and r/cpp mods just woke up, banning everyone who question (am I still allowed to use that word?) this lunatic behavior. For context: A week ago, someone out for blood put out a slander article referencing this amongst other things.
edit: After going on a banning spree, foonathan nuked the thread with "I am not going to deal with this on a Sunday". Nice
Hey, u/ss99ww. We did not go on a banning spree, we banned only one person, you. After removing the comment we're you insulted someone, I checked your history, noticed that you did not meaningfully participate in r/cpp outside this thread, and decided to remove someone from the community who'd only be there to cause trouble.
(And for the record, we barely removed any comments, just the ones that directly insulted people.)
> Interesting that you did not choose to voice your opinions using your main accounts on that community then.
I'd love to, but reddit and cpp keep banning/suspending accounts - so I can't! Funny how that works isn't it?
> Nah, that was just the comment I used to get to your profile. I banned you for insulting someone.
That is not true. Here is the message:
> Hello, You have been permanently banned from participating in r/cpp because your comment violates this community's rules. You won't be able to post or comment, but you can still view and subscribe to it.
4. After noticing your lack of contributions to r/cpp, I decided you are just someone who causes moderation trouble without contributing useful technical insights, so I decided to ban you. That's why the above comment is listed in your ban reason. If you had posted the slur on an account with actual history in r/cpp and no previous removed comments, I would not have banned you.
Edit: 5. Reddit administrators have now removed your comment as well.
> I banned you, so I like to think I'm an authority on why you were banned.
Seems logical... (But when you think about it, it presupposes that you know and admit to yourself your actual motivations.)
FWIW, as a rather occasional redditor and having read through several pages linked from here (including much of that ultra-weird "HOOBY... dogwhistle!" blog post where the whole thing may have originated), to me you're coming off as more of a censorious ban-happy "PC SJW woke" gatekeeper than bun_terminator as a ban-worthy AH. (FWIW, every cent you paid for it.)
> Interesting that you did not choose to voice your opinions using your main accounts on that community then
Yes, it's interesting that someone opted to use an alternate account to discuss a contentious issue on a platform rife with censorship and deplatforming.
Why does it so often seem that the people complaining about censorship are the ones punching down?
Why is it so often someone's right to complain and make problems for others but never concern about people's right to be tolerated when they're being decent humans?
Either people need to be banned who insult others and use slurs and those who maliciously push right up against the rules, or they will bully people out. Look at modern X/Twitter allowing hate speech has pushed out advertisers and something like half of the users?
This is basic Paradox of Tolerance stuff, decent people aren't Banning anyone for pointing out actual arguments like discussing if "question" is okay, asking for extra context if this guy did something else or if this is council overreach. But people complaining about wokeness, DEI, diversity hires, or other technically allowable but obviously hostile nonsense are clearly just trying to attack other people and often in ways that are racist dog whistles. If people insist on being hostile up to the amount allowable by the rules instead of just trying to get along then the rules need to keep changing and adjusting and of course the people who are willfully choosing to be assholes will scream "censorship". Before teaming up with someone complaining about censorship be sure they're actually at risk of censorship and not just trying to use Free Speech as a shield to hurt others.
> Why does it so often seem that the people complaining about censorship are the ones punching down?
You mean, pushing down and saying people should be banned... like you?
[Either people need to be banned who insult others and use slurs and those who maliciously push right up against the rules, or they will bully people out. Look at modern X/Twitter allowing hate speech has pushed out advertisers and something like half of the users?]
The fact is that you are just using the notion of 'paradox of tolerance' as a tool for defending your prefered kind of censorship, in the same mischievous way you say people use the notion of free speech "as a shield to hurt others". Is this or you are not being mischievious, so I think it would be polite to also admit the very probable possibility that those people claiming that their free speech is being violated may also have something to say on the topic, instead of just assuming they are being malicious and that they are "punching down" on others (or similar things).
Don't you think doing that would be more productive?
Not sure this _is_ a huge issue. As someone who's not involved it just seems like standard issue interpersonal drama that happens on every committee, board etc and to every tech project from time to time.
eg in linux, git exists because of the Larry McEvoy Bitkeeper drama, there was the Eric S Raymond kernel build config drama, there were numerous Reiserfs and devfs dramas, etc etc etc. In the gnu/fsf world we have had the recent guy leaves because he doesn't like the fact that treesitter is the standard c++ mode drama, you had the emacs vs xemacs dramas, numerous "RMS intervenes to prevent people having an intermediate representation in the GCC compiler" dramas, etc etc. The list is incredibly long. People fight and lose political battles. They leave some committee that most people don't care about. Nothing really important is affected in any way.
Here as someone who was not involved it seems both sides are a bit unreasonable, and some guy has left the standards committee as a result. Really doesn't seem like you complaining about how reddit mods have responded to your posting there has any relevance here.
You were clearly banned for the comment where you used offensive slurs in reference to the author of a previously discussed blog post. I was happy to report the comment.
It would be better to judge the whole thing if you quoted the word instead of going "the word I used". If you get flagged for quoting here, at least we will learn a valuable lesson.
phones listen to conversations. I can't believe there are people trying to deny that. It's as obvious as the sky is blue. It's a running gag at this point
The the profiles post was blocked - and likely will be all its future content, so it was literally banned. That's true regardless of you cheer to censor the truth or not
By far most legally prescribed ADHD meds are not methamphetamine, only some are even amphetamines at all, and they affect people with ADHD quite differently from neurotypical people.
Among people with ADHD the specific experience varies widely by person.
My personal experience using legally prescribed Adderall XR was so unpleasant that I can’t imagine voluntarily using it for recreational purposes or often enough for any purpose to end up addicted. It was more a question of “does this situation require me going through the downsides of taking it, and how do I make sure it helps more than it interferes.” There’s no way that’s what neurotypical recreational users experience.
