Ignore the advice of anyone who doesn't have ADHD, or a medical degree with a speciality in ADHD treatment. Anyone that tells you that you just need to try one "trick", a planner, a mindset change, default mode networks, "try sleeping more", whatever, can either never understand what it's like or is trying to sell you something. Or both. If someone neurotypical gives you advice, just smile and nod, and ignore it. If someone tells you ADHD is a "superpower" promptly ignore them. Unfortunately, this often applies to generalist doctors who don't specialise in ADHD.
The reality is that there is no single thing that will help. You'll have to try shit and see what works for you. What one person swears "fixed" them might do nothing for you.
That said, the one thing that is the most likely to work out is medication. Get yourself a diagnosis, try the meds, see if it helps. Caffeine is fine, but it's no substitute for the real stuff.
Well, if you didn't, you SHOULD try sleeping more. Like, do try to sleep for a whole day. No TV, no music, no mobile phone. Only go to bathroom and eat some quick to make meals, schedule away ALL chores. Everyone I know told me I should walk out more, be more active, but what REALLY helped me regain mental health when I had mental breakdown was a full day of sleeping.
Of course it won't help you just by itself, it's not the only trick you need, but please do try it.
> If someone neurotypical gives you advice, just smile and nod, and ignore it.
Neurotypicals gave me "do not sleep so much, go out in nature or do something". This advice is good for depression, not for ADHD.
> The reality is that there is no single thing that will help. You'll have to try shit and see what works for you. What one person swears "fixed" them might do nothing for you.
Yes, but you have to try different approaches. If you don't try all of them (including sleeping for a day) you won't know.
I did it only once, but it helped me a lot. Otherwise, there is too much to do. Doctor declared that I'm overworked several years ago, before I built a house and got a second job. YMMV.
And as great as it is, even the "real stuff" isn't a silver bullet. In my experience stimulants remove like 25-50% of the difficulty over the long term, depending on the day, which is extremely valuable but it's far from a cure.
Sorry, but this sounds straight up like “lock yourself up in echo chamber”. I don’t completely disagree that many things just don’t work, especially planners. Meds are just too easy to use, you basically buy yourself a “walking stick” and do nothing to learn walking by yourself. This is something a lazy/ADHD person would do, not a one willing to strengthen their mind.
At some point you become exhausted of self-managing in an environment that is not suited to how your mind works.
IME with the meds, the biggest benefit is not focus during its effective period, but the fact that I can still live my life properly afterwards. As in, I haven't had to spend all my day's willpower to stay on task with work, so I have more mental energy for the rest of my life.
This comment literally shows why you do not understand ADHD.
Reckon people haven’t TRIED?
And how dare you call someone lazy if they have ADHD?!?
I’m the hardest working person I know - but because of meds, I have been able to focus better. My long term planning is 0, and my executive function is low. But sure, I’ll just try a bit more.
It's always nice to have the professional opinion of a psychiatrist over here. It's the first time I hear that "meds being too easy to use" is a drawback, coming from a professional, guess I've come addicted to my psychiatric ailments solely due to how easy the medication is to take, I mean, just a pop and a gulp and I'm the happiest person in the world, so much so that I stop trying completely to better myself!
Oh, how little I am learning to walk by myself. I would be running by now if I was unmedicated and about, the problem is that my mind is weak and I'm lazy. If only I had traded these woke mind virus pills for a stoicism book, or lifting metal, or 'detoxed', what a silly human I am. But I guess the weak and mentally strong, unlike yourself, can't do much about it but keep taking all this poison and remaining sheep. Please keep enlightening us with your knowledge and superiority.
They are an ADHD person. I don’t think we’re at the point in history any more where we leave people to deal with it alone - as with other chronic conditions like depression, sleep apnea, anxiety, obesity, and heart disease, where there are a wide variety of techniques, but with them alone you’ll still be left with a significantly impacted and less fulfilling life.
Don't bother. They know what's up, every ailment can be overpowered and "cured" with willpower. This person is clearly on another plane of "enlightenment", so to say.
Yes, but they have to subpoena you. That means process, that means getting a judge to sign it, and it means you can limit scope (i.e., if the incident under investigation occurred outside your home, you're not going to need to provide any footage from inside).
While the OP doesn't emphasize this detail, it says this is a tool that will allow police to request access from the camera owners. Police can, of course, also request footage from the owners of non-cloud cameras, so the legal basis of disclosure -- consent -- can exist in either case, cloud or non-cloud camera.
If you are subpoenaed then you're obligated to respond, and the same is true for Ring. But that's not what we're talking about here. This is law enforcement requesting access, and Ring doesn't require a formal subpoena or warrant. They can decide to comply to nothing more than "someone from a .gov email asked nicely".
