I always find that portion of ADHD somewhat amusing. Getting fixated on a task and unable to context switch is a big thing, which I think is surprising for many people.
For me, I've been on dexamphetamine sulphate for about five years. I had to have my dose adjusted after about a year, because I experienced what you mentioned (decreased efficacy). Once the dose was increased, the effect became pretty stable though (I'm currently on 45mg a day). I wouldn't say it completely negates my ADHD, but it definitely makes things a lot more manageable.
I believe it was 30mg (10mg, 3x a day) that I started on. Dosage was adjusted after about a year, when I began to notice the dosage wasn't really having the same effect. Was upped to my current dose that I've been on since then.
I disagree with this. For me, the energy is because I have to use less energy doing basic day to day shit. Unmedicated, it takes far more effort and work, and leaves less energy for later tasks.
Imagine doing the dishes. Unmedicated, thats 2 or 3 tasks. Each with a high failure rate, and high cognitive cost.
1. Stop what you’re currently doing.
2. Decide you next task will be to wash the dishes.
3. Wash dishes.
The spoon theory [0] covers this concept well, and can be a useful tool.
> The spoon theory[a] is a metaphor describing the amount of physical and/or mental energy that a person has available for daily activities and tasks, and how it can become limited.
It’s amphetamine. The energy is from the amphetamine. The mechanism of action (norepinephrine and dopamine reputable inhibition) isn’t far from that of cocaine or methamphetamine. Let’s be real here. Amphetamine is known to skew one’s self assessment of their performance while on the drug.
> It’s amphetamine. The energy is from the amphetamine.
Energy still comes from food, and if you forget to eat on stimulants your body will eventually catch up with you.
Like coffee, stimulants let you better tap into that energy.
> The mechanism of action (norepinephrine and dopamine reputable inhibition) isn’t far from that of cocaine or methamphetamine.
Yep, they’re all stimulants. ADHD meds however, are manufactured in very controlled conditions, and taken in specific doses. Street drugs are more variable in quality, ratios, ingredients and strengths, and so not relevant to the treatment of ADHD.
Methamphetamine is a legitimate treatment for the most severe ADHD cases, it’s often a last resort. It’s sold as Desoxyn. It’s rarely used, but it _is used legally and successfully_.
> Let’s be real here. Amphetamine is known to skew one’s self assessment of their performance while on the drug.
If you don’t need it, stimulants are going to have a different effect.
People with ADHD are in my experience, going to be able to self-assess performance on their meds better than off them.
Don’t assume one experience is universal, especially when we’re talking about neurodiversity. Even among those with ADHD, experiences are not universal. We may rhyme, but we don’t always repeat.
The self-assessment is less to do with how efficient I was, and more based on the fact I get things done sooner, because I don't fuck around and get distracted every few minutes. Completing a task significantly sooner/earlier, because I managed to stay on task has a real impact on the energy and time I have to spend on other tasks.
If I only get 80% of the stuff I need to get done before bedtime, there's no chance for me to do other. If I get the stuff I need to get done well before bedtime, there's time left for other things. Skewed self-assessment isn't really a factor in that.
And by the way, the effect on dopamine is secondary. ADHD meds work because they affect glutamate leveles. You all do not have low Dopamine, you have low glutamate.
AADC is an enzyme in the path that converts amino acids into dopamine and PEA/NMPEA (see "biosynthetic pathways" in above link), the latter of which is an endogenous structural isomer of amphetamine.
You're not really making a strong case that this isn't about dopamine or that amphetamine is the wrong thing for it.
Moreover, B6 will make more of these things up until the point that it's no longer the rate limiter in their production, if it ever was. (The rate limiting step for dopamine is ordinarily AAAH converting Tyrosine into L-DOPA). And if you hit a different rate limiter before you have enough dopamine or PEA/NMPEA, what then?
I did not say it is not about dopamine, but it is, at a deeper level, about glutamate. Which is why coffee works so well for ADHD because the stimulant action from caffeine is produced by glutamate.
> Which is why coffee works so well for ADHD because the stimulant action from caffeine is produced by glutamate.
