Posts made by faraday

@arkandel said in Health and Wealth and GrownUp Stuff:

I'm quite pro-vaccine but I have to agree with this Oxford scientist's opinion that we can't vaccinate the planet every six months.

I would agree that's not sustainable, but there's also absolutely zero reason to believe it's necessary.

Historically and biologically, all pandemics end eventually. The 1918 pandemic? That virus never went away. We (as a species) just got used to it and now it's part of the seasonal flu. The same will happen to covid-19 as well in time. Early indications are that Omicron is probably moving us in that direction.

The only question is how many people have to die along the way. That is what the vaccines are for--preventing serious outcomes, not for eradicating the disease. And they're working very well. Most likely we'll fall into a pattern of annual boosters for awhile, which is really what the flu shot is.

Credit: Marhsall Ramsey Facebook

@tinuviel said in Dead Celebrities 2021 Edition:

Christ, if it's one thing I hate more than kidney stones it's "X reported today..." if I wanted to know what they fuckin' reported, I'd read their shit. Jeez.

Seriously, right?

All we seem to have so far is a scoop from TMZ based on an anonymous tip from "law enforcement" that's then been picked up and re-reported all over the place. Reputable news sources are probably scrambling to confirm from official sources. At least I hope so - it would be nice to think that somebody somewhere is actually practicing real journalism.

If true it's sad. I liked Betty White from Golden Girl days. But I mean, she was 99. Not even Betty White can live forever.

@macha said in Dead Celebrities 2021 Edition:

ABC, Yahoo, etc. It's not just TMZ now.

Check their sources though. Everywhere I've seen is just quoting TMZ.

@macha said in The ADD/ADHD Thread (cont'd from Peeves):

@tributary Yeah, I feel... nothing.

+1 to what the others have said that it may be a dosage issue, but also... because of what I said before about how stimulants don't work the same on ADHD brains, you may never "feel" any different. You'll just notice that things you previously struggled with become easier.

For instance, my kid claims not to feel any different when taking their meds, but I notice a definite difference in their behavior. Fewer meltdowns, easier time focusing on homework, etc. This is common in both kids and teens so it's not hard to imagine it's true for adults as well. (though I don't know if it's been extensively studied)

@kestrel said in The ADD/ADHD Thread (cont'd from Peeves):

I realise I am not making the best case right now for stimulants as ADHD meds not being "drugs" but look.

Not really a direct commentary on your story, but there's so much stigma around this that I think it's important to note that stimulants just work differently in ADHD brains than they do in non-ADHD brains. With the right med and dosage, ADHD will not get "high" from stimulants in the same way non-ADHD brains do.

An analogy is insulin. Give insulin to a diabetic whose insulin isn't working right, and it regulates their blood sugar. Give insulin to a non-diabetic, and you crash their sugars, potentially to dangerous levels. Same drug, same mechanism, wildly different effects because of the underlying body chemistry.

(Of course brains are complicated, so like you said - it is entirely plausible that the normal dose may be out of whack at times due to various factors. I'm just speaking generally.)

Not yet, though I am certain I have it based on the fact that a) my kids both have it (it's very common for parents to only realize they have it once their kids are diagnosed), and b) I'm basically the poster child for adult adhd and have been all my life without realizing it.

Having researched getting a diagnosis quite a bit, what I've found is:

• Many doctors, particularly ones of older generations, are not well-versed in adult ADHD. They have stereotypical notions that ADHD is a "kid problem" and people outgrow it. (Some do; most don't.) If your friend wants a proper diagnosis, they'll want to see someone who says "adult ADHD" amongst the symptoms the treat--that's a good sign that they at least are aware that it exists.

• An ADHD diagnosis is subjective, which means different providers may disagree as to the underlying cause of symptoms. What's most important is to have someone who takes the symptoms seriously and is going to work with you to resolve them, whatever the cause.

As for the process itself - a neuropsych eval will be a bunch of questionnaires and observational tests of things like working memory, concentration, stuff like that.

@too-old-for-this said in The ADD/ADHD Thread (cont'd from Peeves):

Keep your chin up and be ready to tell people to fuck off if they start offering too much 'well meaning advice'.

For sure. There's a lot of undeserved stigma still around ADHD medication.

I found this video very helpful: How to ADHD - Why Stimulant Medication Helps ADHD -- and How Stigma Can Hurt.

@macha No offense to your friend, but the simple stimulants like Adderall and Ritalin are most doctors' first drug of choice for a reason. For many people it works great. For others it doesn't. Finding the right medication is an involved process, and it can definitely change over time. At least you're taking the first steps. Good luck!