It's written out in their terms of service:
> you also acknowledge and agree that Ring may access, use, preserve and/or disclose your Content to law enforcement authorities, government officials, and/or third parties, if legally required to do so or if we have a good faith belief that such access, use, preservation or disclosure is reasonably necessary to:
>
> (a) comply with applicable law, regulation, legal process or reasonable preservation request; (b) enforce these Terms, including investigation of any potential violation thereof; (c) detect, prevent or otherwise address security, fraud or technical issues; or (d) protect the rights, property or safety of Ring, its users, a third party, or the public as required or permitted by law.
So Ring is quite happy to hand over your footage to anyone so long as Ring believes it's "reasonably necessary" to protect the rights or property of anyone.
This isn't about Ring complying with a legal request. This is about Ring undermining the fourth amendment entirely by saying "we'll give law enforcement whatever they want".
The feature discussed allows law enforcement to request access from the end user. It's the end user whose consent is required under that regime, not Ring's.
The feature doesn't exist yet. Ring have said it'll be user consent, but we don't know that for sure. My point is that Ring can change their minds about this at any time without informing you, so it doesn't matter how they say it will work if this possibility is still there.
If you want to have a tangential discussion about how you interpret Ring's terms to permit them to do wild things behind the user's back, that's fine; but it would have been better to be more clear about the tangential nature of your comments. If the terms allow them to do wild things behind the user's back, then they can do those things with or without introducing this feature. And they can also introduce this feature with or without the wild things; and with or without terms of service allowing those things. They're orthogonal issues.
In any case, you're mistaken about what the terms allow. When you paraphrased the terms as saying they can "hand over your footage to anyone so long as Ring believes it's 'reasonably necessary' to protect the rights or property of anyone", you neglected to account for the clause: "as required or permitted by law". Under the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S. Code § 2702 (b), there is only a short and narrow list of circumstances under which it is permissible for a provider to disclose communications content without a warrant. The most pertinent is an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury (exigent circumstances), which is what the link in the OP regarding warrantless and consentless disclosures is about. But exigent circumstances are also a longstanding exception to fourth amendment search protections in general: law enforcement can break into your house without a warrant if there are exigent circumstances requiring them to do so.
This isn't a tangential discussion. Ring has shown they're willing to work with law enforcement without due process, that's the entire point of the EFF's article.
> you're mistaken about what the terms allow. When you paraphrased the terms as saying
I didn't paraphrase. I quoted them directly. Feel free to check them yourself https://ring.com/terms
> you neglected to account for the clause: "as required or permitted by law". Under the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S. Code § 2702 (b), there is only a short and narrow list of circumstances under which it is permissible for a provider to disclose communications content without a warrant.
There are so many exceptions it doesn't matter. From the same code, (b) (8) states "if the provider, in good faith, believes that an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires disclosure without delay of communications relating to the emergency", and (b) (7) (A) (ii) "to a law enforcement agency if the contents appear to pertain to the commission of a crime".
>Ring has shown they're willing to work with law enforcement without due process, that's the entire point of the EFF's article.
No, the entire point of the article is the introduction of a new feature which allows law enforcement to request a certain kind of access from end users.
>I didn't paraphrase.
This wasn't a paraphrase? "hand over your footage to anyone so long as Ring believes it's 'reasonably necessary' to protect the rights or property of anyone"
>From the same code, (b) (8)
That is the exigent circumstances exception I mentioned.
> (b) (7) (A) (ii)
Only applies if (i) also applies: the contents "were inadvertently obtained by the service provider".
That also jumped out to me as pretty weird. Buildkit as a library is nice, but there's no way it's good enough to justify throwing out the entire project. It feels like there was some big change internally, and the new team either wanted to rewrite and didn't know Rust, or ideologically prefer Go to Rust.
Edit: Although looking at it, maybe not?
Both the new project railpack[0] and the older one nixpacks[1] are both started by and mostly written by the same person[2], who is also the author of the article in question. So it doesn't look like a team change.
It still feels... odd? Less that they made the change, projects go from Rust to Go all the time. But usually it's because of issues with Rust (hard to hire for, learning curve, etc.), describing it like this feels unusual?
I disagree with the implication that flat structures "don't scale" or can never work. To be effective in a flat environment requires a fundamental shift in perspective. Hierarchy is so baked in to every other company, organization, and education system that people just don't know how to operate absent it.
ICs will need time to adjust to a flat structure, and some people will do anything to fight the absence of the restrictions they've always known. Hiring a bunch of senior ICs from traditional industry roles and saying "we're not going to have managers!" is always going to fail.
For a CTO/founder it's even easier: If you're building a VC-funded start-up where the plan is to grow fast exit in a few years — what's the point? Why invest the effort and energy to making flat work when the moment you get bought out the hierarchy is back anyway.