Caffeine also antagonizes adenosine receptors which modulate dopamine. (Caffeine is complicated. Nicotine too.)
> Regardless, here is so much evidence that B6 plays a large role in ADHD and what, you all just ignore it?
The problem is it's the same kind of thing as saying that eating more reduces nutrient deficiencies. It might be more effective than placebo. If you're deficient in one thing and you get more of everything, you get more of that. It might even be the right solution if your underlying problem is actually that you're not eating enough.
But you want the solution that solves the problem as effectively and as narrowly as possible. Unless your underlying problem is actually a B6 deficiency, it's completely plausible that B6 could be more effective than placebo and less effective than Adderall. At which point nobody wants to hear you telling them to give up their Adderall for B6.
I was diagnosed with ADHD when I was about 27-28. I've been on medication since then, and the impact has been amazing. It makes me wish my condition was diagnosed much earlier. So much unnecessary difficulty (Especially in school) that could potentially have been avoided.
I think they meant specific examples (as opposed to hypothetical or vague examples)
> I’m pretty sure they’ll be affect by their channel getting suspended ;)
Unless I'm misunderstanding the other guy incorrectly, what they're proposing is additive.
If I understand right, you're essentially saying "But people without manual moderation might be unfairly impacted by automation".
But it's a bigger problem without the custom moderation the other guy is suggesting?
> In my experience the people who claim “zero downsides” are the last people who should be making business decisions.
Fortunately, it sounds like the other guy isn't making any business decisions in this specific context. So why not just stick to addressing the (de)merits of their suggestion, and leave the veiled insults out?
> Every design has a trade off and all too often there are unforeseen consequences too.
Stating a self-apparent truism doesn't bring much value either. Even if someone here wasn't aware of this idea, stating it as an abstract doesn't really help the discussion much, and seems like a bad faith comment to make.
> If you honestly believe there are zero downsides then you haven’t spent long enough in the industry at the level of seniority required to understand the the consequences.
Attacking the guys seniority doesn't add any value and is a fallacy. If you seriously believe there are downsides, why not state them instead of insulting the dude?
> Sorry if this sounds condescending but I’ve worked with so many engineers who have believed they shit gold only for them to discover they knew far less about the job then they believed they did.
My dude, this doesn't just sound condescending, it is condescending. This trailing comment borders on outright gaslighting.
The fact you're aware it is condescending but decide to say it anyway means you're not sorry either - otherwise you wouldn't have said it in the first place?
I'll spare you a self-righteous diatribe about bitter, unempathetic co-workers, since I'm sure you'll agree it's not relevant.
So the moment someone confidently posts an absolute like “zero downsides”, I immediately see red flags that perhaps that person hasn’t fully explored that solution.
This is compounded by the fact that there are no shortage of cognitive biases (such as, but not limited to, the Ikea Effect) that can lead one to overestimate the value of their own ideas.
So when I see absolutes, that’s always a queue for me to engage in a deeper discussion with the individual to ensure their confidence is justified.
> So why not just stick to addressing the (de)merits of their suggestion,
I had up until then. They couldn’t look past their idea and replied that there was zero downsides to it. Hence the concern I raised.
> Attacking the guys seniority doesn't add any value and is a fallacy
Fair point. It wasn’t a tactful response. Thank you for pointing that out :)
> I think they meant specific examples (as opposed to hypothetical or vague examples)
I gave a specific example and the other suggestions were anything but vague.
You dont even need to look far to see my point, just look at the videos submitted to HN and you’ll see that YT is more than just internet personalities adding content for monetisation:
You gave an example of something that wouldn't change and called it a downside. So yes you need to do better than that for examples.
If you're taking a "no free lunch" approach, the downside is that it costs money to hire these people. Does that make the balance clearer?
Adding human review to more decisions, and changing nothing else, can possibly cause some problems but they should be very minor compared to the number of robot-caused problems they will fix.
America wants freedom for America above everything else. It's why they engage in subversive and potentially destabilising operations abroad (in order to "protect" their own freedom).
Internally, the situation is not much different (at least from an outsiders perspective). The elite and wealthy effectively using their resources to further the gap between themselves and the lower rungs in the name of profit.
