Before my diagnosis, ADHD was my kryptonite. I thought I was lazy, I couldn’t accomplish the things I needed to. It pushed me into depression and was quite hard.
After my diagnosis, I felt like ADHD became my superpower. I know how to play to my strengths rather than my weaknesses. I know if I have an interest in something, I can dive into it and produce great output, and for tasks that need doing which aren’t interesting, I have coping mechanisms and medication if necessary.
How did you get your diagnosis? Every time I read the symptoms it sounds like me, but it also kinda sounds like everybody. What's the signal that it's a pathology worthy of treatment?
Not the person you are replying to, but generally speaking I look at getting a diagnosis (for most mental health problems) like so:
Do these symptoms cause me struggle with my everyday life? Are things that normal people do all the time oddly difficult for me to complete?
If so, go get a diagnosis. Everyone struggles with procrastination to an extent, but if you try to sit down and try to start the work and just CANNOT emotionally bring yourself to do the work or get your brain to engage, then it's probably something more than just normal procrastination. If you are frustrated with your inability to remain focused and complete things on time that are just not inherently interesting to you, recognize that most people don't struggle like that. It's not a discipline problem it's an emotional regulation problem which is common of ADHD.
> if you try to sit down and try to start the work and just CANNOT emotionally bring yourself to do the work or get your brain to engage, then it's probably something more than just normal procrastination
I've had so many problems with this in high school and college, it's unreal. I've only started to fully comprehend my problems with anxiety this past semester but reading all of this makes me wonder if there's something more to it than just that.
If it's really that hard to get engaged into something that you aren't innately interested in but that you know you "should" do, I would seek an ADHD diagnosis. It's a pretty big symptom. Sometimes it really is not possible and even if it is it's extremely difficult and you feel dumb for it (but obviously you shouldn't, it's not your fault). It's like your mind throwing a tantrum and refusing to engage with the work at all.
The difference is really not being able to focus if it's not interesting. Your brain will constantly turn to other stimulation if it's not getting it from the current task. Sometimes you might be able to do it, and other times you won't. That's one of the most frustrating parts of ADHD. You feel like you've done it before, so why can't you do it now? "Normal" people can still focus (or get started) even if something is not interesting, they just have to start.
Most people won't like to do uninteresting things, but the threshold for boredom is extremely low in those with ADHD so they will struggle a lot more to stay focused. It's a spectrum unfortunately, so there's no one definitive measure that says "that's definitely ADHD". To be honest, if you find yourself seriously questioning/wondering about whether or not you have ADHD it probably means you're struggling to an extent and aren't 'normal'. Otherwise, it wouldn't be something you are questioning.
Not wanting to do it and not being able to do it are two different things. To an adhd person boring tasks aren't just boring to do, they are impossible to do even if they were paid a million dollars to do it.
I call it not being able to put one foot in front of the other. You will find all kinds of distractions to try to not think about it, because to think about it is almost physically painful.
Would second this, if the though of doing the dishes is equivalent to someone shooting your dog emotionally then you have an issue. It just seems like life cannot go on to get yourself to drag yourself to the sink and start washing them. Now I do them almost every time I take a break.
As someone that still has Bitcoin tied up in the Gox civil rehabilitation suit, I feel justice is adequately served here.
Karpeles was clearly in over his head, and made terrible decisions after the hacking, but I don’t believe imprisonment would serve any meaningful purpose, and I do believe he feels genuine remorse for his actions.
> but I don’t believe imprisonment would serve any meaningful purpose
Sure it would! It would serve as a deterrent. Some people shouldn't be handling hundreds of millions of USD.
Karpeles' operation wasn't just unprofessional finance, it was a complete shit-show. The court should have sent the message to others to not attempt something as complicated and risk-laden as operating a financial exchange without even the slightest bit of know-how necessary to do that.
Startup culture can be great, but it's amazingly dangerous when operating certain trades or industries.
> Sure it would! It would serve as a deterrent. Some people shouldn't be handling hundreds of millions of USD.
I don't think Mark ever expected to handle that kind of money. It just sort of happened. One of the things usually needed to prove a crime was committed was that there was the intent to commit it.
> Startup culture can be great, but it's amazingly dangerous when operating certain trades or industries.
Mark's about the furthest thing from a startup bro. Honestly, I got the vibe he started MtGox as a hobby that happened to make money. A lot of it doesn't make sense from a business planning standpoint. Bet you didn't know the parent company of MtGox was named after his cat and served as a hosting company and domain registrar. He's a gentoo nerd that had a pet project win the lottery. There's far more to question about what the exchange had happen before he took it over, but I suppose jed won't talk about that.
To be fair though the year he spent in jail probably added some years to his life. While I doubt it was great for his mental health, it did wonders for getting his weight under control.
> I don't think Mark ever expected to handle that kind of money. It just sort of happened.
That is probably true, and I wouldn't expect anyone to stand in the way of something that they had created and that developed such a momentum. How could one!
