melindajb

It’s like no one’s seen “Alien.”

(Humor!)

As you know the most brutally totalitarian regimes suppress speech that contradicts the views of those in power(edit). The Comparison of the American government’s decision to tamp down on the algorithmic reach of misinformation during a pandemic to a totalitarian regime is neither fair not an accurate; and frankly is hyperbolic.

I get to say what I observe. When I read the comment history of the angriest folks on this thread, it’s never anger on anyone else’s behalf but their own.

I find it fascinating how angry people on HN get about this particular issue; but rarely seem as concerned about the fundamental human rights violation of banning medications and medical procedures for one half the population.

Yes, this is relevant; and I say this as a former life long libertarian: I wanted the government out of my life in most ways; and that included laws on abortion, marijuana and others.

What I learned with life experience was that I benefitted from being part of a society, and I have to both give as well as take.

sometimes, I get less...a lot less to be honest. and sometimes i get more. and hopefully the balance works out over a lifetime.

Watching the foaming rage about words; but remaining silent when actual people are dying due to the actually tyrannical governments in the southern united states, belies the real motivation of a great many people.

It's sad that you're being downvoted only because you disagreed with the prevailing pov here.

for all its talk of being an open exchange of ideas, HN often devolves into exactly the opposite.

what should they be based on?

One way in america we've always defined free speech is this:

"your right to swing your fist ends when it lands on my face."

I don't think people have a right to free speech when that speech is purposely, and I do mean purposely because it was done on purpose, designed to spread misinformation in such a way that others are harmed by it.

There are limits to free speech, and the conversation ends with Popper's paradox.

There’s no way silicon valley would have realized the importance of the content in the equation. The talent is absolutely a huge part of the success. There are multiple huge facebook and ig groups for some of the most popular instructors. It’s a moat.

I started out with a different bike but eventually bought a peloton because the community and integration was so much better than bike + tablet.

Plus I love stretching, yoga, pilates, meditation.

During cancer I couldn’t ride. But those chair and standing yoga classes made an enormous difference in my state of mind and health.

I wish it wasn’t so hard for a few folks here to see that passion and emotion for a brand has value.

That said, there are enormous opportunities in front of Peloton. It’s time to get some Silicon Valley leadership in there to apply product led growth initiatives.

It’s fascinating to see on hacker news of all places, the negativity towards a founder with a very successful exit.

The irony was not lost on me either. but I really did agree with a lot of the piece. :) To his point, again.

"It’s puzzling that there isn’t a stronger tradition of “user testing” for writing. Occasionally I’ll give a friend something I’ve written and implore them, “Please circle anything that makes you feel even slightly unhappy for any reason whatsoever.” Then I’ll ask them what they were thinking at each point. There are always “bugs” everywhere: Belaboring of obvious points, ambiguous phrases, unnecessary antagonistic language, tangential arguments about controversial things that don’t matter, etc."

This is called an editor. They're invaluable!

Clickup does this very well-lets you decide if you want to create a new instance no matter what, or whether you want to create a relative recurrence when the task is complete.

So in the case of furnace filters: create quarterly, then push next one out x days once marked complete.

In the case of rent, it's always due the 1st of the month regardless of whether I pay on the 2nd or the 31st.

cleaning up unicorn poop has been an excellent business. Nice to see it will continue for awhile.

depends on the level. with Execs you get a double trigger if you're let go after a liquidity event (essentially all your stock vests so you don't get shafted.

Young people rarely if ever have the leverage to negotiate severance, but If you can, I'd say 2 months at a minimum plus 1 month for each year. Chances are that in a small startup the reason you get nothing is that they go out of business. And if you're a marketer, doubly so.

As I always say, engineers get aqui-hired. And marketers get acqui-fired.

and yet silicon valley says it's impossible that discrimination on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, race, and age isn't happening. Not you, per se, just in general everyone believes the scam but the rest is "just a matter of opinion."

