Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | pflats's comments login

I was curious, so I grabbed three undergraduate-level physics texts I had nearby.

One explicitly recites the Ultraviolet Catastrophe prompted Planck story, complete with Rayleigh's incomplete formula.

One essentially matches the story in section 2, using the lesser version of Rayleigh's formula, but (just like the story) does not explicitly tie Planck's work to it. (That textbook notes "an act of desperation" is a quote from one of Planck's letters.)

The third one is interesting! It says that "late nineteenth century physicists tried to understand the shape of the blackbody spectrum [...] using their knowledge of thermodynamics and electromagnetic waves. Their efforts ended in failure." This third text never mentions Rayleigh by name and doesn't specifically show "Rayleigh's Lesser Formula", but it does graph that formula vs. the observed blackbody radiation (interestingly, as a function of frequency instead of wavelength).

The text then eventually says that in 1900, Planck used a photon argument "to make a theoretical prediction that is in excellent agreement with the experimental spectrum". It does not explicitly state cause and effect, but it's kinda implied from the structure of the writing.

Reading into the third text a smidge, it feels like the result of wanting to use the Rayleigh/Catastrophe story and yet knowing it wasn't quite true.


The third source is still wrong, as Planck certainly would not agree that he used the photon argument to make a prediction. He tried to explain the experimental data on blackbody radiation, which manifested the spectral peak, and an agreement with the Rayleigh-Jeans and Wien laws in the two frequency limits. Thus not a prediction, but an explanation of the observed thing.

And he did not believe in photons, he interpreted his work in terms of classical EM radiation obeying some entropy condition, and quanta of energy that he used were considered either a math trick to make calculations with that entropy, or a condition on the emission process only in his later theories. He never assumed or believed that EM radiation consists of quanta.


Useful to give the title, author, and date of those three texts.


Suppose an author uploads their book to ExamplePrint Inc, a one stop shop that prints made-to-order books for customers.

The reader goes to ExamplePrint and buys the book.

ExamplePrint prints a softcover copy of the book on the spot and ships it out to the reader.

The user pays ExamplePrint, who pays the author some fraction of the user's money.

The reader is a customer of ExamplePrint and reading the author's book.

This is the analogy Apple would like to use for their app store. Apple's print time is almost instantaneous and the marginal costs are closer to zero.


Nice analogy. The problem is, that ExamplePrint is the only shop the author can use to reach his customers. There is also PrintExample (Android), but it's customer base has zero overlap with ExamplePrint. Therefore the author has no choice but to use ExamplePrint's service.


Your example is actually showing why it is the customer of ExamplePrint that choose to read that book and not the customer of that book that choose to print it at ExamplePrint.

Because if it is the customer of the book that wants to print it they are always welcome to go to PrintExample. But the situation is actually reverse: the customer entered ExamplePrint because they choose ExamplePrint first and then saw the book there. They might not read that book if they would not have been a customer of ExamplePrint => do they are in fact a customer of ExamplePrint that choose to read something they found there.


I don't agree. Without the authors, the printer has no business. No one is going to want to be customer of ExamplePrint to buy books with empty pages. The problem is, that because of size and technological obstacles, ExamplePrint can dictate the conditions for the authors. The relationship is very asymetrical. The only way out is to have laws that make this limited marketplace fair for all three sides. Hence the EUs attempt at regulating the so called getekeepers.


A bit of an oversimplification and slightly wrong, but the problem is essentially that it is a Bad Spaniels brand dog toy, parodying the sound-a-like Jack Daniels brand whiskey.

There exists the Rogers Test in trademark law that says that, for an /artistic work/, all a defendant has to do is show that a) the trademark is relevant to the artistic work, and b) the title is not explicitly misleading (to make the audience think the work is created/supported by the trademark holder).

The Rogers Test, reserved for artistic work, is gentler than normal trademark defense. Bad Spaniels chew toy passed this test easily.

The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that, because the chew toy is released by the Bad Spaniels /brand/, the Rogers /artistic work/ analysis is not appropriate.

Instead, it should be litigated as a brand vs. brand trademark dispute.

In a brand vs. brand dispute, Jack Daniels will have to instead prove that the Bad Spaniels brand is likely to cause confusion with regards to Jack Daniels brand's involvement in the product.

This is a higher bar to clear than Rogers test, because the trademark doesn't have to be explicitly confusing; it just needs to be likely.

I'm not a lawyer or a judge, but I don't think Jack Daniels will prevail even with the stricter standard.

(IMO,) this ruling is barely going to matter in the long run: if the Bad Spaniels chew bottle was sold by Bob's Novelties and did not included the word "brand" after "Bad Spaniels", then the Rogers test would still apply.


More specifically, Steve Jobs founded NeXT after Apple pushed him out in the late 80s.

A decade or so later, Apple was on the tail end of a long, slow, downward slide. The team wasn't happy with the current state of their Mac operating system, and bought out NeXT to use their software as the basis of its replacement (Mac OS X).

Jobs, as CEO of NeXT, came back to Apple as a consultant, but was CEO again in a matter of years.


Zuckerberg almost always refers to one specific person; Cuban is a last name of an investor and also describes things related to the nation of Cuba.


Not true. One of the very first lines there states that:

> OGL 1.1 makes clear it only covers material created for use in or as TTRPGs, and those materials are only ever permitted as printed media or static electronic files (like epubs and PDFs). Other types of content, like videos and video games, are only possible through the Wizards of the Coast Fan Content Policy or a custom agreement with us.

The Fan Content Policy is:

https://company.wizards.com/en/legal/fancontentpolicy

Which says that:

> You can’t require payments, surveys, downloads, subscriptions, or email registration to access your Fan Content;

> You can’t sell or license your Fan Content to any third parties for any type of compensation; and

> Your Fan Content must be free for others (including Wizards) to view, access, share, and use without paying you anything, obtaining your approval, or giving you credit.

> You can, however, subsidize your Fan Content by taking advantage of sponsorships, ad revenue, and donations—so long as it doesn’t interfere with the Community’s access to your Fan Content.

All of this exists (IMO) because game mechanics aren't subject to copyright, so you can, if you'd like, read these two sets of rules as Hasbro saying, "This is what we're willing to let you do without having to get a lawyer to defend yourself in court, even if it's legally allowed."

Note, though, that in GP's post, "places and characters from one of the world say Ansalon" very much are covered by WotC's copyrights (and probably some trademarks too).


Thanks, looks like it's pretty strigent. Well worst case I'll put it up for free when done. Don't think anyone is going to pay anyway, just a hobby project.


