In other words, gathering your own anecdote, compounding that with other anecdotes through biased sampling (which kind of person will feel more motivated to share their anecdote on it? And which and anecdotes do you reject because they just didn't try hard enough?) and then projecting that onto every other human being and assuming they must experience the same thing you do.
I never claimed it works for everyone, I am doubting that it is a provable fact that it works for only a minuscule fraction of people- I am not sure exactly what fraction of people this would potentially work for.
You are effectively implying that firsthand experience and expertise are completely worthless, and people can only learn information from large scientific studies, which is nonsense- it would invalidate virtually everything humans know that allows them to effectively navigate the world. I'm a working academic scientist that often designs and executes large studies, and I only ever see these arguments and line of thinking from non-scientists that don't actually understand the limitations of scientific methods, but have turned it into some sort of pseudo-religion.
These are effectively yoga/meditation like techniques that are taught in communities I am part of, and that I have taught to friends and family. I'm not under some delusion that there isn't bias there, I have seen it not work for people, and account for that in my thinking about it. It's been life changing for me, and so I am happy to share info about it in case it might be for others, but I'm not under some delusion that it is the solution to everything.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression that your comment isn't really about what I am actually saying, but a general anger towards anything that looks like "pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps"- an anger you can see in other comments in this thread as well. This toxic line of thinking comes from an old fashioned moral argument, that basically derives ones moral standing and worth as a person from the state of being helpless and persecuted, which requires one to actively fight against anything that might be an effective tool to overcome adversity.
I don't agree that using techniques that can help people overcome adversity in any way diminishes the challenges people face, or diminishes things like systematic injustice and addiction that certainly can be due to factors outside of one's control, and hard or impossible to overcome.
Having tools and methods that can, even sometimes, empower people to overcome, survive, and thrive, even if they don't work every time doesn't invalidate those problems, it is just one way to fight them.
I tried to set up stalwart, but I didn't understand exactly what it wanted me to do. It's a webserver (for webmail and admin) and mail server in one, but I already run a webserver and I already have cert infra. So I couldn't figure out what dns settings to use and what ports to reverse proxy. And how to get it to play nice and share the certificate. Seems like stalwart has been designed as if it is the only thing running on a machine, with sparse documentation for any other setup. I tried getting help on the discord server but the tone seemed to be of a sort of "it's quite obvious, you should already know this". At that point, it's so much friction to reverse engineer it that it might just be easier to set up dovecot and postfix.
I have had similarly been unable to get as much help from their Discord as I had hoped.
That said, I'd give this another shot. What I discovered is that Stalwart is incredibly flexible and designed to be used in any configuration you want, and the documentation and examples are incredible, compared to most other projects. BTW, there is no webmail yet, but you are right that there is the admin that is served over HTTP/S, as well as MTA_STS, JMAP. The default listeners get you started and it's kind of out-of-the-scope of Stalwart in terms how you want your server to interact with those listeners. But whether you containerize it or setup a reverse proxy, the documentation has a lot of examples, including how to pick up the certificates, if not managed by Stalwart itself.
I landed on a Caddy for HTTPS and haproxy for proxy protocol on just JMAP, and the remaining TCP services directly binded to the host for the main mail services.
Traefik is another example that I had initially prepped and got working that also handled TCP connections with proxy protocol where needed. The Stalwart documentation was very helpful with that.
In short, I was impressed with how easy it was to integrate Stalwart into whatever setup I wanted, and how open the developer is to different setups. For instance, mox (while awesome in its own right) considers containerized setups to be not-recommended, and generally expects it to live on its own server. Stalwart is flexible, but the side effect is that it is overwhelming at first... but becomes quite elegant once you get the hang of it.
