- Fellow ADHDr here, also living the many tabs life.
I highly recommend the Sidebery addon (Firefox). Not just tree style tabs, but tree style tabs with customizable panels so you can sort everything out quite tidily. I'm able to manage hundreds of tabs without mess, and prune through them on a weekly basis seeing what needs to be bookmarked or can be safely forgotten.
- Okay, fine, I'll assume you're a decent person who's heart is in the right place.
The vast majority of homeless people suffer from mental illness, and have come from broken homes - experienced severe childhood trauma.
These are people who, mostly, never had a chance. This is the key point. They were dealt a truly garbage hand in life, and no amount of 'pull yourself up by your bootstraps' is going to change that.
They need care, they need education, they need homes. They need people to invest years of work into their rehabilitation.
And, in pretty much any developed country, providing that is roughly equivalent in cost to what we currently spend punishing them.
The state is paying the cost of homelessness, but it is doing so in a fashion that both fails to solve the problem and makes the quality of life for these people even worse.
- You have my sympathy regardless, for whatever it's worth.
I don't yet have access to stimulants (beyond caffeine), but I've found cannabis relieves the ADHD symptoms when used sparingly (A very short hit from a vape, essentially microdosing).
Even still, I'm on a 4:2 cycle. 4 days medicated, 2 days off, because I find myself feeling stretched thin if I remain medicated for too long.
This fucked up brain of ours just doesn't belong in this fucked up world of ours. Do whatever you need to do to cope.
- >That, or it's some terrible undiagnosed medical condition.
Sounds like ADHD to me too. At least it's eerily similar to my experience and I'm in the process of getting diagnosed.
https://youtu.be/WFkpICWE9DM - might help.
- I agree.
There's so much bullshit in mainstream energy analysis; there's too much incentive. Energy is central to civilization - what we use, where and how we get it, how we use it, how much of it there is and when we can use it - change any of those variables, change the shape of the entire civilization.
Yet the conversation around energy technologies is entirely dominated by dollar cost. This obfuscates so much, and lends a false equivalence to pricing/market/financial mechanisms - it implies that if something can be sold cheaply (low price) then it can be produced/extracted cheaply (low cost).
We are quite capable of, and actively involved in, stealing from our futures (high cost) in order to achieve low prices in the present. The economic externalities of our energy usage don't go away - by definition, that which is finite and we use now to do this, cannot be used later to do that.
That energy we'll one day need to feed ourselves, and heat our homes, and supply our medicines and materials? We're using it, right now, to make a shitload of disposable, toxic, plastic shit. Junk nobody needs that we'll convince them they want anyway.
And why are we doing this mad, insane, thing? Because we're convinced it doesn't matter, we're convinced the price of energy will always be low. We're convinced we're not the ones paying the costs.
Apologies for going full doomer on y'all. https://pics.onsizzle.com/oh-i-made-myself-sad-me-irl-242092...
- So game and metagame are important here.
Overall, I agree with your point. This is the reason I don't play those games, or in those ultra-competitive brackets.
I don't think we're necessarily contradicting eachother. I choose to play fighting games for the fight, rather than the victory, and thus tailor my choices within that genre to suit me.
To offer a couple of 'parallel' examples to your own:
Player A is at a significantly higher level than player B, and 'stifles' player B through consistent reads and conditioning. Nothing player B tries works, everything player B does seems to play exactly into player As hands.
This is almost a restatement of your example, except it was a highly rewarding experience for me. In the language of cognitive psychology, it brought about a powerful flow state.
The two key differences: 1.) that the skill imbalance was not too great - just great enough - and 2.) that the nature of the game's design and the players' choices in tactics/playstyles ommitted the more obnoxious elements of combat.
My second parallel example is simply my first, reversed: I am player A, and my opponent is player B.
Everything plays out the same. Interesting, that.
Because implicit in player A's skill is that they are in control of the fight - they can, usually, make things fairly unpleasant and dirty for the opponent. It doesn't take much to push someone past the mental edge, to knock them off balance and keep them there; to destroy their flow state.
Why is player A so restrained? He didn't want to win, he wanted to fight.
Players motivations in games are often what makes the difference between a positive and a negative experience. So we nicely return to the beginning: if you're focused on winning, you're not going to have a good time and neither are the people playing with you.
- I choose to play fighting games, and I get my current fix from Dark Souls - an asymmetric fighting game. I enjoy winning, and I structure my play around intentional practice so that I can improve.
But I don't want to win. This is an important nuance.
Do you know what winning means? It means the game is over. It means there's no more challenge, no more adversary. It means boredom and purposelessness.
Rather than winning, what I want is to fight. Focusing on the outcome of the fight is missing the forest for the trees - the fun is in the conflict, in the struggle with your opponent(s), in the instinctive collaboration with your occassional teammate.
In the glory of the defeat, as well as victory. Unless you've got firsthand experience of this, you won't believe how wonderful it feels to get your ass handed to you by a truly superior player.
To put the gaming analogy aside, life will always have its ups and downs. Life will always take you somewhere unexpected. Fixating on outcomes will blind you to opportunities and invite needless suffering into your life.
- Back breaking labour, very long working hours, poor health care and for the most part, endentured servitude to those who own the land/mills/factories you toil away in?
All of these things are more true now than they were in the average subsistence based society. Amazon warehouse workers have a worse deal than serfs, and a much much worse deal than hunter gatherers.
Oh and this
we are rapidly divorcing ourselves from our reliance on fossil fuels
Isn't just wrong, it's laughable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment
If you want a really long read - https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/31850765-energy-and-civi...
The tl;dr is that renewables cannot provide equivalent levels of surplus energy to fossil fuels, cannot offer the same reliability as fossil fuels, cannot perform the same functions as fossil fuels (e.g. shipping). Not now, not ever. Not possible.
I spent so much time and effort comparing the various spaced repetition software before finally, grudgingly, choosing Anki over Mochi.
My rationale was that, while Mochi's UX is amazing, the algorithm matters. SuperMemo seems to justify this - SM18+ is a highly refined algorithm and 'seems' to provide much, much better performance than SM2/Anki.
So Mochi's incredibly basic 'engine' seems, by this logic, to be a pretty significant downside.
In the end what I care most about is memorization, and it seems like the best 'engine' for that is (Supermemo if you're on Windows, otherwise...) Anki + FSRS.
I'd appreciate being convinced I'm wrong - Using Mochi was a vastly more pleasant experience than using Anki.