20% is going to the publisher. They paid for the Steam version, including hiring the graphics and sound people. They're also handling customer support for the paid version.

https://www.reddit.com/r/dwarffortress/comments/b0mzog/offic...


The study also does not claim to show a causal relationship.


As the parent of a child with ADHD that is medicated, it seems completely plausible that it could cause depression. When my kid has had too high a dosage (or accidentally takes a double dose) she's like a zombie, completely flat affect, and very little motivation. It's like it drains her life away.

Part of the problem is that it's very difficult to get the right dosage for any given day because diet, metabolism, and hormones seem to have a big impact on how effective it is. We've found it's better to go with a lower-dose extended release, and then let her self-medicate with 5mg regular tablets as needed. This works great now because she's a fairly responsible teenager (when medicated), but it was really hard when she was younger.


Extended release (XR) is very nice, since it avoids the dopamine peaks and valleys caused by individual doses. I will say, generic XR is usually pretty crappy, since it basically breaks the dose into two parts. Name brand XR is better because they construct the pill to where there is an actual extended release. Which sucks, because it's super expensive as a result.

What I do instead is two lower-dose XR pills per day. The four hits over about 8 hours seems to work pretty well for me.


Extended release on the lower end of dosage + self-medicating with caffeine as a booster has been my go-to for about 15 years now. As an adult who's been taking it since middle school I can say that, while it's had its ups and downs, overall life is better with it than the times I've had to go without due to insurance disruptions or moving and having to find a new doctor who will prescribe it.


This has been my experience almost exactly. Low dose XR + controlled caffeine usage. Been about 3 years for me now.


I share this experience myself, in particular the dosage not providing a consistent effect day to day - every specialist I've spoken has told me this is weird and shouldn't be happening and yet it is so. Switching to staged release medication (Medikinet CR) has helped me too.

Unfortunately extended release Methylphenidate of any kind/brand is only partially covered by Dutch health insurance[1], and I'm certain the cost is prohibitive for people who might be less well off.

1: In essence, the government has determined that all Methylphenidate variants are equal, and so you can just take the cheapest instant release variant or else pay the difference out of your own pocket.


I take phentermine (another legal amphetamine; partial doses), and this doesn’t surprise me at all.

The bipolar-level manic highs and depression/lows are very real.

The feelings of suicide and hopelessness creep up; I have enough personal awareness and grit to ignore it but it feels awful.

To avoid that creep-up, the best thing I found is to have “break” days at least once or twice a week. That is, no pills.

I doubt your daughter or others with ADHD have that luxury though.


I’ll be honest, I’ve been on adderall (with occasional periods off the drug) for almost 20 years now, and I’ve never experienced anything remotely approaching mania or severe depression (as distinguished from rare bouts of sadness). And I’ve not always been the most careful taker of the medication, frequently alternating between taking too much or lowering my dose.

I’m not saying it’s not possible to have those side effects, I just haven’t experienced them.


Everyone is certainly different; I know people on Adderall (or Vyvanse, which is similar) that have great outcomes, but Adderall gives me manic episodes, raises my resting heart rate by 20bpm, prevents me from sleeping, and causes mild hallucinations. I took it exactly once. Vyvanse had the same side-effects, but much milder and it lasted longer. I ended up on Focalin, which works and the only side effect is mild interference with my sleep.


> The bipolar-level manic highs and depression/lows are very real.

I've had to be very careful about NOT using those terms when talking to doctors and psychiatrists. As a layperson that description seems to fit, but it causes huge red flags for medical professionals and they freak out, resulting unnecessary tests and evaluations for my kid.

The key term for the "manic" phase after the meds wear off is "Rebound Effect". Also when the dose is too high the generally accepted term is "zombie mode" or "zombie-like". Calling it an "overdose" will really cause people to freak the fuck out.


There's big differences between drugs in the same family. Personally speaking Methylphenidate is much less intense and easier to fit into my normal life than the Lisdexamfetamine (which are probably closer to phentermine)


What is she taking?


It's changed a few times over the years because of insurance, but right now it's Focalin XR and 5mg Ritalin as needed up to 2 times a day.


Thanks!


If a double dose noticably zombifies then a single dose must zombify too, just unnoticably.

Surely any zombie is too much zombie.


That’s not true. For example, a lot of Benadryl will make you hallucinate, but that doesn’t mean a normal dose will make you hallucinate a small amount.

Getting horribly fall down drunk as a teenager caused me to shit my pants once. But I didn’t so much as fart when I got tipsy on vacation recently.


I wouldn't bet on that. It's far from a sure thing and the price of losing is too great.


I would absolutely be willing to bet that a small dose of Benadryl won't make someone hallucinate "a small amount".

Put it another way if makes you feel better -- a little bit of D3 via direct sunlight and D3 rich foods will improve your mood and health outcomes in a variety of ways. An excessive amount of D3 will give you kidney stones and harm your bones.


Would you notice it if you became slowly, progressively, stupider over several years? Maybe, maybe not.


This is mostly just scaremongering, but even if I had a noticeable drop in intelligence from taking medication over multiple years, gaining the ability to actually schedule appointments in a calendar, to do focused research on topics that I'm interested in, and to build productive habits like eating regularly, exercising daily, and daily practicing skills I wanted to improve at -- would more than offset the downside.

It's one thing to be worried about subtle effects from medication, but I already know what the long term health and brain effects are from constant insomnia and regularly forgetting to eat. Neither of those are good for brain function.

So yeah, seems like a pretty reasonable risk to take, particularly given the fact that I have a psychiatrist, therapist, and multiple friends and family monitoring me.

Let me flip the question back to you. Would you notice if D3 or iron or protein intake was subtly harming you over the course of multiple years? Is that something that terrifies you?


You're taking a hammer to the seat of your soul. So I gotta raise my eyebrow.

But you tell me it feels good. And you are more productive etc. And all the experts agree. So who am I to argue?


Still wondering if you have the same concerns about the long-term effects of iron intake as you do about medications, or if you're somewhat selective about which long-term effects of chemicals in the body terrify you.

But yes, I do think the benefits for my mental health very clearly outweigh the theoretical risks you posit. So even if I agreed with what you're saying (which I don't), a subtle hammer tap to the soul is still very clearly and obviously better than the sledgehammer to the soul that is sleep deprivation (something that I concretely know would impact my brain function as I age and that I concretely know makes me less of myself). If that causes you to raise your eyebrows, then I'm not sure what to say other than that you're bad at risk analysis.