As for me I am entirely unsurprised because I've literally seen it all. and it happens more often than most people realize. the more desperate you are to be here, the more people will take advantage of you.

It's very similar to the way young girls who want to be actresses or models get "discovered" by pornographers.

This thinking in this thread is the reason women are leaving tech in droves.

Indeed. but I also want to listen to spotify while I run. Doesn't seem any of those can do that, but if I'm missing something I'd love to know. I also want that data to go into runkeeper.

downvoted. ha. keep it classy, HN.

There are a certain percentage of the population who are just assholes.

Let's assume for a moment that both men and women are assholes in equal proportion, that say 10% of the population of either gender are assholes.

For a 50 person company, 80% male: 40 men total 4 male assholes 10 women 1 woman asshole

Take that ratio up to 90% male as many tech conferences are: 45 men of those 45 men, 5 will be assholes, rounding up 5 women 1 woman asshole

In that scenario there actually the same number of male assholes as ALL of the women.

This is why changing the ratio of male and female matters.

Fascinating idea. Suggest you allow us marketing/Hustler/growth hacking types to offer as well. Maybe require an invite from a dev so we pass muster in some way?

The headline was: Doctor: ADHD doesn't exist.

When it comes to science, opinions are not helpful. this article is akin to vaccine denial, no matter how "interesting" you found it.

I know hacker news isn't for this kind of debate though, so I will stop at just pointing out the total inaccuracy of your statement.

I understand that you think you are uniquely qualified and "have been on both sides." I also clearly understood you are defending the concept of actual diagnosis. At the same time your comments seemed to suggest that you had disdain for others who didn't manifest the condition in a way you thought was appropriate.

Please note that those of us who were born with this have a very different life experience, and greatly outnumber those who acquired the condition through a head trauma, infection or other acute condition. Women manifest very differently than men. For example, girls are way underdiagnosed relative to boys at approximately 10:1 though it is improving I hear lately to 3:1. Why? because hyperactivity in girls manifests often as over talkativeness, and instead of screening the girl for the condition, her parents and teachers shame her for "talking too much." I was one of those girls. Boys who talk too much rarely get that criticism but because ADHD leads me to act outside of gender norms, the backlash is far greater for girls than it is for boys in many, many cases.

ADHD also manifests very, very differently in many people due to the various ways executive function develops in children. I have no difficulty getting places on time, but some ADHD folks couldn't get anywhere on time without significantly more effort.

When you say hyperfocus is only used by those who want to sell you something, I question your veracity. Hyperfocus is listed, if not a symptom in the DSM, then as one possible manifestation/result of the condition that is commonly seen. Others can include emotional outbursts, driving accidents, drug abuse, etc. For clarity's sake of those reading: hyperfocus is defined as the inability to direct one's attention to what is desired; being drawn into something in an irresistible way in a way that impacts functioning. Hyperfocus can also manifest as being incapable of switching away from that which is undesired.

This means that while the presence of hyperfocus doesn't definitively diagnose ADHD, it is a common presentation.

I see one of the world's top specialists in the matter, an MD who is the head of the department at a major teaching hospital in the Bay Area. He is a scientist first and foremost, which is why I picked him. He's very clear and direct with me about what we know and what is unknown. I want you to understand that the presence of uncontrollable hyperfocus is absolutely a manifestation of the disorder that is very commonly seen.

Without apology I do take what you say personally, because you are talking about a condition I have lived with my whole life, that has affected nearly every corner of my life in ways that were surprising to me and to everyone around me from my parents to my closest friends. You have only had the condition in your adult years and most likely do not have the same form I have. So yes, I do resent any suggestion that there is one way to have this disorder.

Net: I'm explaining to you regardless of your intent, you are spreading misinformation that can be used against people with the condition to further perceptions that this is "made up" and thus the conditions to which we are legally entitled should be withheld.

So please, stop. You are qualified to speak of your own experience and should, but when you generalize to the rest of us, you are doing real harm.

