased blood pressure, jitteriness, insomnia, anxiety. And drug misuse/dependence is a major problem with stimulant-class agents.

So for sure it's not true that everyone benefits from Adderall. Widely abused on college campuses, among non-ADHD students it has a small positive effect on academic performance and at higher doses is a distinct negative. OTOH for people with ADHD the right treatment (Adderall or alternative) can be greatly beneficial. (That is, ADHD treatment allows recipients to perform closer to their non-ADHD peers.)

Finding out if a person has ADHD requires evaluation by a qualified behavioral health clinician. Often it's not an easy diagnosis to make for even the best clinicians. Anyway I'd concur that diagnosis and treatment should not be attempted as a DIY project. Collaborating with a trustworthy practitioner is by far the best option.

You're right, defining a "disorder" is hardly a boolean question. ADHD has been studying extensively and there is substantial evidence for biological origins. For one, heritability very high, reported to be somewhere between 0.75 and .9, only slightly less than traits such as height.

Significant differences in brain neurophysiology are well-documented in ADHD (vs. non-ADHD people), and show genesis of the condition is multi-factorial. Calling ADHD a "disorder" implies the condition has physiological origins but is not attributable to a narrow/distinct range of factors like a condition termed a "disease" (such as viral illness, etc.).

The issue of diagnosis conceptually reflects a state where "malfunction" and "maladjustment" or "maladaptation" coincide. IOW malfunction is relevant when it's maladaptive, that is lacks fitness to a problem-space. In a computer application a bug (malfunction) can lurk undetected as long as the code containing the error is not invoked. But when some refactoring exposes the bad code to invocation, that code is maladaptive and the result is dysfunction of the application.

An example is an ADHD individual with trouble prioritizing who takes longer than peers to complete tasks. Not a problem when deadlines are minimal. But thrust into a role where timely performance is required risks failure, loss of a job, etc. The individual's malfunction is then maladaptive, which could prompt the person to seek help to mitigate malfunction and improve adaptability to realities of employment.

Consequently there's no across the board right or wrong answer to the "correct" way to regard ADHD characteristics. Also I agree with you that "mental illness" is a misleading term that could profitably be expunged from our vocabulary. However were that to happen the conditions that are labeled as such are still very real and will in many cases continue to need treatment regardless of the labels we apply.

ADHD is a common condition in adults, estimated to be around 3-5% of the population. It's very frequently comorbid with other behavioral disorders like depression, bipolar disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, etc. But even "pure" ADHD can be quite disadvantageous. People with ADHD are much less likely to finish school, have trouble staying employed, more likely to be divorced, have greater health care utilization among other adverse outcomes.

Despite these factors only 20% of ADHD individuals receive treatment which can make a big difference. Medications can be helpful but are not by any means a "cure". Rather specific behavioral therapies are a necessary part of an effective treatment program.

As a physician specializing in behavioral health, I've treated a great number of ADHD adults. It's impressive how much improvement patients could make over a period of months to years as a result of their determined effort. I came to appreciate patients' innate talents that many were eventually able to exploit. It was gratifying to see some become top-tier innovators in their fields including technologies.

Of course people will "identify" unique traits as part of their sense of "self". ADHD individuals may come to regard aspects of their quirky cognitive styles as part of an "identity" but that's not necessarily the same as having ADHD as the biggest component.

Last thing I'll say is that ADHD is considered a developmental disorder. IOW there's no sharp line between having/not having it. The extent it's a problem depends on the context, which is a huge discussion topic in its own right.

Traditional paper-bound journals are intrinsically limited re: number of articles that can be published. OTOH online publications aren't so restricted, so why not publish all that are worthy?

I think the real question is the quality of peer review. A "high rate of acceptance" isn't bad if accepting an article happens only after good quality peer review. But a high rate of acceptance without adequate peer review would be a big source of concern.

Not sure which of these publishing considerations applies to this article. I'll have to go over it again in detail when I'm more rested, anyway on quick overview I didn't spot any glaring problems in it.

I've thought about this a lot. It's becoming a serious issue for museums since increasingly contemporary artwork incorporates digital processes, for example video and photographs. Archivists worry about stability of storage media as well as long-term usability of CDROM, DVD, magnetic drives, SSDs, etc.

The ability (or lack of it) to play/view an original archive is already a major problem. Think about the history of floppy disks, zip media, digital tape cartridges, and numerous others. I recall these media being quite prevalent back in the 90's, and that's only <=30 years ago. (I have my own share of them.) Today these media are ancient history and soon, if not already, as inscrutable as the writing systems of obscure prehistoric civilizations.

As said in several comments, the situation is worse for software. Keeping long superseded equipment running is very difficult. (I have some of that too.)

Preserving source code should be pretty straightforward, printed out with archival ink on 100% cotton fiber, acid-free and buffered paper would work. The only catch is long-term storage of the printed document. Paper itself is subject to environmental degradation. Museum standards specify constant 20&deg;C, 50% humidity, sealed against atmospheric pollutants and no light exposure. That should hold it for at least 100 years. :-)

Technologies are great, seems a good bet that a brilliant startup will think of new ways to preserve the history of our epoch.