I was actually going to point that out. IMO from what I've seen of parents are that people who bring their children at a young-ish age to a therapist have a different issue. Especially "being to hyper" or "being unable to focus" have a different issue.

Children are supposed to be outside moving 8-12 hours a day, have you seen puppies? They need something similar. Instead many parents give their children tablets, plop them in front of the TV and do something else. Kick them into the back yard or go throw a ball with them.

Every child I know diagnosed with ADHD had parents who didn't want to deal with them. Bringing them to the gym, to the park, playing in the backyard; it's a lot of work. Kids who have trouble focusing are likely tired and overstimulated. Reduce the number of toys, remove TV / tablets, and send them outside. It'll probably solve itself.

As an experiment, look at the people you know on medication (or ask), look at the troubled children, etc. I guarantee you'll see the same trend: single parent home, started medication at an early age, regular therapist appointments, etc. They're unhappy and need depressants, ADHD medication, etc.

It's not always the case, but it's a trend. People who are diagnosed with ADHD at a younger age likely have parents who just don't want / know how to deal with issues. Mental health "experts" treat the symptoms via medication, but the underlying issue(s) just continue to fester.

What we really need is a strong emphasis on family development, courses built around it and support groups. Parents naturally do this, but I think it's been severely broken down the past 50-60 years and is getting exponentially worse. As such we see more: single parent homes, abundance of medication, reduction in religion and adult social clubs, etc.


I started medication as an adult, lived in a home with two involved & present parents, never saw any doctor about ADHD until I was an adult, and was never an unhappy child.

Looking back, I clearly had ADHD, but since it's a condition that's unique and specific symptoms vary per person, I just happened to have mechanisms that worked and got lucky with how my brain patterns fit into school from Elementary - High School.

I had plenty of outdoor activity, and plenty of video games / computer use. Not that you mentioned it, but I also read fantasy/sci-fi books like they were daily papers, finished all of my incomplete homework in the morning while waiting for class to start, and was constantly multi-tasking in class (reading, doing homework for an upcoming class, or occasionally fidgeting).

My sample size is 1, but I have 4-5 diagnosed (either as kids or adults) close friends with similar stories.

Your comment takes some generally-well-known positive advice (exercise more, social interaction & supportive relationships are good, parenting kids is a big task that takes time & effort), and identifies some real problems we face today (social isolation, a lack of non-religious adult organizations, sedentary lifestyles) and uses it to disparage people with real, diagnosable conditions, and vilifying those who turn to medication for it.

I'm fine with how my life worked out, but I can't imagine being the kind of kid whose ADHD manifested in a different way that made school exponentially harder than it was for me, and being told that life-changing medicine, that let me participate in school or work just like everyone else does, is something I was given by mistake, or that I just had shit parents or should have played outside more.


One way I try to explain it to people: "We give people insulin because they have diabetes. Diabetes is the disease, but you can cure it through diet and exercise for Type 2 (it's environmental), Type 1 you cannot (it's genetic). Insulin treats the disease, but doesn't cure it"

Why is it not the same for ADHD or depression? Type 1 is genetic and Type 2 is environmental.

The argument I was attempting to make is different from what everyone here is saying I think. What is a disease?

> Disease - a condition of the living animal or plant body or of one of its parts that impairs normal functioning and is typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptoms

Two points:

1. I would argue that what you describe isn't impairing normal function. It's that we are attempting to make you do abnormal things (sit in a room all day and be lectured at. At the end you have an exam). Society is failing to raise children properly and expecting things that are abnormal for the human animal.

2. A disease is basically diagnosed from a bucket of symptoms. Those symptoms will have different causes. Without taking a measured approach at identifying the causes, you are likely going to see a plethora of factors. These can and do include things like hyperactivity from siting and watching TV (now they have energy and want to move). Things of that nature.

Given the above, we're effectively medicating children for personal / societal reasons, not because the human animal is actually suffering or impaired in any way.


Let me put it another way then - ADHD meds increase the range of tasks I'm able to do succesfully. They add to my life rather than take something away.

I'm talking about tasks I want to do but would struggle with without medication (mainly coding for pleasure).

Yeah - I could find different things to do with my life, but I love coding and I am delighted to find there's a simple pill I can take that helps me do more of it.


I understand what you're saying, but reread what you said and replace "medication" and "pill" with "cocaine". Amphetamine can be used in the same manner and for the same perceived reasons.

Granted, I am happy for you and I think drug laws are ridiculous.


(Methylphenidate is not amphetamine btw. Other ADHD meds are literally amphetamines but I'm only talking about methylphenidate)

If cocaine had positive effects that outweighed the negatives then it absolutely should be prescribed. But it doesn't. Unlike methylphenidate - which for most people has fairly mild downsides at the doses it is usually prescribed in. It is also largely non-addictive with little evidence of long-term health damage.

Also unlike cocaine.

All in all, I'm not sure how this comparison helps.


Methylphenidate is highly addictive...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylphenidate

Though I'll grant you we don't have data for long-term effects.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014976341...

Further, as you pointed out does have benefits (which is I assume why it's prescribed). Cocaine and meth have similar effects btw (pros and cons), abuse is what causes the issue(s). People can survive on both for decades though.


Your analogy fails because type one diabetes also has an causal environmental component:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5571740/


I disagree:

“ In this paper, we discuss candidate triggers of islet autoimmunity and factors thought to promote progression from autoimmunity to overt type 1 diabetes (figure 1). These factors seem to have their effect mainly in the genetically predisposed individuals.” [my emphasis]


“ Importantly, environmental factors that trigger islet autoimmunity might differ from those that promote progression from autoimmunity to overt diabetes.”


My situation mirrors yours pretty closely. I didn't recognize the symptoms or seek treatment until my mid-30's, but looking back I clearly had ADHD symptoms that became serious around high school.

In my case, my grades plummeted and I was unable to get into the colleges I wanted, or to graduate from an engineering program like I had wanted. I ended up graduating with a degree after 7 years and bouncing between 4 different colleges, and I've had a decently good career in Silicon Valley where being a generalist is a solid plus. But my dreams of being a (literal) astronaut were flushed down the toilet in the process.

Kids shouldn't have to sacrifice their dreams or their self-esteem because parents are unwilling or unable to seek proper treatment.


As you pointed out ADHD is a disease, what’s the cause?

Do you have adhd, or do the drugs help you focus and you want that?

Calling it a disease implies something is wrong, but having trouble focusing isn’t “wrong”. It’s a skill one can acquire and may have a variety of factors impacting it (from genetics to environment to mental management).

