raccoonDivider

This just got posted: https://twitter.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/177512497292033270...

CT scans irradiate you, MRIs don't really. Just don't have any metal in you.

It's interesting but a bit confusing. Merging timelines of titles, summaries, videos, TikTok posts, etc. means there's no reading rhythm when scrolling. I wish they'd make it visually easier to separate elements.

But it matches their strategy. It's a good design for a mashup of different sources. If you don't plan on doing that, maybe take the opportunity to make the list easier to browse?

Thanks for sharing.

I also fit that definition and wouldn't generalize. What I've observed is that the places that contain a lot of asocial people also have an above-average rate of sociopathic behaviors. This certainly fits my CS experience.

But I did mean antisocial. Why do you think I can’t make the difference? I said that I believed there was some statistical overlap between the two.

In my limited experience, both asocial and antisocial would match. People who don’t care about other people can also find it easier to harm them.

I’m pretty sure that a lot of people would have antisocial behavior if it weren’t for the fear or inconvenience of consequences. You don’t have to match a DSM definition to be a bad person.

If I may ask, did these traits make the relationship unviable, or did it end for other reasons? Do you think treatment (CBT, etc.) would have helped?

Not to start a “does anyone else feel like this??” thread, but I wonder how common these traits are in tech workers. It’s kind of a cliché that CS attracts antisocial nerds. If a serious study were made, how many of those would actually meet the criteria for antisocial personality disorder?

Although diagnosis seems to rely a lot on someone’s behavior: if you don’t cause trouble, then it’s not a disease, just a personality trait. That seems a bit unfair to the people who would identify with this, could use psychiatric help to make human connection easier, but aren’t unreasonable enough to warrant medical attention.

That makes a real difference for people making the median salary in western countries. Lots of people in finance, tech, etc. can obviously afford not to care but that's a minority.

Aren't those separate and in different countries? And one of them is an acquisition. This case makes more sense.

What do you think the US wants? Attrition Russia’s army?

The US might have less incentive to support Taiwan though. They've never really committed to defending it.

Reverse-engineering the technique from the answer is a different skill from creating the answer though. The latter requires more creativity, the former is deduction.

> Edit, added: Harvest now, decrypt later applies to any encrypted data. There is nothing special about the quantum threat. This all only makes sense if we can predict what the actual threat is ... and so far we can't.

But we know Shor's algorithm, and we've started building prototype quantum computers. Isn't that enough to build something that counters them? Worst case, we deploy new ciphers and realize that the threat was empty 50 years from now. What's the downside?

Thanks for that paper, but I find it weird:

- There is no common definition of ADHD, just a list of two hundred unrelated claims made by papers that were found with a search engine. That makes them impossible to compare or relate to each other. This is not a review that concludes anything, just "look at our HUNDREDS of sources!" Basically shock and awe.

- What kind of paper brags about how many continents approved of them? Is this some kind of claim to authority? Why do I care that "366 people" agree with it? In particular, why is this the entirety of their "results" summary?

- The very first highlight is "ADHD occurs in 5.9 % of youth and 2.5 % of adults." I find it ridiculous to dump such a precise number as their main claim when the rates vary so much depending on whether one uses the DSM or ICD, which country one lives in, and which doctor one see. My personal experience with a recently-minted psychiatrist from a reputable university doesn't give me confidence in any kinds of incidence rates either: the state of the art of diagnostic criteria seems to be a questionnaire a 12-year-old could fake.

- In a hypothetical world in which ADHD were known to be an ill-defined "syndrome" with no scientific basis, I would be surprised if "The World Federation of ADHD International Consensus" admitted to it. You don't organize a large international conference to make your subfield less reputable.

Is there an actual consensus on what ADHD _is_, besides a catch-all for some common concentration and hyperactivity symptoms?

People online assert a lot of things, such as "it's a dysfunction of dopamine pathways", "it's genetic", "it's a sort of autism", "it's a brain chemistry problem". But never anything that looked like a real definition backed by good science.

My own psychiatrist's diagnosis was a bunch of obvious questions that I couldn't answer honestly even if I tried. The conversation boils down to: "I have trouble concentrating and wonder if I have ADHD, I have [common symptoms backed by anecdotal evidence]. - OK, they have to affect your life severely enough to qualify. Do you think they are? - I guess, that's what I'm here to find out. - OK, let's try Ritalin." It was only helpful in that I needed to focus during a semester of studies and the stimulants did it.

It feels like I had a cough, got diagnosed with cough syndrome, and went through cough medications until they started helping the cough, and now I can describe myself as a cough syndrome sufferer. Where's the virus?

How high a level are we talking? Is it common to have so few enzymes that a non-insane dose of coffee per day overwhelms the liver?

I've fasted for an entire day a few days at a time, it didn't really make me feel miserable.

The graph titled "Caffeine Accumulation With Long Half Life" is weird. Isn't that not how half-life works? A higher blood level should mean faster elimination, but here it acts like the baseline changes each day. No matter how slow the user's clearance is, the ratio should always take the same time to get halved.

Edit: actually this graph implies that people like the author would end up poisoned by a lethal dose of caffeine after a few weeks to months. Maybe these people exist but it can't be common.

Since we're exchanging anecdotal evidence, I also feel better with coffee. It lets me control how energized I am. Helped me avoid burnout and generally makes me feel a bit better no matter how much I take.

Doesn't that make the first few days of fasting miserable? Have you tried progressively reducing the dosage for a few weeks in preparation?

How much did you drink? I found the same effect when I didn't know how to use coffee and drank at any hour, multiple times a day, from the office's coffee machine, and couldn't make it at home. Obvious result: bad sleep, anxiety, and a crash every weekend. They all got better after I quit, also obviously.

Then I looked into it more, bought my own press and grinder, started taking one cup a morning with the dosage I want, occasionally a small extra but nothing after 2PM. The effect is pretty nice. On average, I feel a bit better with it than without.

Isn't it a replacement for pip? I've seen people on Twitter saying that they migrated very quickly. TFA:

> TL;DR: uv is an extremely fast Python package installer and resolver, written in Rust, and designed as a drop-in replacement for pip and pip-tools workflows.

Always wondered that. It means everyone's salary is determined by the highest-cost of living area you want to hire from. Doesn't really make any sense seen that way.

Isn't there a middle ground? Suppose we could make ICBMs useless (known storage sites for bombers and ground-based missiles, lots of time and distance to track and destroy them in the air) while shorter-range weapons stayed relevant (smaller, easier to move, maybe spread over a battlefield). This could both keep the cost of a war too high to consider for great powers, while greatly lowering the civilizational risk caused by thousands of high-yield weapons on hair trigger.

For example, a border war between India and Pakistan or China would be a disaster that no side wants to see. But a massive ICBM launch due to tensions and miscalculations between the three biggest arsenals would have a much lower impact. These arsenals might even become irrelevant enough that they stop being maintained. Seems like a win-win?

> So to have something to point to, the CIA just went out and covertly funded a bunch of cultural outlets. Make of it what you may that the government was secretly subsidizing these and just how capitalist that is or isn't...

Was the argument ever about a planned economy versus a government that does nothing but foreign policy? Subsidies in a capitalist system don't make it non-capitalist.

I've always wondered why infosec people love this expression so much. Maybe "nation state" just sounds more impressive. Who cares what the state is composed of? Or is it "nation/state", one or the other?

I assumed they were just using near-zero interest rates to make bets on future growth/start all the projects they could/vacuum up all the workers they could and they always planned to scale down if the economy pushed them to?