The stimulants can, especially in the early days, affect your mood. A good MD will work carefully to start very slowly and ramp up, with the idea to give you the lowest possible effective dose.

For example: my MD started me on the lowest dose of ritalin once a day for a week

then twice a day for a week

then once that was ok I was given a longer acting version called Concerta that I took once a day.

it took six months to ramp me up to my current dose. there were times he felt it was time to go up and I wasn't ready. there were times when I felt it was time and he wanted me to wait. I had some side effects that went away if I went down a dose level, and then as I adapted, I'd move back up again. My dr. was very experienced and warned me about what to expect--a period of feeling invincible for a few months that would fade (true), and a feeling in the evenings of "rebound" as medicine faded (true). He was my rock when I started on this and still is It brings tears to my eyes how he helped me change my life. Now I only see him every three months for 30 mins and I'm given an unusual amount of latitude: I'm given various doses and allowed to manage it myself--choosing lower doses when I want to drink real coffee (my full dose does NOT work with caffeine) or when I can't get a full night's sleep. I'm told this is highly unusual given the meds are a controlled substance and a sign of the faith my MD has that I'm not a drug seeker. (he's right. I saw "requiem for a dream" and let's say he'll never have to worry...)

I was lucky. I can afford the best doctors. the right medicine worked, the first time. This is not true of everyone.

I cannot emphasize enough how important it is that anyone who thinks they have ADHD to go to an MD who specializes in this stuff. Family doctors do NOT count. your basic Ph.D therapist doesn't count.

start with science, go slow and built outwards. FWIW my therapist says he will only work with 4 MD's in SF because his take is that they're all pill pushers. My MD is one of the only MDs in SF allowed to provide telephone prescriptions for Concerta. The pharmacy he sends me to never has shortages. This is also not consistently true, even in SF.

It's no joke. Amphetamines can screw you up. Take this stuff seriously, please and find a good doctor for a proper evaluation.

edit to add: you know I have ADHD: I didn't answer your question. haha!

the short answer is that yes, in the beginning your mood may be "up" and you may feel down on the rebound while you are adjusting. But as you stay with it, things even out and become VERY predictable. If you have ADHD you will recognize the terror I used to have about making sure my brain was ON a the right time--all sorts of weird rituals to wake it up for an important meeting, etc. On the meds, I have confidence my brain will be at its level best so my anxiety and its attendant grouchiness just went away. PS: coaching and therapy (two different things) helped this a lot and if you're late diagnosed as I was, you will need them. I recommend reading "driven to distraction" before you start meds, because that "invincible" feeling the first few months is the best time to start changing habits. you will dip in motivation after that, but never as bad as without and having those systems in place to fall back on will save you.

Here is information about current Israeli medical research that indicates a physical marker is close to being identified--by involuntary eye movements.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/New-Tech/Involuntary-eye-mo...

Given that the condition was described over 2500 years ago by Hippocrates himself, I think you're parroting something that is akin to anti-vaccination theory. No credible science supports you.

I will also add, as I said below:

1) ADHD is more heritable than height. If it were "made up" that couldn't be true. Many parents are getting diagnosed when their kids come in, because those of us in the 70s and 80s were very under diagnosed.

2) ADHD has one of the highest co-morbidities of any mental condition, for the precise reason that we don't look "sick" --like depression or schizophrenia--so people assume things like talking too much, bouncing our legs,forgetting details, messy desks and so on, are signs of a character flaw. From the time we were small children our parents and teachers may have constantly berated us, calling us lazy, or stupid. That can give you a raging case of anxiety and/or depression and the science does show that if you treat for ADHD, the depression and anxiety often lift.

What in your background makes you qualified to make this assertion vs decades of peer reviewed science?

It's fine to have opinions, it's not fine to spread mis-information.