That’s the issue I personally take with these kind of discussions. Medication may help you focus (coffee does that), but do people who need coffee in the morning to focus well have a disease? Hardly.


Not them, and I don't have ADHD, but I am the parent of a child with ADHD and I know plenty of people with ADHD, and it's not just "having trouble focusing". For a lot of people, it's a complete inability to focus on any one thing for any real amount of time. They can try as hard as they can to force themselves, but become disfocused and distracted despite any effort. It also often involves impulsiveness that is incredibly difficult to control, to the point that often it feels like it wasn't even their own choice. A common description I've heard is that it feels like somebody else was controlling them. My son would say when he was younger "My brain made me do it" or "my hands just did it on their own", and at first I thought it was an excuse, but after one destructive incident, he broke down crying at the age of 7 saying that he doesn't know why he does the things he does, and he can't stop or control himself, and he wishes he could stop himself from doing it. He tries to be good but then something takes control and makes him do destructive things or blurt out things he knows are wrong to say.

On medication now, he still has a hard time, but he is actually capable of controlling himself, he is capable of forcing himself to focus, and he's much happier. Now it is just a skill for him to work on, but in the past, it was an actual impossibility. It is a true disorder, not just "trouble focusing", and ADHD medication is a fundamental need for some people to function at all, and not comparable to a morning coffee.

In the past, these people were often assumed to be possessed, or insane, and were institutionalized, killed, or imprisoned. It's not like ADHD is a new epidemic or something.


Thank you for you sympathy and empathetic response. Your son's in good hands.

As an ADHDer, I never understood what it was like for others until I got treatment with stimulants. It's like I can just take this magic pill and for 8 hours I'm "normal."

I wish there was an opposite pill, one which made people inattentive and impulsive. Then everyone else could try it for a day or two and see how debilitating it is. Regular, everyday life is like being falling-down drunk in terms of mental incapacitation, and the pills for the first time let us experience life sober.

Edit: how old is your son now? One thing I worry about as a parent of an ADHDer as well is her eating. I've so far avoided treatment for her because I'm worried she'll eat less and her growth will be stunted. We're cautiously waiting on medication until post-puberty.


> I wish there was an opposite pill, one which made people inattentive and impulsive.

I suggest you have someone sleep 4 hours a night for a week. You'll often see the same symptoms as someone with ADHD.


My son is 9 now. We only started him on medication this year (we were trying so hard to get it under control without medication, and his doctor was worried about his weight if we put him on the stimulants). Getting him to eat is a challenge, but it always was anyway and he's always been pretty skinny. Fortunately, he loves milk, so we can always get some calories and protein in him that way. We get a low-carb full-fat milk so his sugar intake isn't crazy high.


Thanks for replying. Which meds? Do you have off days?


Dextroamphetamine. Worked great for a few months, but have lessened in effectiveness. Now it still works for focus, but the impulsiveness came back (he was actually able to explain to me that he was having trouble controlling his actions), so he's now on guanfacine too, for impulse control.

We do a couple off days now and then, but not a lot because he feels like it's a wasted day because he can't focus on anything he really wants to. I suggested that he could take weekends off the stimulant, but he says he'd rather be able to operate mostly every day than to have a more focused week and completely wasted weekend, and I feel like he's capable of making that decision for himself.


Ironically, the opposite pill for me is Adderall. I take stimulants for idiopathic hypersomnia and if I take too high of a dose I have a hard time concentrating on just one thing.

I don’t think it gets as bad as ADHD but I definitely get a taste of it.


There's a huge difference between having a little trouble focusing, and struggling all fucking day to focus... then realizing at the end of the day, you have been working all day, but bouncing between tasks so much that you really got nothing done. It's frustrating and debilitating and makes you feel like a complete piece of shit. Then because you're not doing as well as everybody around you, you dwell on it at night, and you don't sleep. And you know what no sleep does? It exacerbates the problem, and so you have to struggle even harder when you're exhausted just to get things done. Then you spend all weekend sleeping, because it's the only 2 nights of the week where you don't have to go back to work the next day, and fail yet again. Then you start to feel like your life is this fucking cycle of struggle every week, with no personal accomplishments.


ADHD is not a disease; our brains are just wired differently. The upsides of ADHD - hyperfocus, strategic planning, ability to readily correlate otherwise unrelated things all contributed to who I am and my success. The drugs help even out the downsides to ADHD.


As someone with ADHD, who has a kid with ADHD, this dismissive attitude is really unwelcome. Inattentiveness is a real symptom with drastic life-altering effects for which medication is a godsend. Studies have shown that exposure to screen time does not result in ADHD.

To be told "you're just a bad parent who lets their kid watch an iPad too much" is infuriating. (I'm trying to keep things civil per the site rules, but my honest reaction begins with 'F' and ends with 'U', guy.)


Sounds like you’re not up to date on research, there’s a few citations in later comments.

Anyway, I don’t think the poster was saying it doesn’t exist. They appear to be saying there are correlations and often a diagnosis at a young age is a reflection more on a willingness to accept a hyper child vs not. That is to say, a child can have ADHD, but that doesn’t mean you have to medicate them. Medicating them (again at a young age) for ADHD, indicates a willingness and potentially eagerness to medicate, as opposed to attempting to correct issues. Ie just give the drugs, don’t try to figure out why they’re depressed.


He pointed to a paper which I haven't had time to read yet. At risk of sounding like a general dismissal I'll say three outcomes are possible:

1) The study is right and every doctor and medical institution I've talked to is wrong.

2) The study's results are being generalized too far or misinterpreted. E.g. I've been told (and it's true in my experience) ADHD people tend to be attracted to screens for the dopamine hit and characteristically lack self-control, rather than the screens causing ADHD.

3) The study is cherry-picked and wrong. Either it is an abnormal result that doesn't replicate, or the study was badly constructed.

Given the fact that my doctors gave me multiple studies to look at which showed the exact opposite conclusion, my prior leads me to believe (2) or (3) over the first possibility. I'll skim the study he posted later though when I have time.

My anicdata doesn't constitute medical science, so it's entirely possible that this study is right and I am wrong, and I'm big enough to admit that. I wouldn't bet on that outcome though, in this case.

EDIT: Also one point you may or may not be aware of is that non-medicative interventions for ADHD are at best a coping mechanism and never satisfactorily address the underlying issues. In the words of my doc: if you are diagnosed with ADHD and you can solve your problems completely with therapy and just going outside or whatever, you didn't have ADHD in the first place and the diagnosis was wrong. Actual ADHD is when your brain is wired up a different way, and general lifestyle interventions can't address the problems that causes.