There are examples of stable large companies with flat org charts that do work, they're just not the hypergrowth scale-ups. The book "Reinventing Organizations" covers several in depth, and is a good intro to the topic. So my objection is the implication that a flat structure can never work, or that there is something fundamental about a flat org and human nature that means it's unstable. It is simply that it requires long-term investment to get right, and the market isn't setup to reward long-term investment.
"Hierarchy is so baked in to every other company, organization, and education system that people just don't know how to operate absent it."
That's partly because it works. It is proven. It is well-known. We have excellent tooling for it. There is absolutely no need to change it. Changing does not bring any advantages. You cannot point to any company and say "That company was an outstanding success because they were flat and rejected all hierarchy." If you run a business then do you want to make a political point or do you want to make a profit?
"There are examples of stable large companies with flat org charts that do work, they're just not the hypergrowth scale-ups."
So why waste any time with them? What is the advantage? What is your real motivation? You seem more focused on some political agenda than you are focused on making a profit.
Progress towards what? Do you have some political goal? There is zero evidence that flatness increases profits. There is no company that we can point to and say “that company was successful because it was flat” (with the obvious exception of franchise models).
H. P. Lovecraft is a good example from literature. He was profoundly racist, even beyond the cultural norms of his time. However, as he has long since passed away buying and amplifying his works do not further his views and causes.
A modern counterexample would be J. K. Rowling. Where supporting her works and properties does directly contribute to furthering her prejudices in a very real way.
buying and amplifying his works do not further his views and causes
i'd rephrase that. it does not support the artist to allow him to continue spreading his views and causes, but it still draws attention to him, and potentially lets people learn about it. even this discussion here. i would not have known about lovecrafts or rowlings views if it weren't for reading about it on hackernews some time ago.
however an even more important concern is how much of these views are woven into the stories. as such it is important to at least be aware. i have ignored harry potter until now but my kids are getting interested, and so i am keeping a close eye on what they are watching for that reason.
> wouldn't there be a huge competitive advantage to being the CEO who said, "hey, we can get rid of all our expensive SaaS, free up a bunch of cash for productive investments, and make a bunch more money"?
Unfortunately, this isn't how large org CEO compensation works. CEOs of large publicly traded companies are mostly compensated by the stock price. Either directly as it increases the value of their significant stock grants, or indirectly as their cash bonuses are tied to stock performance. Stock performance is mostly a result of quarterly financial performance. Therefore, directives that take a long period of investment are much less attractive.
Say you were the CEO of a multi-thousand person organisation. Your SaaS bill is through the roof, and so you want to in-house everything. Not only do you need to disrupt nearly every employee by changing the way they work (depending on what you're replacing), you need to enter into co-location contracts, buy hardware, and hire staff to mange that hardware. It's a very large up-front cost (likely in the tens of millions on hardware alone) that in theory will pay off in the long term, but investors and the market will see a spike in your assets on your P&L, and will question why you're tying up capital in hardware instead of building the stuff that you sell. That's assuming you have the cashflow to buy all that hardware in the first place.
That was my point. If it were that much cheaper to in-house everything or if there were cheap SaaS alternatives that worked as well, companies would switch to them. Companies are paying for SaaS because it solves a business need, and for the most part SaaS does it pretty well.
In the long run, in many cases, it probably would be cheaper. It's just that the incentive structures between the long-term health and executives are not aligned .
There's a difference between identifying areas where a new technology (AI) can solve a problem in a better way, and just slapping "Now with AI!" on an existing product purely to chase investor dollars.
One of my soft requirements for engineering roles is "no agile". Usually if a hiring manager tells me that team is an agile one it's a very clear sign that I don't want to work there.
Of course, this pickiness is only if I'm in a situation where I don't need to move. I can think of plenty of cases, for example being laid off, where I'd take a role in a scrum team.
Minecraft is still pretty opaque. It's gotten a lot better with the recipe book and advancement list giving some guides. But if you'd never played or interacted with Minecraft before and were dropped into the game I'm not sure you'd ever understand how to do certain things without outside help - be that the wiki or watching another player.
Are the ruined portals dotted around enough to make you realise that you can craft a nether portal? How would you figure out how to make eyes of ender? Even if you made one would you understand what it does? Once you found a stronghold it's not unreasonable that you'd figure out how to open the portal, and once in the end the fight with the dragon should be pretty obvious (even if it takes you a while to figure out an effective strategy).
But what then, would you find the end gateway and see the outlying end islands? Would you wander around enough to find a city and a ship? Would you understand what Elytra do, or what Shulker boxes do? Both of those elements (Elytra and Shulker Boxes) are so fundamental to how the game is actually played that it's a different game without them.
The whole concept is so fundamentally flawed that no amount of tweaking or improvement can save it. Of course the implementation is terrible, but even if the implementation was perfect it would be awful. Even if it ran locally-only, even if the implementation were pure free software, even if the LLM used was guaranteed to operate in your best interest.
