throwaway6532

It's a combination of being loved and being hated at the same time, sometimes by different sets of people at the same time, sometimes by the same people at different times. I think hated is a bit of a strong word, but suffice to say it's quite tricky because the reasons for both of those emotions come from exactly the same place.

Kind of makes you wonder where all the assholes work?

The one time I've experienced assessing this type of thing it's very much something you have a natural feel for as you watch the events unfold. You can't really assess it in the abstract sense, it's all about the concrete interactions and how the individuals handle them.

I've evaluated one of these group exercises for a grad program before. One thing that stuck out like a sore thumb was out of the four individuals there was one guy that continually derailed the group, and there was another guy who even though the other guy was always derailing things still showed courtesy towards him and listened to his opinions. The other two guys were both reasonable and I liked them too, but the guy whom I both liked and who showed courtesy to an individual I would describe as "difficult" was one of the ones we wound up hiring. He got glowing reviews from pretty much every assessor and went on to become a great colleague to work with. I think any of those three out of the four people would have been fine hires, and the other guy was a strong no-hire.

As "that guy" it's somewhat refreshing to hear this. I think the key is really self-awareness and understanding of group dynamics enough to help you get the balance of individuals right.

Yeah, in my experience this is really what it's all about. Thinking out loud helps them assess how you reason through trade-offs, potential ideas you run through, edge cases you catch, at what stage you catch them and how you go about addressing them etc.

Are you me?

These were my thoughts after reading this too.

>Having a high IQ, being economically privileged, very good looking,is going to change the impact ADHD has on someone.

In my case it meant staying out of jail, managing to graduate college and getting a career I could thrive in. Still... serious downsides along the way and always a struggle to hold it all together.

>The bearers of these traits are “taking one for the team” so to speak because they are preserving a genetic trait potentially useful for the future but may be painful in the present

This is how I feel way too often.

I'm kind of the same. The big problem is never being able to predict when the extreme rough patches will hit.

Playing drums thickens the corpus collosum apparently: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/327279

>Saw some wacky shit on my Netflix DVD plan

Killer Clowns From Outer Space

>i feel like this may be my last coding job after 15 years, maybe i can do another 2-3 more.

This is how I feel after only 7 years, and I need to do another 9 more :(

I feel ya man. This is exactly where I'm at. Left one job because the company burnt me out, but I was still a passionate engineer. Eight months in to my current company I feel the flame I once had for engineering is all but extinguished. Starting to interview for a new job now and every option I evaluate I feel like I already know the BS that's waiting for me there and I just don't want to go through it.

I'm trying to construct some sort of framework for myself at the moment, but I don't really know what, if anything, will work.

>follow the dopamine

:)

>Out of sight out of mind applies universally (sometimes good, sometimes bad) - I have the most success when I engineer my environments to put the things I need to focus on in front of me.

100% this aye. I had my bookshelf in my bedroom and I found sometimes I'd be late for work or to pick up the shopping etc as when I would sit down on the end of my bed to get changed I would pull a book off the bookshelf and start reading something that would help me answer a question that was on my mind. I took it and moved it down to the basement to sort that problem out. I've since moved a small selection of things I'm not hyperfocused on right now and hence can't really read, but know I should make my way through them and I keep the one that I'm trying to get through now on the bedside table. I've been making my way through it on and off, and it's going slowly but surely!

I've found that I have no problem reading books, so long as they're exactly what I'm interested in right now and I have a copy available. I've found I absolutely struggle with reading books when I'm no longer as excited about it as when I impulse bought it and it's been sitting on my bookshelf for 2 years.

Switching to reading books on the kindle app on my phone was so successful for me I racked up credit card debt impulse buying title after title, so I actually blocked the kindle app and removed my card details from Amazon.

Audible worked for certain titles/genres and not for others. It's a lot less effort which can make quite a difference, but I find I absorb information differently. The upside is progressing through the text isn't reliant on your executive function, so it happens more consistently.

Physical books sometimes I just can't put down if it's super interesting to me right then and there. I've definitely struggled to make my way through physical books where I'm reading it because I know I should/ought to.

Another thing I like about physical books is there's nothing to click on. No tabs to open. However, I found I would go through the bibliography at the end of each book and as a result buy 3 more books. So, to counter that dynamic I sat and physically ripped the bibliography out of the hundreds of books in my bookshelf.

I dunno man... it's just hit and miss. Like everything in the ADHD life.