ADHD people have spent their entire lives feeling frustrated and powerless as the well-meaning people around them tell to simply "stop being so distracted!". Believe me, if we could turn it off we would. It's not so simple. The poster above is making essentially the same critique: that it's not the kid's neural chemistry or wiring that is causing them issues; it's the parent's fault. Stop being a bad parent!

That's worse than unhelpful.


indicates a willingness and potentially eagerness to medicate, as opposed to attempting to correct issues. Ie just give the drugs, don’t try to figure out why they’re depressed.

This is speculating on the motivations of a wide class of people without data, and is complete nonsense.


Maybe don't take it personally, I think they're saying that much of society is doing it wrong.

EDIT: But yes, they’re also saying that many parents are doing it wrong, and they’re assigning much of the blame to parenting. My point was that when a huge percentage of parents are “doing it wrong”, maybe there’s some wider systemic thing at play. Like economic forces that make people work harder than they should if they have kids, dissolution of support networks that would’ve normally cared for the kids in addition to the parents, etc. I’m not saying that this is a cause of ADHD, because I know little about it, but if you take their opinion as correct, then much of the blame could be laid at the societal structures we’ve created rather than the individual.


Even if I wasn't someone with ADHD, the comment in question is dismissive of what ADHD actually is, as well as the very-valid treatment of getting medication.

Like I said in my comment, they pointed out some real problems, but made sweeping generalizations, mostly negative, about the people in question.

ADHD is not well understood by a lot of people, and someone with or without ADHD who is well-versed in the topic pointing out that their comment is not helpful to discussion about how to treat the disorder, shouldn't be dismissed as them "Taking it personally".


They said it was infuriating and they were very tempted to just say “fuck you”, they’re very clearly taking it personally, it’s not meant as a dismissal. I’m just trying to help them not feel personally attacked, but clearly I did that poorly. Sorry about that.


As the person in question, I understood your intent and I didn't downvote you. But it's also hard to see how (paraphrased:) "Parents of so-called ADHD kids are bad parents and their kids have a made-up disease" is not meant as a personal attack: "You are a bad parent and should feel bad."


No, there's some incredibly broad brush strokes in the parent comment.

* "Every child I know diagnosed with ADHD had parents who didn't want to deal with them."

* "look at the people you know on medication (or ask), look at the troubled children, etc. I guarantee you'll see the same trend"

* "likely have parents who just don't want / know how to deal with issues"

There's only a single phrase "not always the case, but it's a trend" that frames it as a societal issue on average, but that doesn't counter the incredibly general conclusions made by the poster.


I can't believe the responder had the gall to take personal attacks personally. Have they tried going outside more? If they didn't sit on their butt all day they might not be inclined to take my directed insults personally.


I know these sorts of comments are more welcome on Reddit than HN, but I chuckled and thanks for that.


I realize that posting that comment wasn't too helpful on my part, but people being dismissive of ADHD is probably the quickest way to get a rise out of me.

Sorry for being snarky. Not sorry for calling out destructive, unscientific bullshit.


To be clear, I'm actually blaming therapists and "mental health experts".

Parents are clearly doing their best and looking for support. The "experts" are paid (in many cases) through recurring attendance and kick-backs from pharma... why would we assume they'd want to resolve the issue any other way? Even the research is often funded by pharma... Note the NIH even receives revenue (and individual scientists) from creating patents associated with drugs.

Here's something I posted in another comment, but ADHD / Depression is a "disease" is a bucket of symptoms that impair an organisms normal function.

1. I would argue that what you describe isn't impairing normal function. It's that we are attempting to make children do abnormal things (sit in a room all day and be lectured at. At the end you have an exam). Society is failing to raise children properly and expecting things that are abnormal for the human animal.

2. A disease is basically diagnosed from a bucket of symptoms. Those symptoms will have different causes. Without taking a measured approach at identifying the causes, you are likely going to see a plethora of factors. These can and do include things like hyperactivity from siting and watching TV (now they have energy and want to move). Things of that nature.

Now to compound the issue, look at how all the parents are responding. There is no way they'd consider alternatives.

One way I try to explain it to people: "We give people insulin because they have diabetes. Diabetes is the disease, but you can cure it through diet and exercise for Type 2 (it's environmental), Type 1 you cannot (it's genetic). Insulin treats the disease, but doesn't cure it".

Why are we giving all the kids medication instead of trying to have them diet and exercise (or what ever equivalent)?

Parents in this thread are taking it very personally, but in reality I'm trying to discuss ways to treat the underlying issue(s). And yes, I am saying that there are societal, family, etc expectations and management that can be employed to remove symptoms of the disease (which in effect would "cure" the disease).


Your diabetes analogy fails, because ADHD does not have an environmentally-caused Type 2.

ADHD is hereditary, genetic, and has to do with how the brain tends to be wired in that individual. ADHD can be helped through environment and habit changes, and impacts can be reduced, but you cannot cure it.

It seems that you think ADHD is not a real disease, given your quotes around the words "disease", "cure", etc. If some people are mis-diagnosed, it doesn't invalidate all the others.


ADHD is caused by a mix off environment and genetics. That environment could include several inputs, like diet, air pollution, etc.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31810593/

And ADHD is not a disease, it is a disorder. There is no biological markers yet for a diagnosis either.


The experts you are blaming are psychiatrist, so they would have on average ten years of university study. Please explain what your credentials are so we can weigh our opinions regarding your statements.


> “ People who are diagnosed with ADHD at a younger age likely have parents who just don't want / know how to deal with issues.”

I have no idea where you take this opinion from or if you can back it up. From my anecdotal evidence exactly the opposite is true: kids from families who do realize there is such a thing as mental health and who care deeply about their kids - those get diagnosed. Kids from other families just get mostly slapped around and screamed at to get their shit together.


> Every child I know diagnosed with ADHD had parents who didn't want to deal with them

You must not know many parents then.

Parents I know that have children with ADHD recognize their children are struggling beyond simple hyperactivity. These are children that are markedly behind their peers in childhood milestones regardless of their family upbringing, education, and socio-economic status. These are children that have a deficiency in the executive function of their brains where hyperactivity is one of many symptoms, and is not even necessarily the most worrying.

These are children that struggle with simple tasks that other children do not.

Parents of these children are no less loving, caring, or capable than parents without ADHD children. Parents should not be shamed for using effective medications (like MDH) so their children can have positive outcomes in their development and adult-life.

> What we really need is a strong emphasis on family development, courses built around it and support groups

ADHD is generally a disorder that you are born with. No amount of family development can prevent the disease.