Did you use the documentation to figure out the proxying? I can't see a clear path of how to reconcile giving the responsibility of certs to another software, but still having stalwart use them for imap and smtp tls. And do you have the stalwart web interface running on www.yourdomain, or did you manage to get it working on a different subdomain? I don't see the config syntax in the docs for changing that
The documentation needs a lot of work, especially since a lot of it is outdated. But in short, if you setup a reverse proxy, the listeners in Stalwart will listen to anything forwarded to it, so you'll generally want to refer to the HTTP endpoints to map it to the right subdomain. https://stalw.art/docs/http/overview
For instance, you can simply point something like mailadmin.domain.com to Stalwart on port 8080 and it'll just work. In this case, whatever your mail server's host name (i.e. mail.domain.com or whatever) wouldn't really matter.
But then your reverse proxy can handle the other endpoints like /dav/, /.well-known/ on a different subdomain. And mta_sts.domain.com directly handling /.well-known/mta-sts.txt for instance.
For my stack, outside of Caddy's https handling, I kept things simple and exposed 25, 465, 587, 993, and 4190 (smtp, smtps, imaps, and ManageSieve) TCP services binded directly to the host.
But it leaves it to you to map things. For instance, if both Caddy and Stalwart are containerized, it's easy to get mixed up on where the bind-mounted or named volumes (depending on how you set it up) will end up placing them. But it does work... just so flexible that it's out-of-scope for Stalwart to document everything.
The installation instructions seem to agree with you:
1. curl this shell script
2. Run it as root.
Anytime you see that, you can assume the software wants to take over the whole box and isn't likely to make any attempt to play nicely with other services/software/users already running on the same host.
I feel like the developer is just as serious about containerized setup as letting it take over the whole box. I've run it both ways, and have found it works incredibly well in Docker and the documentation is very good at treating all setups equally.
Hard. You need reverse DNS, which means you need to have a machine with a stable ip, and convince the network operator to set up a PTR reverse DNS record for you. This part is fairly easy if you are renting a VPS with a fixed ipv4 address, just ask the rental company.
You also need to set up mx, dkim, dmarc, spf, and a bunch of other stupid DNS records related to dane/tlsa/mta-sts that aim to put bandaids on top of bandaids on top of what is the shitty unsecured and unencrypted email protocol.
Then you need to fight with a bunch of arcane 90s Unix programs to actually not be gaping security holes that will allow people to relay off of your MTA and get you blacklisted worldwide. You need to fight with a milter and acme client to finally get the TLS stuff right too. Then there's the need to set up a spam filter for your inbox (probably).
> Then you need to fight with a bunch of arcane 90s Unix programs to actually not be gaping security holes that will allow people to relay off of your MTA
how many decades has it been since this was actually the default config?
It measures your ability to focus your attention quite objectively and there's statistically significant differences between neurotypical and adhd performance. This test was used during my own diagnosis.
There is no doubt some differences in people who experienced mental problems, and sought or were given a diagnosis, and the general population.
QbTest was retroactively designed specifically to target this subjectively diagnosed ADHD group. This may be evidence that an ADHD diagnosis does differentiate populations based on some criteria, but it says nothing to this differentiation being caused by a singular disorder/pathology
I'd like to see a study of this test done on other comorbidities. I found this for example which finds a weak relation in these tests https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38317541/ differentiating between ADHD and depression, anxiety, OCD.
Here is another study.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37800347/
>Conclusions: When used on their own, QbTest scores available to clinicians are not sufficiently accurate in discriminating between ADHD and non-ADHD clinical cases. Therefore, the QbTest should not be used as stand-alone screening or diagnostic tool, or as a triage system for accepting individuals on the waiting-list for clinical services. However, when used as an adjunct to support a full clinical assessment, QbTest can produce efficiencies in the assessment pathway and reduce the time to diagnosis.
I'll also point out few things:
1. Attention/focus is not a simple single metric one can measure and varies entirely on the task/situation at hand. That is a computerized test with no actual risk/reward to a person is not a predictor of attention/focus in general life. Focus/attention is driven largely by the feelings, rewards, risks, outcomes someone sees, those with diagnosed ADHD are already entering this study with an entirely different mental perception/attitude.