@kanye-qwest said in The ADD/ADHD Thread (cont'd from Peeves):

what the fuck? ADHD does not show up in your urine

Because ADHD meds are controlled, some providers require a drug test prior to and/or during prescription treatment. It's the same for some folks who are prescribed narcotic pain medication.

@sunny said in Health and Wealth and GrownUp Stuff:

It's an interesting study to be sure, but I'd love to see the same data collected about in-person meetings, and see the comparison of the impacts. Knowing it's harmful is good, but I didn't get a sense that the study touched on whether that's "more harmful" than other ways of doing things, or "less harmful".

Exactly. Zoom meetings suck, but in-person meetings mostly suck too. On balance I'd rather be online.

As a side note, it's not the most robust study - only a few hundred participants with a subjective questionnaire.

@seraphim73 said in Testing the Waters for Battletech Interest:

There are a fair number of "modern MUers" who enjoy combat and risky actions, but who have no interest in PvP. It's perfectly possible to have a playerbase intensely interested in PvE combat, but not interested at all in PvP combat (beyond sparring).

See pretty much any of the BSG games, TGG, etc.

My experience with Battletech was effectively PVE. First there was us as tweens/teens playing against my dad (effectively acting as GM even though yes, technically, it was PVP). Then were the Crescent Hawk tactical RPG video games. Even in my foray into MWO, the other players may as well be AI bots for all I interact with them.

@seraphim73 said in Testing the Waters for Battletech Interest:

I would include significant combat elements

I wasn't referring to the quantity of combat so much as the depth of it. I don't think it's worth trying to recreate TT style BTech rules in a MU setting.

Very sorry for your loss, Sunny.

@ghost There have always been multiple facets to the Battletech playerbase. Many (most, probably?) are in it for tactical Mech combat. Those folks will probably be happier playing the other venues, whether that's MWO, the Battletech RTS sim, or whatnot.

But there have also always been players into the lore and rich nature of the universe. There's a RPG, lots of novels, etc. I think that a BT MU could be successful if it focused on the L&L style lore stuff (with Mechwarriors being the "knights") maybe with some light combat elements mixed in.

@nessa Ares already has code that gives things out (luck points, achievements) when scenes are completed. They're currently based on scene participation, not sharing, but you could change that with custom code. It would take some effort, but nothing compared to all the other work that would be entailed in making a SR game.

@greenflashlight Not really, no. RobotJox is not in the Battletech universe.

In Battletech the wars are actual wars. Mechs fight, but so do foot soldiers, tanks, space fighters, etc.

There are 1-on-1 mech fights, ala a boxing match, but that's more of a gladiator entertainment thing; not the way wars are decided.

@misterboring I don't think that would be possible. It's a desktop app. You can do head-to-head play, but it's not designed for the sort of multiplayer scenarios MUs need.

@ganymede said in The Work Thread:

I think it is a cost issue. Cars cost a loan payment and insurance. Most households do not have a car for kids. So why bother getting a license?

And parents aren't always happy to share the car. My dad pretty much always had our one car and was happy to play chauffeur so I never got my license in high school.

In college I lived within walking distance of 90% of stuff I needed and could take buses to the rest.

It wasn't until I got my first job in suburban Chicagoland (with its spotty bus service) that I had both the means and inclination to learn to drive so I could get a car.

@roz said in The Work Thread:

Yeah that requires a LOT of trust for me. Because it doesn't even have to be someone being a jerk and consciously refusing to give me opportunities after giving me a raise to retain me; even an otherwise decent job can just get the seed planted in their brains that you were looking elsewhere and might again and so might give you a bit less, etc.

I mean, it works out for some folks doesn't it? Otherwise I would assume it wouldn't really even be A Thing.

It could make the bosses consider you to have your foot halfway out the door already and treat you accordingly. It could also motivate them to be like: "OMG we don't want to lose Roz, we need to start treating them better so they want to stay." Theoretically anyway. I've never tried it in practice.

But that assumes your bosses are decent humans who actually want you to stay. If you're otherwise happy in your job and just need more money, maybe it makes sense? If the reason you're job-hunting in the first place is because your workplace is toxic, then run when you have the chance. Who knows when another escape route may present itself.

@macha said in The Work Thread:

I know they won't do it, but then I can say I offered in good faith, and well.. money is money

Given everything you've described about your current employer, it's hard to fathom any amount of raise they might offer you that would make it worth imperiling your mental health to stay.

@ganymede said in The Work Thread:

If you had the chance to move out of a bad domestic situation to somewhere safer, would you give your abuser the chance to give you a reason to stay?

This too. If things are so bad that you feel it necessary to file complaints with the state, it seems like that's probably a place you should run from at the earliest possible opportunity.

That said, we don't know the full situation, just what you've shared here. I hope things get better for you regardless.