Even if you're only assembling one IKEA thing every now and then it's still worth picking up. Makes building anything from there less stressful, especially those cam screws. I bought a driver on Amazon.
Yes, on my smart TV app it's so slow and glitchy that the 5-second ad preview often plays for 10+ seconds before the "Skip Ad" button finally appears. Add to that the 5-7 seconds of black screen before the ad starts playing and the 2-3 seconds to resume my video, and it's a major annoyance during workouts and such.
On an old TV I have it can take at least 5 seconds before it starts counting down. I've just assumed it was a badly maintained app. Have 3 smart Tvs and YouTube seems to behave different on all of them. May have to look into it.
Judging by previous flights, the chance of a Columbia problem occurring on any given flight (like that of Atlantis) was around 1/200. Would you take a 1/200 chance of losing your life to save someone else's? Many people would.
There's a PDF in this article that links to dozens of independent studies. Or, just google "covid vaccine efficacy" and it pulls up a bunch of links for you.
It really only takes a minimum of effort to answer these hard-hitting questions you've posed. As another example, I googled "why are pharmaceutical companies immune from liability over covid vaccine" and found https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=848329 .
If you're sweltering then maybe something is wrong with your setup. I've been on Rocky Mountain Power's version of this program for seven years and have only noticed that it's one or two degrees hotter than it should be maaaybe three times. In seven years.
Why don't you just unenroll from the program? I only get a $30 rebate per year. You make it sound like someone's holding a gun to your head and making you live in hell.
Consider how people like to say they have OCD because they think it’s just “liking to be clean”. Most people like things to be clean, right? So anyone could be diagnosed with OCD on a bad day, couldn’t they? No, because OCD is caused by underlying physical problems with the brain that cause very specific symptoms that interfere greatly with your life. When you see a person who is actually diagnosed with OCD, it becomes really clear that none of these other jokers have it.
The problem with ADHD is that instead of hand washing or checking doors or other very unusual rituals, it mostly just looks like laziness to a casual observer.
> No, because OCD is caused by underlying physical problems with the brain that cause very specific symptoms that interfere greatly with your life.
OCD is merely a label for a cluster of symptoms. It says nothing about the cause. The same can be said for the majority of psychiatric diagnoses afaik.
While we don’t know the exact cause of OCD or ADHD, physically, we do have research that describes correlations. Particularly for ADHD, we know certain areas of the brain that control executive function are generally smaller in people with ADHD. We also know that they generally have lower levels of certain brain chemicals, and we have learned far more about it through radioactive isotope examination of the brain as well.
For OCD: Research suggests that OCD involves problems in communication between the front part of the brain and deeper structures of the brain. These brain structures use a neurotransmitter (basically, a chemical messenger) called serotonin. Pictures of the brain at work also show that, in some people, the brain circuits involved in OCD become more normal with either medications that affect serotonin levels (serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SRIs) or cognitive behavior therapy (CBT).
Just because we don’t know the precise cause doesn’t mean we cannot, in the meantime, help alleviate the symptoms for someone suffering from the syndrome (since we don’t know the precise cause).
Please don’t get in the way of this by implying people are “making it up,” because, simply, they are not. Both of these are extremely well studied syndromes, but really only in the last few decades.
> Just because we don’t know the precise cause doesn’t mean we cannot, in the meantime, help alleviate the symptoms for someone suffering from the syndrome (since we don’t know the precise cause).
I didn’t imply anything contrary to that.
> Please don’t get in the way of this by implying people are “making it up,” because, simply, they are not. Both of these are extremely well studied syndromes, but really only in the last few decades.
I didn’t imply people are making it up.
HN guidelines are “Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.”.
I understand that you find it natural to jump to conclusions about what others think, but it really damages good discussion.
> correlations
Exactly - for many psychiatric symptoms the causes are not actually known -instead we just measure a bunch of complicated things and try to read the tea leaves.
Sorry, I really did not mean to give that impression, and I do not trivialise mental health issues.
