Nicotine is a stimulant: ADHD'ers are self-medicating and probably before they even know they have ADHD. It's not (primarily) because of a lack of impulse control.
Nicotine does stimulate the prefrontal cortex like adderall so self-medicating can play a role, but a lot of people with ADHD don’t get addicted to their medication. From what i’ve experienced, its the behavior that’s hard to quit. Not saying you’re wrong, just that I think the higher number of smokers is more due to the fact that quitting is harder because of the action of smoking, not because it acts similar to medication in some ways.
That violates EU law and you can absolutely get a fine for this behaviour. As a digital service offerer you can ask the user for permission to track non-essential information about the user, but your service should work the same, without regard for if that user says yes or no.
If this service is hell bent on raping your privacy, they will have to limit their offerings to mostly those living in dictatorships and immature democracies.
You can just hit the back button and use the website without it popping up again. I refused but they're probably still assigning cookies after I hit the back button.
That forgets the whole session when you close it. I meant a way to isolate websites for tracking purposes but also continue to use it over time rather than throwing away all cookies.
It sounds like Chrome accounts might accomplish this for you. I have 7-8 profiles for different personas that seem to sandbox cookies and other identity-adjacent features quite well.
I tested right now and it's 5:
Settings -> Accessibility -> Audio/Visual -> Background Sounds -> on/off/sounds/etc.
It may be the number of items that are part of why people consider these settings "hidden". The "Accessiblity" menu is now 23 items long, and the main Settings menu is 53 Apple items plus over 100 application items.
Well yes, when there are thousands of possible configurations to accomodate the vast majority of potential users, and to keep confusion to a minimum by assigning a unique place in the UI to every possible option, it has to be spread out a lot.
Even the most buried possible setting in iOS is 9 clicks or less, and for the bigger features usually a lot less as you've demonstrated, hence it's not correct to call it 'hidden'.
That's assuming the correct path is taken every time. If I didn't know where the white noise tool was, I wouldn't even think to check the settings for a noise generator. But if I did, it would go
Settings then Sounds & Haptics. 16 options, none seem to match. Maybe "personalized spatial audio?" Oh no,that's saying I need special headphones.
OK it's not under Sounds. Maybe it's in the Focus section? That's what I would use white noise for, focus. 6 options. Maybe it's under "Work Focus" or "Sleep Focus"? No.
General? 15 options, all with sub-menus but none seem relevant.
Control Center? Probably not... That seems safe to ignore. Except if I selected the "Hearing" option in Control Center settings, that actually gives me access to the background noise generator in control-center. But that doesn't seem obvious to me at all.
OK next is Display & Brightness and Home Screen. Probably safe to skip. Which then brings us to Accessibility. Again, it doesn't feel likely to me that it's in here, but no other choice in the settings feels correct, except maybe the Music app? Nope nothing there.
I check accessibility. I look past 18 options and see "Hearing" again, might as well tap that option. Even "Background Sounds" doesn't match what I'm looking for mentally, "White Noise". So it's likely my eyes miss it when I scan the list of options.
IMO it's an app. So make it an app, not an accessibility setting.
It's still hidden, just in a breadth of options instead of depth. A needle hidden in a 1 acre lot covered 1cm high in hay is more hidden than a needle in a 10 ft cube haystack.
There's a search tool, for all the menus, right at the top?
Have you ever used an iPhone as a day to day device?
A user manually checking every possible submenu to find what they are looking for would be quite an outlier. If they are that determined then I don't see what the issue is, since presumably they are then going to inspect them all anyways.
Hard disagree; companies should be responsible for harm caused by their products regardless of whether it's "legal". This is "loophole thinking" and it only benefits bad actors.
Doing something that's not illegal is not a loophole. A loophole involves doing something that would otherwise be illegal in a manner that makes it ambiguously not illegal, often due to a poorly-made law.