What I would expect, however, is (1) that person to recognize this momentum, (2) to recognize that this momentum is way above the person's head, and (3) to rent or hire the know-how necessary to deal with this.
IT Security consultants, legal experts, people with experience in running exchange systems, etc.
> One of the things usually needed to prove a crime was committed was that there was the intent to commit it.
There's no question of that, as the court found that he had tampered with accounts and manipulated records to hide losses.
I actually met Mark once, on the very day that it was reported here on HN that Mt. Gox had been breached. This was a couple of years before the melt-down.
I had read the story here and, having just a little experience of Financial systems (nowhere near enough) I offered to help.
Mark took my meeting on that day because, in retrospect, he was likely looking for a Hail Mary. Perhaps hoping for a ransom demand.
He was at least smart enough to know I wasn't it. Nevertheless, if there had been good options, as you seem to suppose, I very much doubt he'd have taken my meeting.
Mark was in over his head, even then. And that tsunami just kept on rolling in. I wish him well.
> Honestly, I got the vibe he started MtGox as a hobby that happened to make money.
Mtgox was started by Jed McCaleb. He essentially gave it away for free to Karpeles when he realized that he was in over his head. It seems he was already losing money running mtgox and just wanted to get rid of it.
You seem to be describing premeditation. Criminal intent just means that you didn’t do it by accident. Did Karpeles ever knowingly misstate Mt. Gox’s bitcoin holdings? That’s intent, even if he never meant to be responsible for so much money.
Tux has really slimmed up for sure. Let's be honest and say Jed's the real Teflon Don MVP unloading the MtGox shitshow on Mark, doing the ripple thing, selling that chainless shitcoin to banks and rinsing and repeating again with Stellar.
This argument has never worked in the history of ever. The examples from history are far too numerous to list but if you really must need an example, the War on Drugs would serve that purpose.
With apologies for source amnesia, I've read that successful deterrence scales not with severity of punishment, but with perceived probability of getting caught.
> Some people shouldn't be handling hundreds of millions of USD.
Yes, but deterrents don't work if you don't expect to handle hundreds of millions. And I don't believe he did expect to handle hundreds of millions. Nobody did. Bitcoin just... did that.
as far as i understand Mt Gox wasn't a financial exchange, it was a marketplace for non-financial stuff like for example Magic cards and cryptocurrencies. People putting hundreds of millions of real money into a virtual goods traded at a place not registered with SEC have only themselves to blame.
That clearly depends on the magnitude of whatever Mark has stashed away for the day when the personal heat is off him.
More than 100k BTC was "found" post bankruptcy IIRC, and only when the community started talking about where they were visible on the blockchain.
It is way too tempting to hide cryptocurrency, especially when accounting is a mess at best. We know for a fact that Mark traded on his own exchange and he must have known early on that it was not sustainable.
Remorse may not be the only thing that's important here. It must also be clear that white collar crime is not a business opportunity.
We think of these as deployment abstractions that provide no security value. This is why services like Amazon’s ECS Fargate pair 1 task definition (usually a single container) to a single EC2 host for isolation.
AWS employee here! The relationship is actually one task per EC2 _instance_ (VM isolation), not one task per host. I'm sure you meant the former, but just wanted to clarify for readers.
Something I've been wondering for a while (and you may be placed to answer): is firecracker part of the isolation story for Fargate - or is it regular EC2 instances?
Hi, I'm from the core compute engineering part of AWS.
Like most good stories, there's a beginning, middle, and end. We're in the middle now, and Fargate uses both regular EC2 instances and Firecracker in some cases.
If you use user namespaces and don't run as host root, they provide a clear security value (unless your alternative is that you use user namespaces in your program, at which point you are making your own container runtime). Docker's (and LXC's) default seccomp profile has blocked something like 95% of kernel 0days since they were added, for instance.
I think the AWS failures on iops tests should've been examined more prior to publication, or at least explained more to the reader.
AWS General Purpose EBS volumes scale based on volume size, so a purely naively-done test with a default AMI's performance could be as low as 24 iops (8GB*3 IOPS per GB) once exhausting it's burst iops quota. I think it's unfair to compare apples to oranges here, as you can make these volumes scale to absurd numbers, if you have the cash.
Agree need to use 1TB EBS volume (the smallest volume that removes bursting limits) and an EBS optimized and enhanced networking instance to be accurate. I'll be the first to admit that AWS has a serious problem with overcomplicating things though. You really shouldn't have all these different options and gotchas.
The point of this test wasn't to determine the absolute limits. It was to determine what the actual real-world performance would be on the instances/servers we would actually be using.
After my diagnosis, I felt like ADHD became my superpower. I know how to play to my strengths rather than my weaknesses. I know if I have an interest in something, I can dive into it and produce great output, and for tasks that need doing which aren’t interesting, I have coping mechanisms and medication if necessary.