Educate yourself by watching this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUQu-OPrzUc&t=137s


Couldn’t the posters point about lack of parental engagement be the root cause for being behind their peers?

I’m sorry, it doesn’t seem like you’re really challenging the argument.


> it doesn’t seem like you’re really challenging the argument.

That's probably because it's an argument uninformed by even the slightest bit of research into how a brain with ADHD works.

Also you're sealioning, so :reported:


> sealioning

huh hadn't heard that before -- good to know


"People who are diagnosed with ADHD at a younger age likely have parents who just don't want / know how to deal with issues."

Once you have a child with ADHD, or if you are someone with ADHD, you will understand just how wrong you are. Until then, enjoy your bliss.


I formed this opinion from knowing many and seeing the way they are being / were raised. There's quite a bit of evidence to support this btw (outside of my observations).

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1471-2431-12-50

> Approximately 10% of the sample was classified as having ADHD. We found depression, anxiety, healthcare coverage, and male sex of child to have increased odds of being diagnosed with ADHD. One of the salient features of this study was observing a significant association between ADHD and variables such as TV usage, participation in sports, two-parent family structure, and family members’ smoking status. Obesity was not found to be significantly associated with ADHD, contrary to some previous studies.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221133551...

> Youth with ADD/ADHD engaged in screen time with an average of 149.1 min/weekday and 59% had a TV in their bedroom. Adjusting for child and family characteristics, having a TV in the bedroom was associated with 25 minute higher daily screen time (95% CI: 12.8–37.4 min/day). A bedroom TV was associated with 32% higher odds of engaging in screen time for over 2 h/day (OR = 1.3; 95% CI: 1.0–1.7).

https://journals.lww.com/jrnldbp/Abstract/2018/04000/Sleepin...

> A shorter sleep duration and less time spent in cognitively stimulating activities were associated with an increased risk of developing ADHD symptoms and behavior problems.

There's plenty more, but the gist is pretty clear. Get your kids outside, give them a supportive and safe environment, teach them how to behave like adults, give them plenty of sleep, and provide them plenty of opportunities to learn. All those reduce risk of depression and ADHD (hence the correlation above).


The links you provided don't support your argument in the way you think it does, but does reveal a gap in your understanding of ADHD.

ADHD has strong correlations with motor control and sleep issues, and is notoriously under-diagnosed amongst girls as they tend to present and be perceived differently.

ADHD is also understood to be hereditary and therefore given that the divorce rate for adults with ADHD is much higher than normal you should expect a higher incidence of children with ADHD growing up in a single family household. - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4071160/

Your second source is ridiculous, if you actually read the study they looked only at kids diagnosed with ADHD and then found that kids with tvs in their rooms watched more tv. It should seem obvious that this would be the case and im fairly certain you would get the same results if you looked at non-diagnosed kids (which again, they didn't)


> Youth with ADD/ADHD engaged in screen time with an average of 149.1 min/weekday and 59% had a TV in their bedroom. Adjusting for child and family characteristics, having a TV in the bedroom was associated with 25 minute higher daily screen time (95% CI: 12.8–37.4 min/day). A bedroom TV was associated with 32% higher odds of engaging in screen time for over 2 h/day (OR = 1.3; 95% CI: 1.0–1.7).

This does not imply causation. Someone with ADHD is more likely to give in to distraction and dopamine. This study was done with a sample of people who already have ADHD. Nothing in it indicates that television time is going to cause ADHD.

Someone who has a better relationship with exercise, screens, or whatever, doesn't mean they don't have ADHD anymore. Medicated or not. They just have better support and lifestyle habits that minimize how much it might impact them.


> Medicated or not. They just have better support and lifestyle habits that minimize how much it might impact them.

If a disease can be resolved through changes in lifestyle is it a disease needing medication?

I think that is kind of the point, is it not? We can give the kids anti-depressants for being depressed or we can help them change their lifestyles. We can give the kids ADHD drugs or we can change their lifestyles. We can let the kids get diabetes, put them on drugs, or help them lose weight.

This is a ridiculous discussion. Yes, drugs can help and we may need to use them in extreme cases to aid in lifestyle changes, but shouldn’t the goal be improved life style


They're not mutually exclusive, and ideally you mix and match. Being on medication is a bit too polarizing, as there are people who vilify it, or otherwise shame people who need to be on life-long or long-term medication, but there is also a problem with over- or mis-prescribing.

I don't really have much to do with the prescribing part of it (besides my personal medication decisions, and doing my part to not ignore the problem), so I'll leave that to my friends in the medical industry. Though especially having held some uninformed opinions on people who need medication earlier in life, I think it's important to not make people question whether they should take life-changing medication because of stigma or social pressure.

I will say my personal experiences have exposed me to people who need medication but have trouble accepting it a lot more than the latter, so I don't want to pretend my experience is universal.


None of those studies establish a causal relationship. Correlation is not causation. Even the first study says "Longer time spent in cognitively stimulating activities (>1 hours per day) was associated with lower scores of both ADHD symptoms (0.96, 0.94–0.98) and behavior problems (0.89, 0.83–0.97). Time spent watching TV and engaging in physical activity were not associated with either outcomes."

I have a child with ADHD (age 9) and a child without (age 6). They are both highly intelligent, but compared to each other:

* My ADHD child is significantly more attracted to screens, video games, and quick stimulation in general. If he doesn't have a screen, he's much more likely to engage in simple, lower-focus activities like simply spinning and running in circles or just hitting things against each other. When given the choice, he will always choose screen stimulation.

* My non-ADHD child is more likely to play with clay and building materials, read, write, and draw. He likes TV and video games, but will very often decide to do other, lower-stimulation activities without being prompted. When outside, he explores and examines things, and will play more structured, imaginative games with rules.

* My ADHD child sleeps much less than the non-ADHD child. He has trouble falling asleep, and wakes up very early every morning on his own. It is impossible to "give them plenty of sleep" when they literally can not sleep.

* My ADHD child exercises much more than the non-ADHD child. He is more interested in going outside in general.

* My ADHD child does not like studying and can not focus on learning things. He learns less, he learns slower, he is disruptive in class. He acts more immaturely even when we take much time teaching him to behave like an adult. He is often depressed because he feels like there's something wrong with him because he has a significantly harder time just having fun doing things that other kids his age do. He feels depressed because he wants to learn things that he simply can not make himself sit long enough to focus on. He feels depressed because he knows he is being immature and disruptive and feels like he literally can not control it.

