I don't think the evidence is on your side for the outcomes. Kids cannot be assured to make the best choices in their own interest for every scenario. I was on meds for ADHD from ages 4 to 14 before I asked to stop. In elementary school I was among the most talented students in my class, but I was very close to failing to graduate high school. I later failed out of community college. Through great effort I managed to get employed as a software developer, though my original passion and hope was biology. I now take Vyvanse to keep sustained focus in my work.
I'm confident if I had stayed on my meds that I would have been far more academically successful in high school and beyond. I pushed to get off Adderall as a kid because I started to feel like a zombie on it, but maybe my parents could have instead helped me to find a treatment that was better suited for me or adjust my dosage.
Getting the dosage right with ADHD meds is super difficult. And your needs and body change with time.
I wonder if it wasn't the puberty that made you somehow more susceptible to amphetamine. Lot of things change in the body at that time and it could have also been the enzymes that process the amphetamine.
I've played Senet regularly for over 15 years. I was working over the holidays on a GNOME Senet game which I hope to put out there soon. I think it strikes a fun balance between chance and strategy. It probably won't appease chess die-hards on the complexity front, but for casual gameplay it's nice.
thank you for introducing me; i've never realized just how old some board games are. Even in rural eastern europe, my extended family has been playing "Nine Man's Morris" for decades, which I now know was likely a cultural custom there for centuries because of its history. I just thought it was some game they made up lol! Extremely cool
I think many people who grew up before cell phones remember phone numbers from the past. I just thought about it and can list the phone numbers of 3 houses that were on my childhood street in the early 2000s + another 5 that were friends in the area. I remember at least a handful of cell phone numbers from the mid to late 2000s as friends started to get those; some of them are still current. On the other hand, I don't know the number of anyone I've met in the last 15 years besides my wife, and haven't tried to.
Incidentally, the largest group of Chinese characters are phono-semantic e.g. encode both meaning and pronunciation. Over half of all Chinese characters are in that bucket. That actually allows speakers to have some ability to guess both pronunciation and meaning of characters they have never seen. There are rules to guide this.[0]
In Classical Chinese actually. Mandarin, which I assume you mean, is not the language these characters were designed for. But it is related enough that the phonetic hints often (but not always) help.
Classical Chinese had a much larger phonemic inventory than modern Mandarin, and notably no tones. Below are a collection of Classical Chinese reconstructions in IPA that are all pronounced yì in Mandarin today. (like "ee" for English speakers). The creation of tones and other sound changes were fairly predictable, so as you say, the hints often still help today.
Nit point (I'm not sure it's relevant), but we don't know to what degree Old Chinese did or dit not have tones. The very first work to say anything at all about pronunciation is a Middle Chinese text from ~600AD, which already did have a system of 4 tones, albeit a different 4-tone system than Mandarin. Old Chinese pronunciation is a reconstruction from very limited data, not unlike proto-Indo-European, despite being considerably closer to the present.
I just looked it up and the phonetic markers are only like 20-30% reliable. I am shocked at this number as in my experience I would have thought it higher (I would have guessed 60-70%), but it is definitely hit-or-miss. I've never found tones to be predictable.
My personal blog that until recently was mostly reviews on lox bagels. I yanked out the bagel reviews for now to focus on programming topics, but need to write up some worthwhile posts.
I sometimes have this argument with my Product Owner, despite believing we both want what we individually believe is best for our users. I've tried to suggest that the ideal interface for a power user is not the ideal interface for a novice, and that none of our users should be novices for long as an expectation.
I work on an internal app for an insurance company that allows viewing and editing insurance product configuration data. Stuff like what coverages we offer, what limits and deductibles apply to those, etc. We have built out a very very detailed data model to spell out the insurance contract fully. It has over 20 distinct top-level components comprising an "insurance product". The data generated is then used to populate quoting apps with applicable selections, tie claims to coverage selections, and more.
Ultimately these individual components have a JSON representation, and the "power user" editor within our app is just a guided JSON editor providing intellisense and validation. For less technical users, we have a "visual editor" that is almost fully generated from our schema. I thought perhaps this article referred to something like that. Since our initial release, a handful of new top-level components have been added to the schema to further define the insurance product details. For the most part, these have not required any additionally coding to have a good experience in our "visual editor". The components for our visual editor are more aligned to data types: displaying numbers, enums, arrays, arrays of arrays, etc, which any new schema objects are likely to be built from. That also applies to nested objects i.e. limits are built from primitives, coverages are built from limits. Given user feedback we can make minor changes to the display, but it's been very convenient for us to have it dynamically rendered based of the schema itself.
The schema is also versioned and our approach ensures that the data can be viewed and edited regardless of schema version. When a user checks out a coverage to edit it, the associated schema version is retrieved, the subschema for coverages is retrieved, and a schema parser maps properties of the schema to the appropriate React editor components.
p.s. These patterns might be commonplace and I'm just ignorant to it. I'm a backend dev who joined a new team that was advertised as a backend gig, but quickly learned that the primary focus would be a React Typescript app, neither of which I had any professional experience with.
it's interesting how differently people perceive it. Motherfucker is something I'd have called a parent in a card game if they bested me, or an exclamation said aloud from dropping a wallet while walking. Very little significance to it.
granted it's not up to courtroom standards, this post linked by another commenter in the chain does paint the picture pretty well of an internal struggle between Search and Ads inside Google as a company, where there was a decision to promote user-negative changes to Search as a way to increase the total number of searches performed, thereby increasing the number of ads that can be shown. This happened during 2019.