Even then, we're still talking about a perfect surveillance engine that allows any future person to observe your behaviour across your past. Imagine what it would mean for the police to retroactively search your entire life for the past 30 days when they arrest someone. Or how this might affect people living with abusive partners, or LGBTQ+ kids in non-supportive households.
This technology, no matter the implementation, puts vulnerable people at risk.
I promise you there are better ways to manipulate people in this situation. Like a keylogger. That way, your hypothetical LGBTQ child can't evade your monitoring by using an incogneto tab or simply pausing recall when they login.
steal their browser data. i haven't wiped my browser history in years, and that is just easy to search list of URLs dont need to be parsed out of some db blob (not something many anti-LGBTQ parents know how to / are going to do...). Steal their cookies and access their logged in social media accounts directly. Steal their saved passwords. Browse through the cached images and videos.
> Even then, we're still talking about a perfect surveillance engine
not even close. not going to beat this to a pulp but just to give you an idea, this does not scale well, not at all. are you going to look through 25 gb of photos? what if it's 90% cat pictures.
This is correct technically, but not correct in practice. Yes, keyloggers and stuff are comprehensive. But this ignores accessibility and ease of use aspect. Keylogger is a software which you need to know about, then acquire it without being infected yourself (e.g. know trusted warez sites etc.), and have to install on the victim PC in advance (so no retroactive spying is possible). I wouldn't know where to get keylogger (stealthy one) without some research, despite working in IT for decades. And likely you would rist get sued for that if ti was ever exposed, so a large part of the population not yet sociopathic will balk at installing illegal keylogger.
Now contrast that with a 100% legal and already preinstalled keylogger 2.0, which is not only logging keypresses but everything. And it is on every home and work PC in the world. Of course the number of people tempted to use it to spy on the strangers will be about a 1000 times bigger than amount of people installing keyloggers today. And it will not only replace premediated planned spying, similar to the keylogger. But it will also allow spontaneous spying on every random PC you can see. Like walking past unattended unlocked PC and voila - you can check all history without going back in time to install keylogger in advance.
The scale of the problem is the real problem. That's the point.
There's monitoring software marketed towards parents, which I think for most parents would meet your concerns (ease of use, risk of malware, legality).
If the parent has access to the computer, then they'll generally already have all documents, browser/application history, and chat logs.
> Now contrast that with a 100% legal and already preinstalled keylogger 2.0, which is not only logging keypresses
Windows Recall doesn't log keypresses, to my understanding.
> Like walking past unattended unlocked PC and voila - you can check all history without going back in time to install keylogger in advance.
I feel extracting browser passwords and all their documents would typically be more damaging.
Why would that be worse when you have screenshots of everything they saw, typed, uploaded and broadcast? Passwords give you an account - this gives you everything done with the account. And all documents that were viewed, plus where they came from. This is way beyond passwords.
> Passwords give you an account - this gives you everything done with the account.
Passwords give you control - not just view-only access. You could transfer over much of what they own (money, servers, games, projects, ...) to yourself, use their identity for phishing their friends/colleagues, etc.
Even just for viewing data, I think having all files and passwords can be a greater level of invasion:
* You don't just have screenshots of some files they happened to open recently on this device (which for some formats, like audio, is useless) - you have every file they have saved on this device, every file they have in online/cloud storage, and every file on work network shares they have access to
* You don't just have a screenshot of them typing a subset of recent emails and chat messages - you have their full emails and chatlogs going back years, and can likely make a data access request to get a significantly larger portion of "everything done with the account" than recent snapshots would give you
* You don't just have their location the couple of times recent snapshots show Google Maps open - you have full location history from their phone
If you are worried about somebody reading what you do on your computer, you should to use full disk encryption (I consider it a requirement these days). There are a lot of things besides recall that can be compromised if somebody gets physical access to your machine.
Everyone has different threat models, vulnerable people don't need to use such a feature, assuming that it's all local and implemented perfectly.
It should also be opt out by default for Microsoft.
I personally see a lot of use for this if it was running entirely local. I always find myself in a position where there's things which I've browsed or come across but it's difficult retrieving it from my history.
>vulnerable people don't need to use such a feature
Vulnerable people often do not have a choice in the matter. Pre-installed, widely-advertised features are significantly more dangerous because somebody who is controlling isn't necessarily thinking of new ways to monitor, but they'll sure take advantage of any they know about.
It's the same problem as Apple's AirTags: GPS trackers existed long before them (and are harder to detect), but you can get a 4-pack of AirTags at the store and they're super easy to use.
The reality is that there is no single thing that will help. You'll have to try shit and see what works for you. What one person swears "fixed" them might do nothing for you.
That said, the one thing that is the most likely to work out is medication. Get yourself a diagnosis, try the meds, see if it helps. Caffeine is fine, but it's no substitute for the real stuff.
reply