No one can tell by looking at or talking to someone whether they are self diagnosed or not. The fact is that ADHD is very challenging to treat as not all cases respond the same way to the medication and therapy. Executive function is quite complex and deeply related to environment as well as genetics. For example, if your parents blame you for being "lazy" vs helping you find coping strategies, that's bound to impact confidence and thus performance.

When lay people such as yourself pass judgement it makes it harder for those of us with the condition to get the accommodations we are legally entitled to.

I will remind you that ADHD is more heritable than height. Many adults over a certain age were actually under diagnosed.

Please also note that ADHD has one of the highest co-morbidity rates of any mental condition, that is, it is most likely to be accompanied by anxiety and depression for the precise reason that others like to judge people for character on things like forgetting small details. If you treat for anxiety and depression and NOT ADHD you can have very serious, long lasting problems.

ADHD is a lack of control of attention, and hyperfocus is an example of that. IT's usually a reason people go undiagnosed. the parents say, "oh johnny can focus when he wants to, he's just lazy."

I encourage anyone who thinks they have this condition to first read "driven to distraction" and then use its advice to seek out a qualified psychiatrist for a proper evaluation. Do NOT rely on family doctors or your average therapist. Get a specialist. It's worth it.

Now while I'm at it, to your point on "modern life." We all get depressed some times, but there's a wide gulf between that and clinical depression, which I'm sure you would agree with me on.

To that end, here's a post by one of the top ADHD writers, Gina Pera, based in silicon valley, on this very topic:

http://adhdrollercoaster.org/myth-busting/myth-4-modern-life...

I quote:

"Does that mean, however, our fast-paced life causes ADHD? No, Quinn says. Too much stress can impair anyone’s brain function, but it doesn’t cause ADHD. She offers this bottom line: “When you remove stressors, people with ADHD still have ADHD. In other words, it’s not purely stress that inhibits their functioning. It’s the lack of skills required to meet challenges.”

Moreover, our fast-paced world can make someone with ADHD function worse than they might have in earlier times. In fact, some experts say, that is another reason ADHD is being more widely diagnosed: because modern life is demanding more of us than ever before."

edited to add this additional quote:

"Moreover, ADHD’s recorded history might span at least 2,500 years. That’s when the Greek physician-scientist Hippocrates apparently observed a condition sounding suspiciously like ADHD. He described patients who had “quickened responses to sensory experience, but also less tenaciousness because the soul moves on quickly to the next impression.” No mention of cell phones and video games as causative factors."

The problem with salaried employees is that it encourages the "all-you-can-eat" mentality with an employee's time.

Economics students will understand that a rational actor will consume a free thing until the marginal utility of the next unit is zero.

And for a company, the marginal utility of your time is NEVER, EVER Zero. Unless you're a pilot, maybe, or the control room operator of a nuclear plant.

So, even if you're 10% as productive as normal,that's still incremental labor at no additional cost.

But for you, that negative utility affects your health, your family, etc.

The solution is serious and strict laws that prevent employer abuse, and to prevent young people from killing themselves and undermining the value of all labor. They used to be called unions, but I'll settle for government regulation.

Another option is to start your own business, where you decide these things; or to work as a consultant and get paid by the hour. It's AMAZING how much more efficient some of these startups are, or get, when you charge them hourly.

When you give your labor away for free you devalue it, and everyone else's around you.

the article clearly states that asking her to clean the bathrooms was a penalty for her child speaking to the other men in the house while they were working:

"Sometimes, when Kurnia became absorbed in her work, the naturally curious Adam might wander over to another resident to ask what he (the residents were mostly male) was doing on his computer. Some found this cute; most didn't. Finally, someone complained to the landlord, who threatened to throw Kurnia and Adam out unless she agreed to clean the bathrooms. Scrubbing toilets for 15 people seemed too time-consuming, so Kurnia negotiated: she would pay a higher rent, take out the trash, and keep closer watch over Adam. The landlord granted a reprieve."

setting aside the landlord's troubling, possibly illegal response; the lack of compassion of the male developers in said flophouse says volumes about the issues facing us in Silicon valley.