Isn't the whole point of amphetamine based treatement for ADHD to correct(or beneficially alter, depending on your point of view) an non-standard brain chemistry?
AFAIK some neurodivergent brains deal with amphetamines differently and the baseline levels of chemical affected by amphetamines is different.
Wear and tear might be a thing, i don't know, but the analogy of putting NO2 in their car feels a bit off.
It'd be more like finally putting premium unleaded in your car after years of "back of the lorry" pseudo-unleaded.
I believe parent commenter was referring to recreational use, i.e., use by people without such diagnoses who want a "performance boost". I heard about that sort of thing being popular when I was in college — people would take Adderall to cram for an exam or to study late into the night.
You're right that, for people with ADHD and related disorders, stimulant medication sort of just adjusts their baselines so they can pay attention like a "normal" person.
> You're right that, for people with ADHD and related disorders, stimulant medication sort of just adjusts their baselines so they can pay attention like a "normal" person.
I have ADHD and take metylphenidate(I've tried many kinds of stimulants as well) -- and the NO2 analogy is an imperfect but better analogy than saying stimulants simply adjusts the baseline of people with ADHD to function like "normal" persons.
I feel there is a narrow window of dosage and time where it might feel that way -- i.e. stimulants at the onset might calm you down, reduce anxiety, but all stimulants are very broad hammers.
For me it feels like it's impossible to re-create chemically exactly the neurotypical focus that I've seen in other colleagues.
Like spending 5-6 hours of continous work where you drill down just enough, get back on track, don't get distracted, don't get too anxious, don't get hyperfocused AND do that consistently, day after day after day.
My non-chemical modes are either hyper focus for 2 weeks on a problem, immerse myself but then completely lose interest, most of the time without showing much for it OR procastinate it a long way, get extremely anxious and work really hard on the problem.
With stimulants it's a bit like:
- dosed just right:it evaporates anxiety, stressful situations feel easy to deal with, BUT there's always increased heart rate, grinding teeth and some tension at the end of the day
- some stimulants make mundane things wildly interesting (on isopropylphenidate I spent a few hours playing with a PLSQL debugger because I thought it was really cool), but no sense of "GO, GO, GO, do it".
- some make things seem urgent enough and help stay on track -- like the metylphenidate I'm prescribed.
- some make going into a flow-like state easy and fun (like methamphetamine and phenmetrazine).
- some are pure energy and urgency -- like modafinil.
All of the stimulants have the potential to give me euphoria, all of them temporarily increase libido I still have to be mindful of not focusing on the wrong thing, the "normal" feeling is very fleeting, it's very easy to get hyper on stimulants, all of them feel like wear & tear at the end of the day, some more than others.
I've had similar experiences to you.
I never can quite get that normalcy. I now just take rilatin but it is finnicky.
Getting enough sleep and eating the right amount of the right stuff just before ingesting is extremely important so I don't even take it all that much even tho i struggle.
I wonder if you tried lisdexamfetamine? I can't get it prescribed easily here since it's not covered the way the alternatives are but someone i know had amazing success with it. Seemingly because it's a prodrug.
I can't help but be hopefull that I'll get to try it one day and that it ends up being what I always needed.
Not the OP, but I‘ve had a rather bad experience with methylphenidate (ritalin) where it made me way more awkward around people, and increased my obsessive tendencies. It did help with focus, but the effects were very short-lived. It also obliterated my hunger and once the effects wore off, it left me feeling semi-depressed until the end of the day.
Once I got prescribed lisdexamphetamine, my life turned around almost instantaneously. While it doesn‘t really get rid of my ADHD, it does help tremendously. The everlasting brainfog isn‘t as debilitating anymore. When I get excited about something I actually tend to follow through. I still battle with my obsessive tendencies — like getting stuck at setting up the perfect project tooling stack or spending way too much time on planning and research instead of just getting to work — but these are not so much related to ADHD.