I think you miss my point. My frame of reference is society has collapsed and the _people_ that keep nuclear safe are no longer around and this has the potential to cause a Beyond Design Basis Accident the likes of which could render large portions of the planet uninhabitable.

I'm generally fine with nuclear as long as society can maintain itself and the data back up what the proponents of nuclear claim. I'm just suspecting that every reactor that could and would meltdown if humans were no longer around to attend to it being left to meltdown completely unmitigated would be a disaster of epic proportions.

I'm just waiting for the day all of the humans required to keep a one of the older, less safe designs running all become unavailable and the people required for disaster management when it melts down are also unavailable and the world experiences a completely unmitigated meltdown. I really don't think this is out of the realm of possibility within the next hundred years. The assumption here is a societal collapse of sorts where say 90% of the population go away. IIRC there were something like 600,000 people who responded to the cleanup of Chernobyl, and something like 4% of the radioactive material of a single reactor was all that leaked into the environment. I sort of see nuclear power plants (at least certain designs) as a ticking time bomb that'll potentially leave large parts of the planet uninhabitable (or maybe just really high rates of thyroid cancer in the remaining population) for the 10% that remain in a post collapse world.

Nuclear does have a great record on paper. It's the non-linear behavior that scares people. And when troops roll up and start shelling nuclear power plants and people go "oh... oh I didn't consider how it might function under these conditions" that that non-linearity rears its head again and people get pretty cold on nuclear when faced with situations like that.

Accurate views tend to be depressing, so I know which way my vote goes.

Source - slightly depressed person

>That’s the cynic’s own delusion: that they are the realist and the world is full of pie in the sky idealists. It’s like the precocious 12 yr old that never matures.

And that's the optimists delusion: that the cynic isn't a realist.

>The problems with water and sand are not physical limits. Like climate change and pollution generally they're just unpriced externalities.

I'd say it's a little bit of column A and a little bit of column B. They're definitely are physical limits to those things, and they are definitely subject to unpriced externalities at present. I think the water shortages in South Africa are a good case study where the public reacted to avert a crisis once they were made acutely aware that a crisis was imminent if they didn't act. People just take water for granted, until they no longer can. But in saying that there is almost certainly a point at which things just can't keep up, or the alternative cannot be procured/switched to in a short enough time to avoid the disaster. I see it less as a problem of pure physical limits and more as a problem in control theory.

I mean I was going with drought, famine, civil unrest and the sea peoples, but sure.

“Before one studies Zen, mountains are mountains and waters are waters; after a first glimpse into the truth of Zen, mountains are no longer mountains and waters are no longer waters; after enlightenment, mountains are once again mountains and waters once again waters.”

I think you've reached enlightenment.

Good luck replacing water.

This perspective also assumes enough creativity and capital available to do this will always there. If you're going to need to develop potentially more complex and expensive technology it's going to need a certain level of complexity and population to support that complexity available. With birth rates being below replacement level it seems population of young people is heading down generation after generation. So... I'm not so convinced this assumption will always hold. In fact, it's a concrete example of a negative feedback loop kicking in and correcting the status quo for us as in order to have a society capable of such a level of innovation it has to be structured such that it's population refuses to reproduce in sufficient numbers.

>I think we are plenty as is, and as for why bother to make the universe do our bidding - because there's great pleasure satisfaction and fulfillment in bending cold indifferent nature to our will...

We're starting to wake up to the reality that all we're really doing is bending it out of shape and when we push it beyond the yield strength it will snap.

>We closed a remarkable bit of that gap in the 19th and 20th centuries - the gaps remaining are getting really difficult to fill. This is the counterargument to innovation will solve all our problems.

When you combine this with birth rates below replacement level that leads society in the direction where it's a) harder to fill those gaps, and b) much less people to fill them. So, having far less bandwidth available to do that discovery/work seems to be in general a trend people don't seem to acknowledge.

>but I see no issue with billions of people living in cities with easy access to pools, parks, schooling, jobs, and comfortable safe, warm/cool housing and living standards that are science fiction to their immediate ancestors

So sand shortages, and water shortages are not a thing?

>As with the rest of the article, I'm really not sure if this is irony or hubris? If everybody had these conditions of living, we would either need a larger planet or a lot less people on it.

If you had a lot less people on it, you wouldn't have the labor force needed to keep that standard of living functioning :)

It's hubris in the extreme.