There is a hell of a lot of bullshit in psychology and psychiatry, sometimes to the point of abusing those they are supposed to help.
I do think that the beliefs like "my brain is wired wrong" or "it's a brain chemistry problem" are usually wrong for some conditions, and that those beliefs can be harmful because they discourage seeking less obvious solutions or solutions particular to the person.
Also you do not want unrealistic expectations of a "cure", or to encourage seeking of dangerous interventions.
The friends I have with mental health issues usually have another layer of strange personal beliefs, which doesn't help either!
It is a difficult topic to comment on, because people tend to be sensitive about it, for valid reasons.
Thanks for clarifying. I agree with everything you've said and I realise that I may have misinterpreted what you were trying to say in your previous comment.
> It is a difficult topic to comment on, because people tend to be sensitive about it, for valid reasons.
It definitely is.
Having been recently diagnosed (via medical professionals) with ADHD, I've suddenly encountered for the first time what it's like to be on the other side of this.
I previously had a very misinformed idea of what ADHD (and related things like OCD) actually were. I wouldn't have trivialised them necessarily in words or conversation, but I definitely had a completely wrong understanding of the seriousness of these conditions. I didn't know what I didn't know.
The misconceptions about some of these conditions are so widespread that in my case, I've found it actively unhelpful in some cases to talk to many people in my life about it. Having done the research, I now understand much more about how my brain works and why some things are much harder for me than others, but trying to bridge the gap in this knowledge with others is really hard. Even those closest to me either view the diagnosis with suspicion (and I don't blame them for that if they have the same misconcieved idea about the condition that I did). Others just listen to me describing the problems I have and dismiss them (not intentionally) by saying things like "everyone has those problems"!
I've heard (perhaps even read on HN) that after being diagnosed with ADHD in adulthood you go through a bit of a grieving phase, in denial, then angry at medical professionals who didn't it spot it before, and then sadness at how your life might have been had you realised you had this condition much earlier. I'm in that phase now, and so the lack of understanding from others (which again, I don't blame them for) makes this all the more harder. I'm trying to reincorporate this new understanding into the "model" of myself that I've constructed over many years (without this important information) - it's tough and rather isolating.
So all of that said. I guess I'm likely to view a lot of discussion on this topic through my own specific lens, which is likely to make me overly sensitive to perceived "trivialisation".
It's interesting to recognise that I wouldn't have had this sensitivity at all only just a matter of weeks ago. It's funny how your outlook on things can change so significantly in a short space of time.
Only if your only criteria for validity for a psychiatric evaluation is having a clear correlation between brain chemistry and the diagnosis. I think the parent comment is just trying to explore where the boundary lies between mental disorder and personality trait. Maybe some psychiatrists here on HN could help add to the discussion and we could all learn more from it.
I've lived in the 'burbs of two major cities and both let you apply to attend a school outside your "boundary." One will approve your request automatically as long as there is space at the school. The other requires a darn good reason to let you switch, and "vicious bullying" was apparently not a good enough reason for my friend to be approved.
That’s how I learned it too, but apparently that is “traditional” grammar. In “modern” grammar any verb with the -ing ending is a gerund now according to Wikipedia.
It's not an invention of Wikipedia editors. If you just read the first paragraph of the article it explains the accepted meaning has evolved over time. It further explains "The distinction between gerund and present participles is not recognised in modern reference grammars, since many uses are ambiguous."
The problem they are trying to solve is offering more stable online learning options. Methinks it may have been spurred on by this whole "global pandemic" situation.
The article explains that teachers are primarily unhappy because one of the options would involve moving online education to a for-profit corporation, which would not only ostensibly divert funds from public education, but also operate without the oversight of the pub ed system.
You're right that that's what the president of one union said.
But according to the article, the option is for it to move to TVO/TFO - a crown corporation that answers to the ministry of education and is non-profit.
Whether he's made an honest mistake or is trying to deceive, like I said, he isn't very compelling.