My current ADHD treatment does not involve any amphetamines, and I’m completely fine with that.
(Why did I use “generally” in the first sentence of this comment? Legal prescription methamphetamine is technically available in the US and approved for ADHD treatment, under the brand name Desoxyn, but it’s very much not a common choice to say the least. All other options are vastly more commonly prescribed. For my own ADHD treatment I’ve never been prescribed meth, even though I’ve been prescribed most of the common ADHD meds over the years including several different amphetamines and multiple non-amphetamine options.)
It's not conducive to a productive discussion to ignore the vast majority of what I wrote, including my entire substantive argument, while nitpicking on one point of terminology when the meaning I meant was clear from context.
If you want me to be explicit about this contextual meaning: since I was discussing the pharmacological differences for these medicines in people with vs without ADHD, "neurotypical" in this particular context simply has the contextually narrowed meaning of "without ADHD".
I didn't use the word neurodivergent in this conversation, so I won't address it in this comment, nor will I address the question of whether "neurotypical" is a useful word now that you definitely know what I actually meant.
My prior comments in this conversation are now outside of the edit window. So, in your brain, I encourage you to replace my phrases "neurotypical people" and "neurotypical recreational users" with "people without ADHD" and "recreational users without ADHD" respectively. Hopefully you agree that these are real categories of people, whether or not you like the word "neurotypical" to describe them.
Within that understanding of what I meant, I also encourage you to proceed to respond to the rest of what I said in a substantive and productive way. If you do that, I will happily respond substantively and productively in return.
But if I see any further non-substantive responses from you in this subthread, I will simply choose not to respond and will leave you with the last word, instead of spending even more of my my time on a non-substantive discussion than I have so far.
This is because pharmacology is a shell game, where there is a constant pipeline of new chemicals being rotated in as soon as they're "recognized as safe". That is because people start to notice the adverse, toxic effects of the "old and busted" chemicals, such as Thalidomide or Phen-Fen, aren't such the "miracle drugs" they were cracked up to be, so there needs to be a constant stream of new stuff to replace it. They simply need to approve drugs a bit faster than attorneys can file class-action lawsuits.
Another effect is that the "new stuff" is a weak synthetic facsimile of whatever the previous drug generations were, and eventually you end up with 100% fake treatments, often doing the opposite, exacerbating and magnifying the very symptoms they're prescribed for, or damaging the target organs/glands, and shutting them down.
"Fail first" or "step therapy" policies by insurance carriers will aid and abet this behavior, as the prescribers are forced to begin with inexpensive and ineffective (or harmful) treatments before they can even propose a treatment that is deemed efficacious.
So, yes, my comment about people high on amphetamines was relatively tongue-in-cheek, because physicians are seldom incentivized to get people high these days: they're incentivized to push the new hotness wonder-drugs that people haven't figured out are just as horrible as the old ones.
Nope. The two most common non-amphetamine ADHD drugs, methylphenidate and atomoxetine, are both now old enough that they’re available in generic form, and methylphenidate is cheap enough that step therapy is not routinely required before insurers cover it. Even one of the pretty new and therapeutically effective long-release amphetamines, Vyvanse/Elvanse, is now available as a generic as of (I think) summer 2023. So are most of the other amphetamines.
You’re right in general about how much of the pharma industry prefers to operate, but wrong about what’s true in the specific context of ADHD treatment, and also wrong (even if your remark was only tongue-in-cheek) about whether people with ADHD get high when they do take an amphetamine as prescribed.
That last misconception is actually quite harmful, whether or not you were joking. It’s a perverse fact that most of the obstacles which state and federal legislators, state and federal regulators, major pharmacy chains, and pharmacists put in the way of smooth access to most ADHD medications - primarily as part of the war on drugs - are uniquely hard to handle and overcome for people with ADHD, due to the types of life struggles that ADHD causes in particular.
The widespread stereotype of people with ADHD as drug seekers looking to get high, at least in much of the US, makes appropriate policy outcomes hard to achieve and hard to experience in practice. The benefit of medicines to people with ADHD is no less legitimate than the benefit of Ozempic or insulin to people with diabetes. And nobody with ADHD gets high from therapeutic doses of ADHD medicines.
Anyone who does get high from such doses doesn’t actually have ADHD, and so either they got the prescription from a doctor guilty of diagnostic medical malpractice (or a doctor complicit in a false diagnosis/prescription) or they lied to the doctor in a fraudulent way when undergoing the diagnostic process. Those are worth punishing, but not at the expense of making it unreasonably difficult for the medicines to be accessed by the very same population for which they are quite legitimately approved and prescribed.
tbf, they still work, but my educated guess would be that the overall ROI distribution looks similar to the gambling/adult industries: a minority of the population bringing in an outsized return due to peculiarities in how their brains work
In a sense, doesn't speaking naturally in front of a camera require you to be more fake?
It's not the easiest thing to do, trying to address audience without any feedback, looking at a black object sitting in a room, in multiple attempts and with random interruptions needed to fix technical issues or change shot, while pretending that it is all part of normal, continuous discussion.
People watch him because he is genuinely good at what he does, not because of his presentation or editing skills.
Just for yourself, write a short script for a youtube video. Try to make it engaging, even if it's just a paragraph. Then put your phone up on your desk, put your script next to it. Read the script and record yourself.
yeah, it's awful. I have a 32gig machine and "only" windows 10. And have to go back to micro-managing memory like in winxp times. Restarting programs from time to time - and rebooting every couple of days. Inb4 "free memory is wasted memory" apologists. Programs just flat out refuse to start or crash when memory is >85%.
edit: After going on a banning spree, foonathan nuked the thread with "I am not going to deal with this on a Sunday". Nice