A lawsuit is about harm. If it's a civil lawsuit, you can absolutely be sued for doing things which you know to be harmful to others, even if they aren't crimes. That's what a tort is. The purpose of such private lawsuits it to give people a legal mechanism for redress that doesn't involve physically attacking each other or trying to legislate everything.
The evidence isn't difficult to search for, and your 30 second "look" at two sources from the Wikipedia article doesn't exactly amount to a meta analysis.
If you can post that meta-analysis that would be helpful, thanks. My goal is to find the evidence. It seems you have it, so it would be useful if you could post it. Generally if there is a meta-analysis or robust evidence it will be in the wikipedia article. If not, I'd love for you to add it (or I can). Evidence shouldn't be hard to find...
Why should evidence not be hard to find? It’s why we have detectives (to find evidence of crimes) and why lawsuits have long discovery processes (again, to find evidence).
We are talking about published scientific studies here, which are all listed on pubmed. Clearly there isnt any robust evidence, as nobody has posted a link to anything.
How do we know that any new product doesn't have long term health effects? As science advances, the ability to precisely measure health effects advances as well. In most cases, we simply don't know until it's too late. There's a realistic balance between caution and innovation.
That said, if 3M knew about and covered up known health effects, then take em for all they're worth.
Care you elaborate? I'm genuinely curious about how this plays out in in practice.
From the perspective of a driver, this fits: i am held responsible for harm i cause even if i was otherwise driving lawfully. But should my car maker be held responsible for the harm their car caused under lawful use?
I consider the Mac base models quite affordable for the quality and performance. But for my use I need more RAM and would prefer more storage, and these prices are absolutely beyond ridiculous.
A first world problem sure, but it's really frustrating that all the deals are for 8 GB versions. With non-upgradable memory, I'd never buy 8 GB laptop I intend to keep 5+ years. Not even with macOS's famous memory frugality.
This is very interesting thank you. I always said to myself if I was writing anything telecom-y I would use Erlang but seems its days are behind us. I wonder if it's just too expensive to hire and train people in it when everyone knows Go/Java/Python already, or if it's more the idea that other ecosystems have sprung up to replace it e.g. K8s.
How can those studies prove it is genetic if there is no quantitative way to diagnose it? If you could do a blood test or brain scan and make a diagnosis on physical data then sure, but until then it's all just conjecture
> How can those studies prove it is genetic if there is no quantitative way to diagnose it? If you could do a blood test or brain scan and make a diagnosis on physical data then sure, but until then it's all just conjecture
It's quite arrogant to suggest that an ADHD diagnosis is speculative or some kind of guess. It's thinking like this that causes people to not seek help or talk openly with family, friends and co-workers if they've been diagnosed with ADHD.
Psychiatrists are medical doctors who can make a diagnosis based on clinically accepted criteria of what constitutes ADHD and other mental health and neurological issues. There are lots of mental health conditions and disorders that don't have a blood test or brain scan that "proves" someone has that condition.
Brain scans do show differences between people with and without ADHD, but most of the time, you aren't going to get a $5000 brain scan (or whatever it might cost even if insurance pays for it) to diagnose something that's been in the medical literature for over 100 years when it can be diagnosed more conventionally and at less cost.
Turns out brain scans aren't 100% accurate and there are trade-offs [1]:
Brain imaging scans may be appealing because they appear to offer a firm diagnosis. However, these tests are still new in regards to their use in ADHD, and they have many limitations. These tests are also expensive and can potentially expose children to radiation.
Currently, brain scans are more useful for research purposes than for making clinical diagnoses.
ADHD isn't just one thing; there are subtypes where certain symptoms are more prominent than others.
Because the heritability of ADHD is 74% [2], I wouldn't be surprised that one day we'll have a genetic test that can help diagnose ADHD but we aren't there yet.
Personally, I'm offended they omitted the Cobra Buzz Boar. That's all I see when I look at these monowheel photos/designs.