jeffhykin

Congrats! Getting help is the hardest part.

All I have to say is; keep going, even after medication, there's so many tiny life modifications that can create massive quality-of-life differences.

Is it just me or does it feel kinda unclean for it to just support 1 through 9?

I mean yeah, but I do like knowing who and in what way.

Pease consider the opposite; if a fork is needed at some point in the future, we need people who are familiar with the codebase. It would be, for example, much better for 3 of 4 contributors to be sane than only 2 of 3.

Sure, there's lots of solutions, but we have to talk about them. Even something as simple as "turning on red is often used as a crutch for signaling issues. We shouldnt be waiting at stop lights in the middle of nowhere when theres nobody nearby in the first place"

The key point is *include these people, their situation, their perspective, in the discussion"

I didnt upvote this, but why are people downvoting it??? I don't understand.

I dislike these kinds of articles (as someone who bikes to work everyday) because of how they treat an urban perspective as if its the only perspective. Some highway stoplights are in the middle of nowhere, have no crosswalk, can go a full year without a single pedestrian, and often have mimal cars. People who sit at those lights every day get mad from articles (like this one) that are completely tonedeaf to their situation.

Yes, in a busy city it makes no sense to allow turn on red, and the article has some great info but it also makes no sense to wait 2 minutes on red when there isn't a car or human within a 5 mile radius.

If we want people to be onboard with change we've got to include them. We can solve both; like getting rual lights to use a flashing red to indicate "allows for turning on red" and THEN get city lights to ban turning right on solid red. Solving one problem expense of another is a quick way to create enemies.

This is why we need regex licenses https://regexlicensing.org/

/s

I think you mean ages 0-255

I (also) want to say; I'm glad to see this question.

Its easy to skim over difficult aspects, focus on the positive, and pretend a movement/idea is a silver-bullet. So I really enjoy when challenges are brought up to be addressed head-on.

Even if the question wasn't sincere (e.g. "checkmate atheists" kinda vibe) I would've answered it the same. But it was really nice to look at your other posts and see that, yeah, it probably was a legit question

As someone who thinks psychopaths can be helpful in the right job postions, I agree the mild cases of psychopaths probably do the most harm in policical positions, even more than serial killers. And I also agree its caused by a governance problem that would ideally already be solved.

There are jobs where psychopaths and sociopaths can be productive helpful members of society. There's a neuroscientist (James Fallon) who was studying brain scans of psychopaths, only to realize that HE was a psychopath (both his brain scan and his behavior; low empathy, motivated by power, isn't bothered by manipulating others, etc). Jobs can be positions like green Berets, Navy Seals, surgeons (some times you need to inflict pain to get the job done). We need a strong support system around them, but that can be said of most positions (think government checks and balances or police body cams).

For the intentionally malicious (which can be an entirely separate group of people) I imagine two steps:

1. A system of early identification. Probably starting with mental health discussions being common place, like brain scans being as common as getting the chicken pox vaccine. E.g. find the serial killer when they're 17 years old and killing cats for fun, provide help and monitor instead of doing nothing and waiting till they're 56 and have been a recluse for 10 years.
2. Creating systems of least-restriction and gradually-increasing restriction; Serial killers and phedophiles can still garden, write, paint, build, etc. And its better for everyone if they contribute to society in some way instead of rotting in a cell. E.g. restrict phedophiles from ever being around children, restrict serial killers to remote work. Its a matter of ensuring they have no opportunity to do harm. This isn't just a system for serial killers, but ideally would be a culture-encouraged movement of limiting the damage of people's flaws; we keep the junk food out of sight when a friend who is trying to loose weight comes over. We help people identify if they have sesonal depression, and recommend places to live that have the shortest (or non-existant) winter season, have workplaces that keep emails, phone calls, and other interruptions at a minimum for those who have ADHD, etc. It just happens that those who demonstrate malicious intentions get forced accomodations instead of optional ones.