cbsmith

One could argue that substance abuse, suicide, and impulsive behaviour (and these were all specifically called out in the study) are a reaction to stress. I would certainly say they are a reflection of lack of access to health care and support systems (e.g. a large portion of ADHD substance abuse is self-medicating).

I think it would be interesting to see a follow up study comparing the life expectancy of ADHD folks who are on vs. not on ADHD medications. If nothing else, I would expect it could help with advocacy for better access to them.

Stress is certainly a killer, but it's a facet of a broader factor.

Society has built up a lot of systems to support people, to protect us from our environment and ourselves, and they've been incredibly successful; average lifespans have increased dramatically... literally by decades.

For the most part, these systems are built in response to and designed around how "we" expect peoples' brains work. If your brain doesn't work those ways, many of those support systems are unnecessary, ineffective, or worse still: harmful. There's also no doubt a bunch of systems that could be designed & built that could to help support & protect people with challenges that are largely non-existent for people whose brains work as we expect.

That the combined consequence of this is less that a decade of life expectancy for people with ADHD is actually quite remarkable, but let's not kid ourselves: we could be doing so much better.

That sounds a lot like traditional dynamic language runtimes. You kind of get that for free with Smalltalk/LISP/etc.

It's not all semantics. You are providing an entirely different justification for why someone shouldn't get two days in jail for smoking weed.

You either have too positive of a perspective on gangsters, or too negative of a perspective on business.

Definitely.

That almost sounds like what commutation is for.

It's certainly not what pardons are for.

> The Biden DOJs bungling of the insurrection, turning a jail into a martyrs club, slow rolling prosecutions, etc is ultimately worse than the insurrection for democracy.

I'd argue promoting that narrative was ultimately worse than the insurrection for democracy.

It had a lot to do with the fact that they already had him for more than long enough on other charges, such that it would have been a waste of time.

> Don't online drug marketplaces lead to reduced gang activity?

Online isn't the important factor here.

> One does not need a gang and violence to sell drugs online.

Gangs and violence aren't there to support a marketplace. They don't help you find customers or customers to find you. They don't improve the efficiency of exchange. They're there to enforce outcomes. Selling drugs leads to outcomes that don't care whether the buyer and seller found themselves online.

s/businessman/gangster/

Principles are much more important to a businessman than a gangster.

Smart people can differentiate between a transparent marketplace which provides a net economic benefit to society from an obfuscated one which by design enables illicit activity.

On the same principle, noting that someone who punched someone got one day in jail is not a good justification for why someone shouldn't get two days in jail for smoking weed.

> and it's yet to collapse

This will age well.

It's a common misconception of youth to think nobody cares. For the most part, people care, a lot, to the point that they get exhausted. The challenge is prioritizing what to care about, which means as much about not caring as it does about caring.

I hear everything you are saying, but...

Now imagine that all that is true, except it's your home.

I have a strong suspicion that recent pivots are intended to drive attrition, and this just confirms my thinking.

I think it very much depends. When BLM happened, I had the opportunity to sit in on a number of discussions with executives from a variety of companies about diversity programs, and the things I heard...

"I thought after Obama was elected, that diversity was no longer a problem" "When we thought of diversity, we thought of it in terms of hiring more women" "We just don't get the applicants. There's nothing we can do."

The whole BLM thing really shook up their thinking and approach to diversity. Now, I think a bunch of them did really engage in "corporate puffery", but I did see a lot of cases where tangible changes were made to diversity programs.

...and then more recently they seem to be firing their entire DEI teams. :-(

> It seems to me you're doing at least 1 thing here, and acknowledging that such DEI program was performative in the first place.

It only seems that way because it absolutely is an acknowledgement that the DEI program was performative in the first place.

> This kind of announcement seems extremely self defeating and unlikely to please anyone and piss off just about anyone that cares about this in any way shape or form, on either side.

No, it will please people who felt that DEI programs were hurting productivity and taking jobs away from more deserving candidates... and that's exactly why they'd make this announcement. I suspect there may have even been some pressure applied behind closed doors with the threat of lawsuits and government oversight on this matter.

I'm confident there's a ton of people cheering about this. I just don't want to know those people.

I've run into tons of optimizer bugs. While it's possible they would require the exact hardware to reproduce them, that has never been the case. Generally you just need something to run the actual output of the optimizer. You can even reproduce the bugs in emulators, it just takes way longer.

Most optimizer bugs are about the optimizer making assumptions about properties of the source code, not assumptions about properties of the hardware. Certainly it can go both ways, but of course you want to test the actual output of the optimizer. Doing otherwise is not at all what I'd call standard practice.

I'm guessing then you've never had to deal with optimizer bugs.

It's like an unholy mix of The Guild, Critical Role, and Leeroy Jenkins.

> In the 1980s everything was written in assembly and you depending on the clock speed. However these days embedded should have learned that the CPU you write for will go out of production and so you should write portable code except for the small shim layers that talk to the real hardware.

Ah... the illusions of "portability". A lot of the reason you want to test your code is that there may be behaviors specific to the target platform (either in the hardware itself, in the compiler, in the runtime, or in support libraries/frameworks). You may well write with the intent to be portable, but you test for the reality that you never really are.

> That's a generic problem with corporatism and monopoly, not "tech".

There is a general problem with corporatism and monopoly, but there are also specific problems with "tech". Oil & gas monopolies don't broadly carry everyone's private interactions. Sports monopolies generally can't expose political dissidents.

> Making medical insurance premiums fully tax-deductible would fix that.

...or alternatively, removing deductions for medical insurance.

I was alive in the 1970's and I can tell you that aside from a Time magazine article, Global cooling was not a broadly feared effect.

> Blaming Kennedy is a take I hadn't heard before.

It was a broadly established take, and the reason why there's a superstition about sitting Presidents having opponents in primaries.

That's okay. You can just use a bunch of LLMs to filter through to the few resumes you would have gotten before people used LLMs to find jobs... ;-)

> The etymology is not green/yellow/red. It's just not-Yellow or yes-Yellow. See Stephen Levy's In The Plex (2011) pg186:

Yes, I know. I was making a rhetorical point using a metaphor.

That seems about right. That's actually helpful. When you have a management failure, trying to solving it by "getting better at management" isn't really a solution.