Given the same opportunities and treatment, my ADHD child has more screen time, more time exercising, less time sleeping, learns less, is less mature, and is more depressed. He is on medication now, but I felt the way you do for years, and it set him back severely in school and life, including his friendships and relationships with family. On medication, he is doing much better in every single respect, but he still struggles, and the medications become less effective over time (we're still trying to find something that works better long-term).

I'm going to be frank here. You are taking studies that show correlation, ignorantly assuming causation, and making judgements and giving advice about an area that you clearly do not have any personal connection to. ADHD may be overdiagnosed, it may have been underdiagnosed in the past (note that ADHD is strongly correlated with self-medication and addiction, which has always existed), but it's not something that you can really easily cause or prevent, and dealing with ADHD in a child is stressful and challenging for both the parent and the child. Assuming neglect among parents of children with ADHD is absolutely uncalled for, and contrary to my experience, where parents of children with ADHD are absolutely run ragged from years of trying to fight to keep their kids healthy, sane, and educated.


> Assuming neglect among parents of children with ADHD is absolutely uncalled for, and contrary to my experience, where parents of children with ADHD are absolutely run ragged from years of trying to fight to keep their kids healthy, sane, and educated.

I never once suggested the parents were being neglectful in the sense they weren't giving it their all or trying their hardest. To your point, they're ragged, the ADHD children clearly need more work, etc. Further, I'm sure the "mental health professionals" recommended it to them.

I'm not going to share my personal experiences, but I truly do understand all of this and the struggle. I agree we have no proof about what causes ADHD, and those were all correlations. That said, I can say that in the past 100+ years our entire environment as a species has changed. We have some pretty unreasonable expectations on children and not all of them will want to build, some will want / need to lasso cattle, ride horses, hunt, etc (as we did for tens of thousands of years). They may not learn the way we structure our society, they may not respond well to the chemicals, the change in diet, what have you. It could simply be genetics.

The point I was trying to make was it's clear why depression is often correlated (there was no causation in this paper btw) with ADHD and ADHD drugs. Societal and family support is weaker than it was 80 years ago, there's lack of community, less dual-parent households, constantly being told "the world will end", etc That's kind of my point.

ADHD and depression are a disease, meaning they are a variety of symptoms that when presented together are diagnosed as impeding normal function. Those symptoms can have various causes and unless careful observation is made, it's possible to conflate or miss the cause, there may also be a multitude of causes. Treating the cause will "cure" the disease, much like you can cure (or at least dramatically reduce the risk of) type 2 diabetes with diet and exercise (the issue being your bodies ability to process glucose -- often due weight); but not Type 1 diabetes.

What I want to clarify is that I think this is a societal issue, but expressed it through personal observations. Having one parent clearly has an impact (less energy and capability to give to an ADHD child), having structured education, having screens, etc.

Give the example you stated around screen time; would your son be better off trying to learn to focus or playing outside? I honestly don't know for sure, but what is clear is that you care. I'm 100% sure you're doing your best to make that judgement call. My point, was that many times the parents don't care, they just want their kids out of their hair.

My general point was never to assign blame, it was to point out that diseases such as ADHD, Autism, depression, anxiety, etc to be diagnosed together. Further, that those diseases often correlate with some of the issues I highlighted. That doesn't mean it's all cases, but to ignore reality isn't going to help either. If we don't examine the causes and we just medicate -- it wont work well for the children. Medicate as needed, but if we can, we should try to cure the disease.


I can see very clearly from the facility of your statements that you don't have children of your own.


> Every child I know diagnosed with ADHD had parents who didn't want to deal with them.

I was diagnosed as an adult. My parents kept me consistently active and engaged. Plenty of play outdoors, fishing, camping, riding bikes. They were involved in my education until, as a teen, I wanted more independence. I’m not saying I had an ideal upbringing, but I have very loving involved parents (dad and stepmom; relevant below).

I don’t know if that’s why my diagnosis came later, but I seriously doubt it. My mom, unlike my dad and stepmom, was deeply skeptical (a) that ADHD even exists and (b) that ADHD medication is safe, effective, or necessary.

That kind of bias is powerful, and easy for kids to pick up on. I was mortified of these meds before my diagnosis. Now I can’t imagine how I lived without them (and I very well may not be alive today had I not sought treatment).

I’m sure there’s often some truth to some of what you’re saying, to be clear. One of the most difficult parts of getting my diagnosis was that the diagnostic criteria are entirely external to the patient being diagnosed: they’re framed around how parents and other adults perceive a child’s behavior. It took a patient and understanding doctor to help me map those criteria to my internal experiences and my adult life.

But I don’t think I benefitted at all from waiting decades for a diagnosis.


You clearly don’t have a clue what you are talking about.

I have a child clinically diagnosed with ADHD. It’s absolutely nothing to do with time spent with him. We have stable family home, active life style. etc

He just has a brain that works differently. Not worse. Different. He might struggle to pay attention at school but he’s written two novels!

PS. Religion is horse shit so if that’s the only other thing you have left for me to help him, I’ll take my chances, thanks


If you feel his brain is "just different", I have a question; Are you medicating them?


This comment is BS and showing ugly judgement of others. Really old school thinking like how they used to blame mothers for autism.


Let's be very careful with attributing children's medical conditions to parental failure. This is the same line of thinking that brought us "refrigerator mothers", piling on loads of undeserved and unjust guilt on blameless parents of autistic children that were already trying their hardest to help their kids.

Unless you have solid studies that establish _causation_, not correlation, to back up your assertions, your facile dismissal of all existing medical research in favor of your own personal social prescriptions deserves zero consideration.


Bringing them to the gym, to the park, playing in the backyard; it's a lot of work.

I agree with your point but as I’m wrapping up raising my own children I’m coming to the conclusion that I made it a lot harder in myself. Driving them to a million activities, even driving them to playgrounds several times per week, Home Depot kids workshops and so much more.

Sometimes I think a better thing would’ve been to simply say, “Go play outside.”


Whenever I was moping around inside, my mother always told me "Go be bored OUTSIDE"


I can sort of agree then you throw in loose correlations like less worshiping of gods = higher ADHD diagnosis, among others. If you look at the bible belt, there's lots of drug abuse, especially opiates among them. Do you have any data that positively proves more worshiping of gods = less drug use?


This is a very, very, very uninformed take. Please inform yourself.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014976342...


>> As an experiment, look at the people you know on medication (or ask), look at the troubled children, etc. I guarantee you'll see the same trend: single parent home, started medication at an early age, regular therapist appointments, etc. They're unhappy and need depressants, ADHD medication, etc.

