This depends on your views on personal identity. It's not necessarily true that "you" exist from death to birth. Consciousness could be a singleton, and "You" could be everyone in the universe. Or perhaps "you" is only a single person-moment instantiated for a split second.
Telegram is more of a social media platform than a messenger. It has public 'channels' - read-only blogs without likes and comments. The biggest Belarusian channel 'Nexta' has 2M+ subscribers.
> Evolved player makes invalid moves far away in the board, causing opponent players to run out of memory and crash
Well, this sounds like speedrunning. People have found arbitrary code execution vulnerabilities in SNES and used them to jump to the credits (which counts as completed the game) in less than a minute: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf9i7MjViCE
In this case it’s just choosing an option that involves very large numbers because it’s learned that it’s opponent can’t handle large numbers. There’s no code injection
The SMB3 ACE is one of the most technically interesting glitches. The usual skips and saves are much more mundane.
My point here is that there is similarity between (some) human players and some AI players. Even the discussion whether exploiting a glitch is actually 'winning' also looks very similar.
To me it is kind of self-growing array that can hold objects of different types. The C++-ish equivalent would be something like std::vector<void*> / std::vector<MagicObjectBoxType> (there is no MagicObjectBoxType of course).
So... Because lists are dynamically typed and heterogeneous, does that mean the underlying C is basically a contiguous segment of memory of python object references? Then in cpython the actual list contents are Python objects sitting on the heap in a non-contiguous manner?
And when the list needs to be resized and doubles itself, it's just doubling the space for object references?
> Because lists are dynamically typed and heterogeneous, does that mean the underlying C is basically a contiguous segment of memory of python object references?
The growth pattern is still exponential, instead of going x -> 2 * x, you go x -> 9/8 * x + 6. I think it should still be O(1) amortized, you just need to adjust your proof for doubling a bit.
> So... Because lists are dynamically typed and heterogeneous, does that mean the underlying C is basically a contiguous segment of memory of python object references?
Yes. Every Python object is held by the interpreter as a pointer to a PyObject struct on the (C) heap.
Not something I would put into production, but had a fun application of this on a side project. I had the `id` of a function (but not the function object itself) and needed to recover the function. In CPython, `id` of a function corresponds to it's memory address (not sure if that can be overridden). By casting the id to a PyObject, I was able to recover the original.
It started with a small bell on a hook next to the door and I would take their paw and hit the bell before letting them outside. Eventually they caught on and I'd give them a lot of praise when they did it on their own. The next iteration was an analog setup and the latest uses a Raspberry Pi. I will say, I have three dogs and only one (the smartest) ever caught on with the bell and analog version. Two of them are able to use the newest version which is the easiest to trigger, since it has a touch surface that is 4x4 inches. The third dog has never caught on. But, he hates going outside, so it's likely he doesn't want to catch on.
I'm not exactly sure how they know when to expect me home, but they seem to have a decent sense of time or are sensitive enough to external triggers that condition them, like neighbors arriving home after work, rush hour traffic, etc.
They do exhibit certain behaviors when it's feeding time (hasn't been automated yet), which is the same every night and that is consistent through daylight savings changes and day lengths varying with seasons. So I assume they have some rudimentary sense of time.
> All of these are also side-effects of over use of amphetamines...
Surely you are not the first person with this idea? Could it be that other people thought this too and compared unmedicated and medicated ADHD populations?
ADHD is heavily underdiagnosed in the adult population, hence it is not hard to find adults who have ADHD and who never took stimulants. IIRC, The studies show that kids medicated with stimulants actually have lower rates of substance abuse.
I am really surprised at all the skepticism about ADHD in this thread.
1) Attention (or executive functioning in general) is normally distributed, just like a lot of other human traits. If you don't doubt that intelligence is normally distributed (and that some people are smarter than other), what makes you think that there is no variability in executive functioning / attention?
Executive functioning also improves as brain develops, and that's why problems of younger kids are probably more noticeable.
2) Re: diagnosing using checklists and interviewing. That's literally how every other psychiatric disorder is diagnosed. Depression? Checklists and interviewing. Anxiety? Checklists and interviewing. Schizophrenia? Also checklists and interviewing.
Studies show that there are measurable differences between ADHD brains and normal brains. People complain that these are not used for diagnosis. The reason these scans are not used for diagnosis is because the resolution of common brain scan methods is not high enough, and these differences are seen on the population level.
Skepticism is common. I believe this is because the idea of ADHD as someone who can't sit still or is disruptive in group classroom settings has been popularized and accepted as the defining characteristic of the disease.
What people do not understand is what you called out in #1. ADHD is primarily an executive function disorder, and people do not understand what this means or the impacts it has on someone's life. Though this does materialize as impulse control and risk taking, it also represents an inability to plan, execute routine behavior, make decisions and have perspective to retroactively modify behavior.
If we popularized the idea of ADHD as the adult who always leaves at the time they're supposed to be somewhere, has had their utilities shut off because they forgot to pay their bill, poor credit, constantly loses items, always seems to be making last minute decisions (or is painfully indecisive), has poor dental hygiene because they consistently forget to brush their teeth or go to the dentist and so on, people might be better able to relate to what happens in the day to day life of ADHD. Low self-esteem, anxiety and depression are co-morbid with ADHD at staggering rates. Imagine being someone expending immense amounts of energy and thought just to do the "normal" expected things of individual life, and failing consistently to actually do them. Additionally, you're producing consistent disappointment in those around you ("Why can't you just show up on time just this once!?") compounding the sense of worthlessness.
I believe if people viewed ADHD through this more nuanced lens, they might focus less on the "drugging children" aspect of ADHD and far more on the human reality and toll of the disease.
