I'm essentially the same way, with the caveat that I do occasionally go back and find something from one of those archived bookmarks. Maybe a couple times a year at most, which is all the validation my lizard brain needs to consider this a critical practice that I will continue doing without questioning for the rest of my life.
I'm not the person you're condescending to, but it is possible IMO to simultaneously recognize the security value in deny-by-default and Principle of Least Privilege while also finding it challenging to work with AWS's IAM permissions in practice.
The same way the person is condescending to the ones who don't find so difficult. I would even go and argue, that if you are already having issues with IAM, how do you expect to handle what is actually difficult?
I'm sure I'm slightly misremembering/exaggerating, but RAV4s of recent years seem like a similar size to how I recall the Highlander from that time period, and now Highlanders are more like how I recall those older 4Runners(?).
If you don't mind my asking, is your caution about benzodiazepines out of concern for the addiction potential, the long-term effects (e.g. dementia risk), or something else (or a combination)?
Addiction potential, which is contextually oxymoronic.
Everyone knows Xanax and other -zolams will turn you into a demented zombie after a few years of (ab?)use.
It's nearly impossible to kill yourself with it (benzos) alone, but combinations with any other depressant will synergize and potentiate the CNS depressant effect, until you black out and stop breathing.
I genuinely don't understand what point you think this article is making that backs up what you've said here -- would you mind elaborating?
Full disclosure, I am diagnosed with ADHD and take stimulants daily, and initially felt pretty defensive when reading your comments here and starting to read that article. I have some problems with the article and generally find that author pretty insufferable, but the article concludes that the risks of medically-supervised stimulant use are low enough that the author personally finds stimulants worth prescribing to patients who benefit from them.
Even Section 1 which you specifically referenced, and which admittedly made me pretty annoyed until I read it a few times, and even though the author certainly seems to be trying to insinuate that ADHD isn't real, doesn't really seem to be actually backing up that point. His main point or objection seems to be that ADHD is diagnosed using arbitrary subjective criteria rather than objective measurements like other spectrum disorders (isn't blood pressure also a normally distributed trait, where we* "arbitrarily" draw a line and say people on the wrong side of that line have hypertension and should be prescribed beta blockers?).
I'll admit to feeling a little argumentative after reading some of the comments here but I do genuinely want to understand these points better, and I feel like I must be missing some fundamental context or point that the article is making.
*for various definitions of "we", since different countries and organizations define hypertension differently.
I don't much like the author either, but this is his area of expertise and I think his perspective is valuable.
In my reading, his main points are that (1) ADHD diagnosis is very wooly and (2) amphetamines have a similar effect on everyone, whether or not they believe themselves to suffer from ADHD. The second point in particular is one that is always disputed on internet forums, where it's held as gospel that stimulants have some kind of paradoxical calming effect on the neurodivergent, and that this is one way to distinguish 'real' ADHD sufferers from people who just want better focus.
So the upshot is, there's a powerful focus-enhancing drug that is available to anyone provided they believe in the existence of a condition called ADHD and know how to tell the right stories about it to gatekeepers.
Please don't be hard on yourself for a vacation not "fixing" whatever is ailing you. If you're depressed or have ADHD or similar, you should consider seeking professional help (e.g. therapy and/or medication, if appropriate), and "just take a vacation and turn off your phone" is about as helpful as telling a diabetic to "just produce more insulin".
> To my knowledge, you cannot scan the brain of someone with ADHD and point out an abnormality associated with the disorder. Yet we give 8 year old boys stimulant medication because they can't sit still in a classroom for hours a day.
I'm not well-versed in the risks of stimulants given to children so I'm not commenting on that specifically, but I want to push back on the insinuation (if I understood you correctly) that ADHD or its treatments are any less legitimate because we haven't yet figured out if we can use brain imaging to diagnose and measure treatment efficacy.
It would be great if all medical disorders could be externally measured and quantified objectively, but when they're not, we often rely on evaluating and diagnosing them based on the (often somewhat more subjective) impact of their symptoms. That's not ideal, but it seems better than nothing to me.
Full disclosure: I'm also diagnosed with ADHD and take daily stimulants. Apologies if I came off as combative, I'm relatively new to my ADHD journey and genuinely curious to learn more about the medical/scientific aspects.
> ...but I want to push back on the insinuation (if I understood you correctly) that ADHD or its treatments are any less legitimate because we haven't yet figured out if we can use brain imaging to diagnose and measure treatment efficacy.
I was playing devil's advocate to explain why someone might feel that way. My personal opinion is that every adult should have the right to assess for themselves whether they feel stimulants can improve their quality of life. The question of whether ADHD is "real" or legitimate is totally unimportant to me. And I agree with your take: if we can identify symptoms and effectively treat them, that is more important than uncovering some underlying "legitimacy" of the treated condition.
Congratulations on getting diagnosed. ADHD has the highest treatment success rate among psychiatric conditions. Be sure to keep up with all the other healthy habits for improving focus (sleep, exercise, nutrition, hydration, etc.).
This is exactly where I'm at. I'm a professional SDE and I'm pretty damn good at writing code and solving problems at all kinds of different levels of complexity and abstraction, although professionally I mostly write Java code and build web services and that kind of thing.
When I got into electronics and embedded development recently as a hobby, I started with Arduino. And for the vast majority of my projects, which are mostly simple smarthome IOT type things, or little toys for my kiddo, the Arduino framework is just fine and the ecosystem of libraries is great.
But when I recently started a project that was much lower-level (in fact, it was your example exactly -- driving pins with cycle-accurate timing), where I didn't need those libraries, I used ESP-IDF without Arduino.
I'm also just lazy, and just don't want to deal with more complexity than I have to.
How was your experience with ESP-IDF? I've only used Arduino so far (I've basically had exactly the same experience as you), and haven't needed anything more, but I've been thinking of using the IDF for my next project, since I can't use Rust yet.
I agree with this, and disagree with the parent comment's framing of this as "going outside the chain of command", but I do think that if you have a healthy relationship and open communication with your direct manager, I can't think of many reasons not to tell your direct manager something before telling your skip-level (or above), as a courtesy and an opportunity for them to address the issue first but not because of some rigid expectations around "command structure".
Of course this isn't a hard rule, if I'm having a conversation with my skip-level and some topic happens to come up that I haven't spoken with my manager about before, I'm not necessarily going to hold back just because of that, I can follow up with my manager later. But if something's bothering me or I have some feedback or something like that, I'd generally chat with my manager about it before anyone above them.
This is super org-dependent -- my entire org has completely switched to Slack, I only use Chime for meetings now (except for the occasional recruiter or someone outside my org who will ping me on Chime).
Switching to slack was brought up in our org and most people were at best noncommittal, because the option wasn't really "chime vs. slack", it was "chime vs. chime AND slack".
We'd still all need chime for meetings and interacting with any groups that hadn't switched.
It's actually pretty smooth since you can do `/chime` in a Slack channel or DM and it automatically starts a Chime call. Otherwise I just keep Chime open for scheduled meetings.