That sounds like me. My parents are stilled married and about to have their 45th anniversary. The extended family are all on their first marriage and in retirement age or raising families.

I started medication after 30, mental health is not a valid thing in my traditional family. According to them, my struggles were because I hadn't learned my proper place yet. Shame and ridicule from adults, and allowing others in the family to participate, was their idea of proper treatment that would 'fix' me into being a proper young lady. This after their first attempts to keep me in line failed. After that, exclusion within family events, that I was forced to attend, was the treatment of choice. At least less parental attention meant they couldn't keep reminding me how defective I was.

Unsurprisingly, I was very unhappy and depressed. Then I decided to love myself and see the absolute dysfunction this nuclear religious anti-mental health family idea is. Now, I am the most well-traveled, curious, adventurous and financially successful person in the family. That didn't happen until I was able to get the help I needed.

By help, I mean medication to do the core things only I'm responsible for in a world that doesn't fit into the way I function. Provide myself with food and shelter as an adult. I am on the higher end of hyperactive ADHD, also dyslexic - which I learned after getting medication for ADHD. I noticed similarities in my niece, I was told I didn't know what I was talking about and that I couldn't be dyslexic or ADHD since I could read and played video games for hours on end.

I don't like medication and it took me a long time to admit it to others, but the world isn't going to change to fit how I function. So, I use medication to fit myself into it for my basic survival needs.

>> As such we see more: single parent homes, abundance of medication, reduction in religion and adult social clubs, etc.

Reduction in religion is not a negitive, I personally experienced it as mental and shaming child abuse within a roman catholic/protestant home. Even now I experience it as other people overstepping themselves by trying to insert and force their righteous will onto my personhood and that of my nieces/nephews. I have a difficult time understanding how this is still allowed and even valued. Of course my family also doesn't see or remember any of this the way I do.


> IMO from what I've seen of parents are that people who bring their children at a young-ish age to a therapist have a different issue.

I see this with someone close to me.

Diagnosed with ADHD as a child, medicated, later diagnosed with depression.

The real issue, however, was probably more related to brain development/executive function because their mother smoked a pack of cigarettes a day through pregnancy.

You've struck a nerve with some commenters, but personally I think you're on to something.


To counter your anecdote with my own:

I grew up in a two-parent household. I had a doting, stay-home mom who spent lots of time with us. I lived in a safe neighborhood where I rode bikes with other kids for miles around during the summer. My family took long road trips to places like Yellowstone National Park for weeks and day trips to the zoo, the botanical gardens, the science museum, etc. I did not have a TV in my room and screen time was limited. I was involved in sports at school, summer swim team, and karate which my dad did with us.

I have ADHD which resulted in crippling depression when I was in college. As soon as I got diagnosed and medicated, I was able to be like the normal people that I always wanted to be, and align my actions with my goals.


It's hard for people to reason when they are fearful they are doing the wrong thing.

I question the same thing everyday for my family.

One way I try to explain it to people: "We give people insulin because they have diabetes. Diabetes is the disease, but you can cure it through diet and exercise for Type 2 (it's environmental), Type 1 you cannot (it's genetic). Giving insulin treats the disease, but doesnt' sure it"

This is the same thing for ADHD or depression. Some people probably have Type 1, others (I think the vast majority) have Type 2.

Sure you can mask the issue, somewhat. But you can't cure it through the medications today.


This echos my experience to a T. I struggled as a single parent of a child and I hold myself responsible for them developing ADHD.

I did my best and most days I was too tired to give my child the attention and guidance they needed and he suffered needlessly. I resisted prescription medication for as long as possible until it became absolutely necessary. It works and there are side-effects, including symptoms that overlap with depression.

I am spending more time with my son (especially physical activities) and I hope someday he doesn't need methylphenidate.

I am likely still shadow-banned and nobody will see this message. I hope this message gets out and more single parents get the help they need.


So it feels to me that you're saying ADHD doesn't exist and it's a matter of parental failure or indifference. Do I have that right?


I have ADHD, and increasing eustress by working out or doing fun physical things like sports to the point of being tired is one thing that is better than anything I've been prescribed. It's not fall asleep tired, it's more akin to being physically spent. When there is no more need to fidget and do things, I focus like a laser and am less prone to impulse.


Great it works for you. You probably have the hyperactive type of ADHD. For me and my daughter with inattentive/non-hyperactive ADD, doing physical things, while fun, just make us tired and want to sleep. Not a good idea if you need to focus and get work done.

I take daily medication and it has been literally life saving as I was able to turn things around and keep my marriage from falling apart, not to mention my happiness from being able to accomplish much, much more. I'm holding off medication for my daughter only because it lessens appetite and she is very skinny already. Once she's grown to her full height we'll get her meds she can use too.


I feel for you, I hope you guys settle on something that works with as little sides as possible. It's a spectrum with a lot of means to address a moving target, so some trial and error unfortunately comes with it. Luckily I was able to work with my doc to find things that work for the things that eustress cannot solve. Just curious, what do you take?


I don’t see how you are getting that from OP’s comment. OP seems to be claiming that ADHD is often over diagnosed and/or treated improperly. A viewpoint shared by people I know in the field.


Thanks, professor. Now how about you tell us your solution to peace in the middle east and renewable power.


To add a little detail to what others said, amphetamine and its salts are explicitly a Schedule II controlled substance in the US.

https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/cfr/1308/1308_12.ht...


> To add a little detail to what others said, amphetamine and its salts are explicitly a Schedule II controlled substance in the US.

Though, Schedule II means it has accepted medical uses, so it is not illegal. For instance, lots of kids are prescribed amphetamines for ADHD.

The part of the policy that actually references "controlled substances" only forbids apps that facilitate their sale by non-pharmacies.

I think the GGP has a point if you replace "controlled substances" with "illegal drugs." The reviewer obviously seems to think the terms are synonymous (which is false), and banned the app under the clause that forbids "encourag[ing] consumption of ... illegal drugs."

Leaving everything else aside, this reviewer pretty clearly failed to understand and reasonably apply the policy as written. Reference != promotion and "controlled substance" != "illegal drugs" (all illegal drugs are controlled substances, but the reverse is not true).


> Isn't there a serious risk of bias, there, though? For example, if a journalist is specialized in CS and have to write about the ecological impact of technology, you can expect them to be biased in favor of technology, even in good faith.

All journalists are biased. Pretending they can be unbiased is silly.

Beyond that, a journalist specialized in CS writing about the ecological impact of technology is no longer "sticking to what they've studied and know" any more than a sportswriter would be writing about the ecological impact of a new stadium.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: