That’s everyone’s brains. Emotional (and physical) intensity is the strongest reinforcement signal to any learning.

What is wild is lack of factors commonly assumed to be normal.

E.g. it’s fairly normal to have a timeline of your life available for recall at the moments notice. I, on the other hand, sometimes randomly remember a year I totally forgot I lived through and just sit there overwhelmed with no clue how to deal with the revelation.

ADHD is also a designation for a lifelong set of conditions that manifest early in life.

You can end up developing ADHD-like symptoms later in life, but the „late bloom” itself is a good reason to seek and treat underlying conditions.

And to correct a misconception, moving leg is a self stimulation thing. It’s not a hyperactivity manifestation, but a self-grounding action. On its own it’s entirely neurotypical.

„Attention deficit and hyperactivity” designation sits somewhere in the ballpark of „diabetes means your pee is sweet”. Technically correct, easily observable, but ultimately describes symptoms, not the causes underlying them.

No.

The wave of „just accept it” is belittling and harmful. It actively segregates, it denies access to professional help, it leaves people who could easily be self sufficient with no tools for self sufficiency.

And most importantly, the way brains work, for something to be recognized it needs a (preferably named) category. Orange was bright brown before we decided that it’s a separate thing.

One of us! One of us!

If you guessed it right, your inflexible implementation becomes an advantage against other inflexible implementations.

There, I generated an AGI (actual grumpy ignoramus) summary for y’all.

A naive answer:

Replace “Lemmy” with a “Nazi manufactured gun”.

A less naive answer:

Consider various meanings “use” takes in your question and decide accordingly.

First, Omarchy doesn’t need funding or partners. It’s backed by a Nazi multimillionaire.

Second, the whole apolitical argument is bullshit. Everything is political. Support for a distro that doesn’t really need support by nature of being a child of a Nazi multimillionaire is a support for that Nazi multimillionaire.

“We didn’t support them because of that” means nothing. The support still sends a message. Just like artist loses control over interpretation of their art the moment they release it, people lose control over interpretation of their actions the moment they act. Does it sound fair? Maybe not, but it’s how reality works.

Reality is, outside of speciation events, vast majority of traits are neutral. And humanity hasn’t really faced a speciation event yet. We’re isolated as a species on our branch because everything else either died out or merged with us, not because we got forced through an evolutionary bottleneck.

It’s compelling to try and attribute inquisitiveness and borderline suicidal drive to explore to ADHD, but such attribution can be made to a number of traits with the same level of credibility - namely, “we don’t know but it sounds nice”.

That’s a nice story, but it reeks of trying to set a narrative to evolution.

Meanwhile, for the actual evolutionary process ADHD doesn’t have to be beneficial at all. As long as it’s a not-too-crippling side-effect of beneficial mutations, it gets a pass.

But then why are we bringing evolution into this story? ADHD is highlighting a problem with a way faster process than that one. Specifically, how the hell are we modifying our societies that a significant percentage of population whose behaviour you can find enshrined in anecdotes suddenly finds themselves constantly overwhelmed by normalcy?

PS: Dopamine starvation hypothesis doesn’t seem to have evidence backing it and looks to originate from influencers, not scientific process.

PPS: Self-correction, dopamine theory is older than influencing - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1652243/. Yes, I’ve got ADHD, how did you know?

This is one of those times when the attempt to address the wrong part of a statement immediately goes into Ackermann-like recursion.

The only irony present is the pretense of validity of the supposed contradiction.

It did solve my impostor syndrome though. Turns out a bunch of people I saw to be my betters were faking it all along.

Any claim of universal system of morality existence shatters at the minutest contact with history.

The idea of morality is dominant and potentially universal across human societies. The actual definitions are invented and reinvented constantly and fairly rapidly.

I should probably get diagnosed…

I’d probably add that for something like nextcloud granted scopes can be an „orthogonal”–for the lack of a better word–subset of requested scopes.

The set of requestable scopes has to be defined by the system itself, not its specific configuration. E.g. „files:manage”, „talk:manage”, „mail:read” are all general capabilities the system offers.

However, as a user I can have a local configuration that adds granularity to the grants I issue. E.g.: „files:manage in specific folders” or „mail:read for specific domains or groups only” are user trust statements that fit into the capability matrix but add an additional and preferably invisible layer of access control.

It’s a fairly rare feature in the wild and is a potential UX pitfall, but it can be useful as an advanced option on the grant page, or as a separate access control for issued grants.

https://oauth.net/articles/authentication/

That aside, why is nextcloud asking for scopes from remote API in the diagram? What is drawn on the diagram has little to do with OAuth scopes, but rather looks like an attempt to wrap ACL repository access into a new vocabulary.

Scopes issued by the OAuth authorization server can be hidden entirely. The issuer doesn’t hold any obligation to share them with authorized party since they are dedicated for internal use and can be propagated via invisible or opaque means.

I really can’t figure out what’s going on with that diagram.

I’ve been gradually optimizing towards immediate existential dread over the past few years. Still get distracted sometimes, but I’m getting there.

Yeah, had to dive in myself.

The answer is no, they can’t. You need to pass /dev/kvm and /dev/net/tun in a composefile for a reason.

There’s no „windows in docker”, but rather „handy windows vm orchestrator with nice UI in a container”. A bit of a mouthful.

My viewing history can legally drink in US in a year. What do you mean „guess”?

Googling at least until fairly recently meant „I consulted an index of Internet”. It is a means to get to the bit of information.

Asking ChatGPT is like asking a well-behaved parrot in the library and believing every word it says instead of reading the actual book the librarian would point you towards.