Externally, the propaganda is aimed at distracting from how disruptive they are in other countries affairs (most notable in recent history being the Middle East). Internally, it seems like it's indoctrination into the belief of the inherent superiority of capitalism, and the construction of strawmen to distract from real issues.
That started with 9/11 with "what is at stake is not just America's freedom", "this struggle for freedom and security for the American people" and so on [0].
Good old times when Putin was first to call Bush and offer all the possible help [1].
But hasn't the American government constantly meddled in other countries' affairs and justified it using freedom/democracy to its own people?
I don't want to be insensitive, but the whole 9/11 thing is such hypocrisy. They call it a terrorist attack, but America has been and is the terrorists to a substantial portion of the world. Claiming otherwise is just ignorant
Russia has "filtration camps" right now. China commits genocide against the Uyghurs. I'd say _that's_ a baseline for calling someone a terrorist. USA is marginally better.
China dubiously rounded up an enormous number of Muslims often on extremely tenuous or nonsensical suspicion of being separatists, and released the vast majority of them, of not all of them, two or three years ago.
The US killed six million Muslims in the war on terror.
edit: so for perspective, only 13.5 million Uighurs exist in the world, and the vast majority survived the hardship and imposition China unleashed on them in a fairly brutal Sinoization campaign meant to stop a separatist movement that was using terrorism. The US killed 6 million Muslims to respond to 9/11, and virtually none of them were of the nationality or related to the people who hijacked the planes, who came from a close ally of the US. Instead, we killed Iraqis.
That sounds very close to a "No True Scotsman" type fallacy. I've done a fair bit of consulting in the past working with Scala, and my experience closely matches the one described in the grandparent post - the issues happened with veterans more than newbies in my experience (Although that's a function of mostly working with veterans and few newbies)
I have seen junior and senior devs (and myself sometimes) struggle with fancier asynchronous trickery. That's true, but I think it's shortsighted to write off that effort as compared to "just using executors" (whatever that means exactly).
For me there was a lot of learning (that often just felt like grinding), and I can confidently say that I'm leagues more productive than trying to mimic this with low level vanilla Java primitives.
I'm sure this would also apply with go channels, async/await, etc. Raising the bar of abstraction in this case can be valuable. As compared to something really high leverage like reactive streams it's just going to take a ton of code and be far less flexible in a naive approach (in most cases).
I've seen this same pattern with others. Is it worth the investment of time to get there? Not sure, maybe Go is a better set of tradeoffs for most, but I wouldn't go back to straight executors, locks, and the rest of the Java 1.5 concurrency offerings (which is what I thought the OP was saying).
Interestingly, he's also generally viewed as one of the greatest prime ministers, and did insanely well by most metrics. He served both the longest period of any prime minister in Australia (18 years), and has the longest consecutive time as prime minister too (16 years iirc).
He was also a central figure for one of the two major parties (Liberal - basically our closest equivalent to the American Republican party).
It would be fascinating to hear his opinion on where the Liberal party is today. That said, I think both major parties are generally shit (Broadly speaking, one works in the best interests of corporations, and the other just doesn't do much of anything)
By who? Good old pig iron bob, sold metal to the Japanese that came back as bullets fired during ww2, painted everyone as communists, ran a deeply corrupted domestic spy state and conscripted young men to fight that pointless war in vietnam? Continued the repression of women and homosexuals and kowtowed to the catholic and anglican churches who were buggering orphans and stolen aboriginals on an industrial scale.
That guy? Calling him great is controversial to say the least.
People are dependent on government anyway. Your life is very much in the hands of whichever entity wields the most power. Sometimes this power is direct and immediate (like a tyrannical despot). Other times it's less direct but no less powerful (democracies controlled by corporations).
On using healthcare as a tool for coercion - whilst it's a debatably bad outcome, it's generally still better than healthcare locked behind money (the latter resulting a continuous, persistent denial of healthcare to some portion of the population - the former being a once off, or possibly intermittent, denial of healthcare).
Of course healthcare isn't free. The worst case, of course, is when healthcare is both paid for via taxation and then subsequent billing by non-government entities.