On lisdexamphetamine, I am more social, my appetite is better, when I actually commit to something, I tend to stick to it for much longer, and I have also picked up a bunch of healthy habits. For example I exercise almost every day now.
If you someday get a chance to switch to lisdex, do it. It’s much smoother, longer-lasting, with fewer side effects. But honestly, anything is better than ritalin in my book.
It's not legal where I live also, I did try 2-FMA and it felt better in certain scenarios -- like following a hard course, but I also felt the tolerance ramps up much faster in releasers than re-uptake inhibitors so methylphenidate still is a wonderful tool.
Watching a good friend of mine struggle with this after diagnosis for a few years now and I feel this really captures the nuance and complexity of this struggle well. Stimulants are an incredible tool but also an incredibly imperfect one.
Eh, for me the comment rings mostly true. It fixed my ADHD - I was incredibly more productive, present, and "on track" so to speak. I set goals for myself and achieved them (some for the first time) once I was treated.
That said, it completely destroyed my appetite. I picked up ciggies, too. It made me crave nicotine and caffeine. I started pulling all-nighters because I was so productive (or, so into whatever game I was playing.) I got cold sweats often and had some weird uh sexual health side effects. Develeoped a tolerance to 5-10mg very quickly, so went up to 15-20mg, which also felt weakened after a month or so.
So, wasn't lolng before I could tell this was not healthy. Felt like I was in overdrive mode - super mentally active, and productive, but running my body into the ground. I would never do it long-term.
A bit more esoteric (and less warningy) and you get the signals we send in to space intentionally as a time-capsule/marker for potential alien contact.
Yeah, dismissing data as racist is quite annoying. I looked at the fertility rate in Poland and it is 0.33 per1000. In Portugal it got better at the expense of 10% of the population being immigrant in a span of 5 years. Of course the natives revolted, all while they enjoy their lives without dependants .
The fault is not of the Indians, or immigrants that come for a better life, and are often needed. The fault is all the developed world, and some not, deciding that having children is not good. I have a the very controversial opinion that not wanting to have children is a disease as we are living organisms and all of them reproduce. There might be manageable diseases but current demographics is a public health crisis.
I am very capitalist but if there is something where the state needs to intervene is to make any kind of employment disturbance into families a severe liability. I just got to know a parent lost its job after coming from paternity leave, for me that company is on my bad book forever, and I sold its stock.
More importantly evolution will evolve around the people that don’t want to reproduce because they will not pass their childless traits. Crudely, it will consider all childless people even if they live to a 100 as death on birth. If somebody said that 60% of the developed world will die in about 5 generations this would be a catastrophe for Bruce Willis, but as it takes time and we have immigrants that have other fertility inclinations to fill the gap, the frog boils slowly into oblivion.
There's a comic out right now positing that a sufficiently intelligent AI with appropriate access could use imperceptible (to us) vibrations from mechanical computing parts like spinning rust HDD's etc.
It's a throwaway mechanic in the comic, but it seems plausible.
You don't need an AI to come up with remote sensing or air gap traversal capabilities though.
Note for example TEMPEST surveillance, or using a distant laser to pickup speech in a room based on window vibrations. Air-gap traversal is easily done by exploiting human weaknesses (e.g. curiousity to pick up a USB drive to see what's on it), and was successfully done by Stuxnet.
Indeed, there are lots of methods, but i was specifically thinking of the possibility of a method an isolated AI might feasibly figure out with only the tools it has easily available to it.
But as someone said earlier, the real interesting part is when/if they start figuring out novel concepts we as humans haven't even considered.
That's generally how it is with opinionated frameworks (and i use that term as a literal, as opposed to agnostic), you do the thing in the way expected or it's a fight.
Svelte is one of the less opinionated ones i've used but it does still have it's eccentricities.
Woke as a pejorative is a big red flag for a lot of people btw, especially here, you're going to get significantly less positive interactions by starting your text with the textual equivalent of a red baseball cap.
> LLMs in their current state have integrated into the workflows for many, many IT roles. They'll never be niche, unless governing bodies come together to kill them.
That is an exaggeration, it is integrated into some workflows, usually in a provisional manner while the full implications of such integrations are assessed for viability in the mid to long term.
At least in the fields of which i have first hand knowledge.
> Straw man argument - this is in no way a metric for validating the power of LLMs as a tool for IT roles. Can you not find open source code bases that leverage LLMS because you haven't looked, or because you can't tell the difference between human and LLM code?
Straw man rebuttal, presenting an imaginary position in which this statement is doesn't apply doesn't invalidate the statement as a whole.
> As I said, you haven't been paying attention.
Or alternatively you've been paying attention to a selective subset of your specific industry and have made wide extrapolations based on that.
> Denialism - the practice of denying the existence, truth, or validity of something despite proof or strong evidence that it is real, true, or valid
What's the one where you claim strong proof or evidence while only providing anecdotal "trust me bro" ?
It being common doesn't make it OK, but it does make it not a personal attack.
Exploit scanners are common, they are not someone attacking you personally.
I'd be surprised if the mass download and the exploit scanner were even related. Much more likely they weren't and somebody just messed up some bot they were building and fetched everything in a loop.
It's annoying, yes, but it's not personal. Nobody is attacking him personally. Feeding into that understanding of the situation isn't helpful, just like you shouldn't encourage people who believe they are the victims of gang stalking because they've seen 5 red cars this morning.
None of what i said had anything to do with the nature of the attack, personal or otherwise.
The author seems to be taking it a bit personally but they don't seem to be implying an attack targeted to them exclusively as much as an attack that they experienced personally but it could be either i suppose.
The blog post was, "this is a thing that happened, followed by another thing i think was related, i am upset, here is why"
Your response was "this is common, suck it up"
The post itself doesn't mention any sort of persecution or targeted attack.
What you said was dismissive and condescending, being technically correct about things that are unrelated doesn't negate that.
> A couple of days ago, someone (or some entity) tried to attack this website. They sent hundreds of thousands of requests, attempting to inject code into the site. [...] But then they changed strategy. They began downloading every single sound file, again and again.
The author definitely saw it as a targeted attack that, when it failed, caused the attacker to switch tactics to intentionally cause harm.
And it's not "this is common, suck it up", it's "this is common, it's not about you personally, nobody is out to get YOU". It's like when you first receive spam mails and didn't know what that was. It's easy to think it's just someone messing with you, trying to annoy you. But it's really not, it's lots of people sending out millions of messages, and some of those finding their way into your mailbox.
It helps classify what happens. It's a very different situation when your car has been keyed and you know that it happened to every car on your street (super likely to be random vandalism) vs that is happened to only your car (much more likely that somebody is out to get you). Your behavior changes in response to whether something is random vs intentional.
That's why it's important to help people understand when things aren't intentional (as in "they targeted _that_ website specifically" vs "they target all the sites, and today their scanner arrived at domains starting with myno"; of course they still intentionally ran that script).
> The author definitely saw it as a targeted attack that, when it failed, caused the attacker to switch tactics to intentionally cause harm.
Saying "someone or something" is generic and also accurate it doesn't explicitly imply a specific person or targeting, though I'll concede it could be interpreted that way.
As interesting a side conversation as this is it isn't my original point.
As i said in my original reply:
> It being common doesn't mean it's OK, it also doesn't mean people aren't allowed to be upset by it.
> "You probably need to calm down a bit" is dismissive and condescending.
It's entirely possible to explain context to someone without being dismissive of their feelings on the subject.
AFAIK some neurodivergent brains deal with amphetamines differently and the baseline levels of chemical affected by amphetamines is different.
Wear and tear might be a thing, i don't know, but the analogy of putting NO2 in their car feels a bit off.
It'd be more like finally putting premium unleaded in your car after years of "back of the lorry" pseudo-unleaded.