neuroticfish

3 anni fadiscuss

I wasn’t really looking for pity, just sharing the perspective of a person who has dealt with moderately severe ADHD. I’m doing just fine now and am enjoying my work again. Medication was a critical part of that journey, but attention disorders don’t really work like myopia. You normally don’t walk into a psychiatrist’s office, get fitted for a dosage, and then walk out recovered. It’s one piece of a greater treatment strategy that can be complex and wildly different from patient to patient. In one sense though it is like myopia because at some level of severity there is no total correction, and you have to narrow the scope of your life in order to get things, often at the expense of other responsibilities. I think we can both agree that you have to play the cards you’re dealt, but I would just encourage you—at the very least—to not bring others down if the way they play them doesn’t make sense to you. It may be working for them in the long run.

neuroticfish

3 anni fadiscuss

> Picking up bits here and bits there, is not learning. It is just being lazy and clumsy.

This is at best a lack of understanding of how attention disorders work, at worst a lack of empathy.

Some people are only able to commit things to memory after putting it into practice many times over. Engineering roles nowadays often require you to be intimately familiar with a few languages, frameworks, CI pipelines, databases, cloud offerings, many protocols, and more. This job has grown well beyond the days when your sole responsibility was a small set of modules and a narrow cross section of technology.

The bandwidth for reading a manual just to lose the ability to recall it a week after changing context is just not there for a lot of people, and to be indignant about the learning mechanisms others use to get around these obstacles just seems silly. Yeah I probably would have googled “vim autocomplete” after some time, but modern tech sensory overload would likely have me googling something else.

neuroticfish

3 anni fadiscuss

>So you see that every base reality can contain a vast number of nested simulations, and a simple counting argument tells us we're much more likely to live in a simulated world than the real one.

>But if you believe this, you believe in magic. Because if we're in a simulation, we know nothing about the rules in the level above. We don't even know if math works the same way—maybe in the simulating world 2+2=5, or maybe 2+2=.

>A simulated world gives us no information about the world it's running in.

I don't buy into the theory for practical reasons, but this is not consistent with its proponents' argument. The simulation in question is necessarily an "ancestor simulation" and the counting argument is based on the acceptance that if we are able to simulate our _own_ reality, we will. So in this case, we would have meaningful information about the world it's running in because that's the entire point.

comments