2. There is inherent bias present in ADHD patients in they may intentionally fudge their performance to meet their diagnosis. Unlike most disorders, people actually seek an ADHD diagnosis for access to stimulants, and its incredibly easy to understand how to mimic that behavior for these tests.
3. Other computerized tests have existed aiding in diagnosis, so this becomes circular.
I think if you look hard enough there will always be fuzzy boundaries and overlaps in all the forms of neurodivergence. And yet, stereotypes and categories exist for a reason. Just because diagnosis is not perfect, doesn't mean it isn't good enough to do more good than harm in the world.
To your point 1, that's true. When there's ample motivation/inspiration, which is fickle and as far as I can tell not really up for conscious mutation, hyperfocus can occur in people with ADHD.
2: The test was actually quite long. In my unmedicated graph my attention was pretty high at first, but then I apparently got slowly distracted or disengaged. During the test I didn't feel distracted or disengaged however, and yet it showed quite clearly. Might it be harder than you think for people to "fake" this in a convincing way?
Anyway I do look forward to a better understanding of ADHD rather than "not enough dopamine" which seems to be the leading explanation. And I'm curious how much of a bimodal distribution that spectrum of dopamine deficiency is for humanity, or whether it is even bimodal at all.
What I am trying to say is that the brain is a VERY complex machine, I do not believe there is a singular cause for why people fail to be motivated/alert in their daily lives.
I refuse to call it ADHD, as that implies some known pathology. It is imo a social construction. Categorization can be useful for assessment/treatment but it isnt science. Quite frankly I dont care if people were handed amphetamines simply because they wanted to see if it improved their lives.
I will just say, I am disgnosed and take stims and the best and most motivatrd I ever felt was when I was doing some sort of physical activity almost daily, had a challenging rewarding job and friends. I was completely sober and happy, and completely depressed, ADHD like all the years prior. If youre not exercising regularly I highly suggest you try it
possibilities:
(1) they get lots of angry customers and bad press, and are tired of being made to look bad because of gov req's
(2) it costs them more to manufacture all the fancy nanny tech, so their bottom line would be positively impacted by rolling back the requirement for it
Not quite. More like signal-to-noise-ratio gate. In radio transmissions, there is white noise when no active signal is received. Radios mute themselves when there is white noise, as to not annoy the user. On 2 way radios this is very important otherwise the radio will be hissing at you most of the time.
The squelch setting determines the threshold of signal to noise allowed through. If the incoming transmission signal strength is really bad, the radio might not unmute itself. So you turn down the squelch, which might completely open the radio bringing in white noise, but you can then receive the transmission.
Isn't they exactly what a noise gate does? You set a level of loudness below which it mutes all sound. If sounds levels go above that then it plays whatever sounds goes above it.
How do you ensure you are asleep for 15 minutes? Do you have a smart watch that detects when you drift asleep and can start a timer then? Or are you not losing consciousness, but are you simply closing your eyes and meditating?
For these instances where I get urgently fatigued ("brain tired") in the daytime, I close my eyes and fall asleep in 1-2 minutes. I'm definitely unconscious. I don't set any alarm and naturally wake up in ~15 minutes. It's been as short as 8 minutes, or as long as 30, but probably averages around 15. "Body tired" is different and requires the normal multiple hours of sleep.
This is something I have considered getting into where and alarm goes off from when you actually fall asleep. For me it seems 5 hrs of sleep is the sweet spot (functional, slightly sleep deprived, but motivated)
On my (accoustic) piano, the black keys are just as wide as the back ends of the white keys. This is achieved by shifting the position of the black keys a bit, instead of centering them right between the white keys.
The point that the article is addressing (but you have to ignore the image and study the equations to see this!) is that this sort of shifting can't equalize everything. In the span of 3 white keys C to E at the front, you have 2 black keys at the back, so if you take r to be the ratio of back-width to white key front-width then you have 3 = 5r. But in the 4 keys F to B, you've got 3 black keys so 4 = 7r. No single ratio works! So the article investigates various compromises. The B/12 solution is what seems to me the most straightforward, divide white keys in each of the sections C to E and F to B equally at the back, and don't expect anyone to notice the difference.
