okay so here's a snippet of what you missed on #neurodiverse TikTok yesterday; there was two things happening at once and they intersected so it got confusing
That's probably as clear as mud but that's all I wanna say about that: onto the other thing!
some folks from autistic tiktok started noticing that folks from ADHD tiktok were borrowing terms and experiences that had been generated by the autistic community that they felt were also applicable to them
Now, we all know this is complex and nuanced bc ADHD and autism share a lot of traits and many people have both. So it's challenging to answer the question of whether ADHD folks mask or stim because some probably do while others dont
Understandably, some from ADHDtok felt this was gatekeeping
More from Tech
There has been a lot of discussion about negative emissions technologies (NETs) lately. While we need to be skeptical of assumed planetary-scale engineering and wary of moral hazard, we also need much greater RD&D funding to keep our options open. A quick thread: 1/10
Energy system models love NETs, particularly for very rapid mitigation scenarios like 1.5C (where the alternative is zero global emissions by 2040)! More problematically, they also like tons of NETs in 2C scenarios where NETs are less essential. https://t.co/M3ACyD4cv7 2/10
In model world the math is simple: very rapid mitigation is expensive today, particularly once you get outside the power sector, and technological advancement may make later NETs cheaper than near-term mitigation after a point. 3/10
This is, of course, problematic if the aim is to ensure that particular targets (such as well-below 2C) are met; betting that a "backstop" technology that does not exist today at any meaningful scale will save the day is a hell of a moral hazard. 4/10
Many models go completely overboard with CCS, seeing a future resurgence of coal and a large part of global primary energy occurring with carbon capture. For example, here is what the MESSAGE SSP2-1.9 scenario shows: 5/10
Energy system models love NETs, particularly for very rapid mitigation scenarios like 1.5C (where the alternative is zero global emissions by 2040)! More problematically, they also like tons of NETs in 2C scenarios where NETs are less essential. https://t.co/M3ACyD4cv7 2/10
There is a lot of confusion about carbon budgets and how quickly emissions need to fall to zero to meet various warming targets. To cut through some of this morass, we can use some very simple emission pathways to explore what various targets would entail. 1/11 pic.twitter.com/Kriedtf0Ec
— Zeke Hausfather (@hausfath) September 24, 2020
In model world the math is simple: very rapid mitigation is expensive today, particularly once you get outside the power sector, and technological advancement may make later NETs cheaper than near-term mitigation after a point. 3/10
This is, of course, problematic if the aim is to ensure that particular targets (such as well-below 2C) are met; betting that a "backstop" technology that does not exist today at any meaningful scale will save the day is a hell of a moral hazard. 4/10
Many models go completely overboard with CCS, seeing a future resurgence of coal and a large part of global primary energy occurring with carbon capture. For example, here is what the MESSAGE SSP2-1.9 scenario shows: 5/10
You May Also Like
I like this heuristic, and have a few which are similar in intent to it:
Hiring efficiency:
How long does it take, measured from initial expression of interest through offer of employment signed, for a typical candidate cold inbounding to the company?
What is the *theoretical minimum* for *any* candidate?
How long does it take, as a developer newly hired at the company:
* To get a fully credentialed machine issued to you
* To get a fully functional development environment on that machine which could push code to production immediately
* To solo ship one material quanta of work
How long does it take, from first idea floated to "It's on the Internet", to create a piece of marketing collateral.
(For bonus points: break down by ambitiousness / form factor.)
How many people have to say yes to do something which is clearly worth doing which costs $5,000 / $15,000 / $250,000 and has never been done before.
Here's how I'd measure the health of any tech company:
— Jeff Atwood (@codinghorror) October 25, 2018
How long, as measured from the inception of idea to the modified software arriving in the user's hands, does it take to roll out a *1 word copy change* in your primary product?
Hiring efficiency:
How long does it take, measured from initial expression of interest through offer of employment signed, for a typical candidate cold inbounding to the company?
What is the *theoretical minimum* for *any* candidate?
How long does it take, as a developer newly hired at the company:
* To get a fully credentialed machine issued to you
* To get a fully functional development environment on that machine which could push code to production immediately
* To solo ship one material quanta of work
How long does it take, from first idea floated to "It's on the Internet", to create a piece of marketing collateral.
(For bonus points: break down by ambitiousness / form factor.)
How many people have to say yes to do something which is clearly worth doing which costs $5,000 / $15,000 / $250,000 and has never been done before.
ARE WE FAMILIAR WITH THE MEANING & POWER OF MANTRAS WE CHANT?
Whenever we chant a Mantra in Sanskrit, it starts with 'Om' and mostly ends with 'Swaha' or 'Namaha'. This specific alignment of words has a specific meaning to it which is explained in Dharma Shastra.
Mantra is a Sanskrit word meaning sacred syllable or sacred word. But Mantras r not just words put together,they r also vibrations.The whole Universe is a cosmic energy in different states of vibration &this energy in different states of vibration forms the objects of Universe.
According to Scriptures,Om is considered to be ekaakshar Brahman,which means Om is the ruler of 3 properties of creator,preserver&destroyer which make the https://t.co/lyhkWeCdtv is also seen as a symbol of Lord Ganesha, as when starting the prayer,it's him who is worshipped 1st.
'Om' is the sound of the Universe. It's the first original vibration of the nothingness through which manifested the whole Cosmos. It represents the birth, death and rebirth process. Chanting 'Om' brings us into harmonic resonance with the Universe. It is a scientific fact.
Therefore, Mantras are described as vibrational words that are recited, spoken or sung and are invoked towards attaining some very specific results. They make very specific sounds at a frequency that conveys a directive into our subconcious.
Whenever we chant a Mantra in Sanskrit, it starts with 'Om' and mostly ends with 'Swaha' or 'Namaha'. This specific alignment of words has a specific meaning to it which is explained in Dharma Shastra.
Mantra is a Sanskrit word meaning sacred syllable or sacred word. But Mantras r not just words put together,they r also vibrations.The whole Universe is a cosmic energy in different states of vibration &this energy in different states of vibration forms the objects of Universe.
According to Scriptures,Om is considered to be ekaakshar Brahman,which means Om is the ruler of 3 properties of creator,preserver&destroyer which make the https://t.co/lyhkWeCdtv is also seen as a symbol of Lord Ganesha, as when starting the prayer,it's him who is worshipped 1st.
'Om' is the sound of the Universe. It's the first original vibration of the nothingness through which manifested the whole Cosmos. It represents the birth, death and rebirth process. Chanting 'Om' brings us into harmonic resonance with the Universe. It is a scientific fact.
Therefore, Mantras are described as vibrational words that are recited, spoken or sung and are invoked towards attaining some very specific results. They make very specific sounds at a frequency that conveys a directive into our subconcious.