I had to quit Ritalin in year 11 because the anxiety was completely fucking ruining my social development, regardless of whether it was useful to get good grades. I'm unmedicated now (30) and still in some ways quite a difficult human to deal with due to erractic behaviour and unreliability and disorganisation, however, I don't think I could go back to the ritalin man.
Ritalin (methylphenidate in general) is a rough one, cause of its stupidly short half life (as short as 90min in some). On top of that, most extended release systems for it are garbage. Sure on average, the blood plasma level graph is smooth, but you look at individual profiles, and some individuals have way higher peak amplitudes. In my experience, MPH, even the ER/concerta stuff, thrashes your mental state too much to be productive. I actually had more stability dosing slivers of MPH IR every hour, but man, that's tedious, it's easy to miss, and once you drop, it's not the same, even if you get back to therapeutic range.
One of the reasons I've committed to never having children is because there isn't a NEED for more children. We (our species) has a far excess of humans to survive just anything.
I clicked on the link and closed it after 3 lines. No. JUST no. I will not stand for those columns. You have KILOMETERS of virtual space on a webpage. You are not stuck on a physical dead media. Don't pretend to be.
The reason papers adopted the thin column layout is because it suits the eye better. AIUI the eye can cover most of a narrow column and a few saccades to cover the rest. Also finding the next line is easy whereas if it's wide you may find the one above/below the correct one, or simply start reading the same line again (something that happened to me recently). I understand the optimum width is about 6 to 7 english words.
Try reading it. it is strangely archaic but it's an easy read for me, and well, what's more important, the format or the subject?
No it's not dude. The ideal length is dependent on things like font size and line spacing. Having to scroll back up and down is terrible UX. You can just google ideal line length and it'll explain it all.
A quick goggle says various character widths per line. If the average length of an english word is 5.1 characters, then it's considerably more words than I suggested.
None of the links I found mention font/line spacing though it's a quick skim so far.
Your point about having to scroll up and down is spot on; it happens that full page fits comfortably onto my screen so I didn't need to. I forgot it wouldn't on others. If I may add to that, the link to the intercept others had to point out to me I missed because it blended in too well with the rest of the text.
Anyway, that's 1/2 hour reading set for this evening, thanks!
This server could not prove that it is cant.stopdatamining.me; its security certificate is from *.gridserver.com. This may be caused by a misconfiguration or an attacker intercepting your connection
You may also be interested in the field of biological computing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_computing#Biochemic...). Since your background covers both biology and computer science. Plus the field is new enough that you could be a part of some exciting research.
I'd say that even if your answer is completely wrong, at least you can document WHY it was wrong. And maybe someone can open up a new vein of inquiry that branches off yours.
It reminds me of a sci-fi story where people who decided that they were tired of being emulated retired to a virtual mine where they try to discover new mathematical proofs.
They didn't have to do it, since it served no real purpose. But it opened up new avenues of knowledge.
Sounds like Diaspora by Greg Egan. If it’s not, Diaspora also has a virtual mine of mathematical proofs that is mined by the citizens, which are virtual “human” entities living in a simulated world.
Indeed, though mildly predictable. If true, which is yet to be seen, They probably saw the money and thought why should someone else get so much money while they continued to struggle.
I've seen things like this first-hand, where it all goes horribly wrong with the best of intentions.
It starts when you hit a Neccessity, look over at The Pot that you're supposed to be safeguarding, and think .. I could pay it back before they even notice it's gone. I mean, if The Pot says it has 400k in it, and I just borrow 5k for this urgent Neccessity .. in theory I don't even need to pay it back until they get to that last 5k. It doesn't need to be there now, it needs to be there when they reach for it.
It's like the perfect line of credit. No interest, no approvals, no terms. All you have to do is be able to justify it to yourself.
So the car gets fixed, you pay back The Pot, everyone's happy. Or another Neccessity pops up before the last one's paid off, and the hole gets a little deeper. And each time, the boundaries get erroded just a little bit more, and the bar for how urgent, or how neccessary, drops a little lower.
If they honestly didn't believe a lump sum would be beneficial, the money should have gone in a trust where access was controlled. This often looks like overhead, but consider it a neccessary evil.
There's a very good chance this couple weren't actually being malicious, just irresponsible. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, etc.
(Not apologizing for what is clearly fraud, and hopefully they will spend a bit of time in prison after having all their assets liquidated and turned over to Bobbitt through civil actions)
They started a fundraiser for $10,000, which ballooned unexpectedly to $400,000. If I had to guess, I would say that they thought that $10,000 was reasonable for Bobbitt, and would have "happily" turned it over. But $400,000 they saw as excessive and unreasonable -- like the GP said, "why should someone else get so much money while they continued to struggle". $10,000 wouldn't have changed their life in a significant way, but would have tremendously helped Bobbitt, but $400,000 probably just seemed frustratingly unfair -- it would give Bobbitt a lifestyle in excess of theirs, and the only reason the money was there was because they started the GoFundMe. So really, it's their money, when you really think about it, because they raised the funds. Right? Right?
Wouldn't xenocide be a more apt description? A quick search for genocide gives the definition of:
"the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation."
While xenocide is described as:
xenocide (plural xenocides)
The killing of a stranger or foreigner.
(science fiction)
The genocide of an entire alien species.
(US, colloquial)
The intentional killing of an entire foreign (plant or animal) species.
Why? Genocide is by derivation the killing or wiping out of a genetic population. Why can’t that be applied to purposeful extinction of an animal species?