I don't see the problem... Use one unit of width per semitone. Then raise the black keys up a bit. Then for the white keys, elongate them and append some extra stuff on the sides of their fronts so the white keys' fronts' all have one same width as well. They are two separate "problems", not interdependent.
I also have a MIDI keyboard (M-Audio Hammer 88) which follows the same model.
I'd like to see a photo of someone's piano that uses a different system, really I thought they were always this way. It's a good system because it lets the black keys be spaced a little further apart, while also reducing the jump between black key clusters.
As the article says, it is impossible to make the back ends of the white keys equal in width so piano makers have to compromise. The difference is about a millimetre so many pianists may never have noticed.
The naive approach of placing each black key at the midpoint of its adjacent white keys makes B, C, E and F quite wide at the base, but it is harder to fit a finger between the black keys to play D, G or A, which can be necessary when the hand has to stretch or play both black and white keys. On a real piano, therefore, the C# and D# keys and the F# and A# keys are offset a little from the midpoints of their adjacent white keys. G# is the only black key that is actually at the midpoint of its adjacent white keys.
In the photograph of the Yamaha piano, you can see that the cutouts on the D key are symmetrical but less than half the width of a black key because the C# and D# keys are offset. Looking at the G key, the right cutout, at half the width of a black key, is deeper than the cutouts on the D key, so to compensate the left cutout is less deep than the cutouts on the D key. As a consequence, the cutout on the F key is deeper than the cutout on the E key, so the E key is wider at the back than the F key. Similarly, the C key is wider at the back than the B key.
As described in the article, on some keyboards just the C and E keys are wider at the back, with D the same width at the back as F, G, A and B. More often, however, the C# and D# keys are placed a little further out to spread the extra width equally between the C, D and E keys.
Good point about the ~1mm difference. Interestingly on my MIDI keyboard the difference between white key widths is even larger (maybe ~3mm max), showing some variation in style.
By the way your two comments in this discussion had been voted down and hidden (marked [dead]) for some reason. I voted for them to return and I'm happy to see they've now been reinstated.
There is a good [dead] comment reply to my comment here by user sefn where they point out that in fact the spacing is not exactly equal, it varies by about 1mm (and they're correct).
If you've got "showdead" on, you can see it, click the timestamp on it, and click "vouch" if you want to vouch for it to come back. Seems inappropriately killed to me.
They have a second good [dead] comment in this discussion which I've also vouched to return.
This is fascinating! I’ve never played a YC seriously, but I have played several Yamahas and currently play on a Kawai and Baldwin. I’ve often wondered if the Baldwin or Yamaha is laid out slightly differently than the Kawai because I feel like playing broken 4 note chords the fingering can feel off on one piano vs another. It’s a slight stretch but the 4-5 on the second 4 note chord can be uncomfortable on the Kawai and comfortable on the Yamaha. I never play them in the same room, one is at my teachers and one at home.
Very interesting! Is there a spec for this? Or a layout description? Surely something as precise as piano would note this.
Generally speaking fumbling on a piano doesn’t bode well for performance… it’s a little bit like Olympic gymnastics, you only get one chance to stick the landing!
In theory I agree, but in practice this just increases compile time by a lot, and we need to be able to manually toggle the code that gets executed at compile time.
When every eligible piece of code becomes automatically constexpr, as you suggest, the compile time will just balloon. The code still needs to be compiled and executed, just all at once now. Optimization is one of those annoying problems for which we currently don't have the compute to fully bruteforce it. We need to be selective with which code is marked constexpr.
The idea is that since "static obj bar()" doesn't depend on anything in the function, it could in principle be moved outside of the function. So in actual fact, it can be treated that way by the loading semantics of the program (can be constructed without the function having to be called), except that the name bar is only visible inside the function.
I don't understand why C++ wouldn't have specified it this way going back to 1998, but that's just me.
reply