Google was unable or unwilling to fight people gaming their SEO to float garbage and blogspam to the top results, waay before these more specific policy change events that have been reported w.r.t intentionally making search worse.
I don't understand this position, do you have direct evidence that Google actively made search worse? Before I'm misunderstood I do want to clarify that IMO, the end user experience for web searching on Google is much worse in 2025 than it was in say 2000. But, the web was also much much smaller, less commercial and the SNR was much better in general.
Sure, web search companies moved away from direct keyword matching to much more complex "semantics-adjacent" matching algorithms. But we don't have the counterfactual keyword-based Google search algorithm from 2000 on data from 2025 to claim that it's just search getting worse, or the problem simply getting much harder over time and Google failing to keep up with it.
In light of that, I'm much more inclined to believe that it's SEO spam becoming an industry that killed web search instead of companies "nerfing their own search engines".
>These emails — which I encourage you to look up — tell a dramatic story about how Google’s finance and advertising teams, led by Raghavan with the blessing of CEO Sundar Pichai, actively worked to make Google worse to make the company more money. This is what I mean when I talk about the Rot Economy — the illogical, product-destroying mindset that turns the products you love into torturous, frustrating quasi-tools that require you to fight the company’s intentions to get the service you want.
Of course, it's hard to "objectively" prove that they literally made search worse, but it's clear they were fine with stagnating in order to maximize ad revenue.
I see it as the same way Tinder works if you want the mentality. There's a point where being "optimal" hurts your bottom line, so you don't desire achieving a perfect algorithm. Meanwhile, it can be so bad for Google that directly searching for a blog title at times can leave me unsuccessful.
> I see it as the same way Tinder works if you want the mentality. There's a point where being "optimal" hurts your bottom line, so you don't desire achieving a perfect algorithm
Yes, in the case of Google:
- They make more money from ads if the organic results are not as good (especially if it's not clear they're add)
- They get more impressions if you don't find the answer at the first search and have to try a different query
This is entirely because "we" insist on search being free. This means Google needs to find other ways to pay for it, which creates a different set of incentives.
If we somehow paid directly for search, then Google's incentives would be to make search good so that we'd be happy customers and come back again, rather than find devious ways to show us more ads.
Most people put up with the current search experience because they'd rather have "free" than "good" and we see this attitude in all sorts of other markets as well, where we pay for cheap products that fail over and over rather than paying once (but more) for something good, or we trade our personal information and privacy for a discount.
When I get a full time job, Kagi is the first thing I'm buying a subsciption for. It's not perfect, but I want to at least show a demand. I'm willing to contribute premiums for proper services that won't mine all my data and is actually beholden to customers
> In light of that, I'm much more inclined to believe that it's SEO spam becoming an industry that killed web search instead of companies "nerfing their own search engines".
"SEO" is not some magic, it is "compliance with ranking rules of the search engine". Google wanted to make their lives easier, implemented heuristics ranking slop higher, resulting in two things happening simultaneously: information to slop ratio decreasing AND information getting buried deeper and deeper within SRPs.
> do you have direct evidence that Google actively made search worse?
https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/10286719?hl=en-...
Google is literally rewriting the queries. Not only results with better potential for ads outrank more organic results, it is impossible to instruct the search engine to not show you storefronts even if you tried.
Since you mention the viola da gamba, I'll mention that in the US, the Viola da Gamba Society of America[0] is keeping the tradition alive. I'm a rusty cellist and learned of the vdgsa a few years ago. They have an annual conclave for players of all levels to learn, play, and have a good time. There was a conclave about 2.5 hrs from my home, and it was advertised as free for beginners, with the option to rent an instrument for the duration of the event across ~ a week. I also play the bass guitar and double bass, which like the gamba family are tuned in fourths vs fifths for the violin family, so I figured I'd show up and try my hand at the instrument.
They are a friendly and welcoming community maintaining a rental network in the US for the different types of violas da gamba. They have a strong interest as an organization in funding the continued scholarship, performance, and community for these forgotten instruments. It was very cool. I've since gotten my hands on a rental bass viol, though I haven't had as much time for it as I'd like.
My employer is currently mandating a 2 day per-week RTO for all employees within 50 miles of a major office, but in my case, even if they wanted to, they'd be unable to force a return to a 5 day arrangement.
My commute time has more than doubled since they closed and sold my office for a hefty sum of money. As a result of multiple offices converging to one, there are insufficient seats for the number of employees actually assigned to my office; hence, "hotdesking".
I'd wager that maybe a third of the total employees assigned to the office could be present at any one point in time, so unless they purchase some additional properties, we're at a stalemate with the twice a week RTO. Most days over 90% of the desks, sometimes over 99% are taken in the building, requiring reservation weeks in advance through a seat reservation app.
I have no direct teammates in the office and no two members of my 10 person team work in the same office (or state).
I'm confident if I had stayed on my meds that I would have been far more academically successful in high school and beyond. I pushed to get off Adderall as a kid because I started to feel like a zombie on it, but maybe my parents could have instead helped me to find a treatment that was better suited for me or adjust my dosage.
reply