Spot on. I wish ADHD had a less cute sounding name, maybe then people would take it more seriously. And it is also a misnomer: it is often about being unable to regulate attention (rather than simply having a lack of it), which leads to mysterious variations in productivity, especially with tasks that are not novel, interesting or challenging.
IQ arguably follows a normal distribution because such tests are constructed to do so. This leads to the criticism that useful measures of intelligence are excluded because they have a threshold effect which can't be sensibly normalized ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Systemat... ).
Disorders typically refer to such threshold effects, where rather than expected variance, there is a distinct anomalous population. ADHD is such a case where there is a threshold, which appears to be most commonly caused by a genetic factor affecting the dopamine transmission system. Although that's not to say the distribution function isn't continuous, and a person's membership in a statistical population isn't arbitrary.
I suspect the rather poor diagnosis situation is going to naturally produce a lot of skepticism. Anyone is going to start questioning things if they see kids with a diagnosis who seem basically normal. And, unfortunately, that does seem to be happening quite often.
If they are being successfully medicated they'll seem normal.
And even if unmedicated, they may seem entirely normal, because you're not watching them read the same page of a book 20 times, or doing other things where the condition causes a problem.
Not everyone with ADHD is like an energetic child who's had too much cake.
> How do I, personally, define normal? Who gives a shit?
If you care enough to leave a comment on HN, please also explain _why_ you think it is poor. Because right now your comments add no substance to the discussion.
We are in a discussion about an article providing strong evidence that diagnosis is poorly done. Do a little research yourself, and you'll find it's hardly the only evidence. Feel free to peruse a good New York Times write up from a while back: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/01/health/more-diagnoses-of-...
Maybe the ADHD brain is the normal brain and there is something abnormal about domesticated human brains, the ones that conform to the needs of modern corporations and the schooling system that supports them. Maybe the ADHD brain is a better hunter gatherer / forager brain.
There is a 'hunter vs farmer hypothesis'. It is certainly a cute idea. But even if it is true, the society isn't going back to back to persistence hunting.
There is some real human suffering right now (simply by definition from DSM - if there is no impairment, it is not ADHD).
"I guess I picked the wrong time to be a human being".
I have ADHD and hunting and fishing are some of the most engaging things I can think of. Spearfishing can keep me focused for an entire day. I also love working on my equipment and researching hunts. This is all boring to everyone I know. I guess the key thing is that ADHD isn't an inability to engage or focus at all - there's a degree of selection involved.
For what it's worth, I never hop out to examine rocks. Some people with ADHD might suffer from impulsive distracted behavior like that, but certainly not all.
Humans run slowly, but human bodies can dissipate heat very efficiently through sweating, and this makes humans good long-distance runners. AFAIK, humans can outrun most other animal species.
So if I understand it correctly, the hunting method involves scaring your prey, running for a while(yay hyperactivity), using your big brain to figure out where the prey went and running again for a while. Rinse and repeat for many hours, until the prey literally dies from exhaustion.
I imagine persistence hunting as a series of puzzles while you literally can see your reward - no delayed gratification involved.
With regards to positive selective pressure, there's also the even simpler explanation that ADHD correlates with a greater number of sexual partners, early parenthood, etc.
Although genetic success doesn't necessarily mean success for people's well-being.
2 - Okay all psychiatric disorders use checklist and interviewing, but that may reflective of a problem with modern psychology.
It's very hard to say with any objectivity how much happiness, calmness, or attention is proper when your life situation may be bad, stressful, or boring.
So even if there is a biological condition that stems from brain differences, what is the R^2 between professional diagnoses of ADHD and actual biological cases of it?
> 2 - Okay all psychiatric disorders use checklist and interviewing, but that may reflective of a problem with modern psychology.
And this problem being what exactly?
> It's very hard to say with any objectivity how much happiness, calmness, or attention is proper when your life situation may be bad, stressful, or boring.
And your solution is what exactly? Do nothing?
The reality is that it's not easy, but certainly not as hard as you make it to be. Most psychiatric diagnoses (including ADHD) have decent inter-rater reliability. They are certainly going to produce some amount of false positives and false negatives. But the moment humanity invent magic test for depression/anxiety/ADHD/etc, psychiatry is switching to it.
> So even if there is a biological condition that stems from brain differences, what is the R^2 between professional diagnoses of ADHD and actual biological cases of it?
Like I mentioned, brain scans are not really used for diagnosing (yet), because they are not sensitive enough to be used for diagnosis. How would you compute R^2 in this situation?
The point is just establishing condition X exists doesn't establish that most people diagnosed with X actually have X (and those who don't, don't).
The burden of proof on the psychiatric community is greater than to prove a condition exists in a biological sense. It is:
1. Prove condition exists. Identify if it is a specific illness or just an extreme on a range
2. Prove that they have a reliable and accurate way to diagnose it and that most physicians in the field agree on their diagnoses (i.e. interviewer intereliability > 90%). In so doing, prove this diagnoses is independent of self-image (e.g. a kid who's told they are distracting all the time may answer that they "can't focus" on a questionnaire because that's what adults tell them).
3. Prove that whatever solutions they are offering are statistically effective at helping the condition described in 2. Administer a post-test on each person receiving treatment to verify that they are indeed helped by whatever drug they are purchasing.
--
The community doesn't meet this standard. And therefore we are right to be skeptical of it, it's half-assed with peoples mental health. I'm more rigorous with my software than they are with mental health.
To answer your question - You'd do a research study on "Brain ADDness" based on size of brain structures. Then you'd give a traditional ADD test to these people. And you'd look at the correlation.
http://www.galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html
https://qualiacomputing.com/2015/12/17/ontological-qualia-th...