Man, what an incredible piece

Thank you very much for sharing this

You’re so very welcome. I hope you have a lovely day my friend ☺️

Lovely piece!

When I was on Atomoxine, my experience was that if I missed a dose my ADHD felt more pronounced and I was a little bit more dysfunctional for a couple days than I would have been if I was unmedicated. Hard to tell how much of that was just the contrast of not being on it, vs an effect of coming off it, but it felt like more than just not having the meds’ help

Wish you the best!

I think it’s internet nonsense devoid of any meaning or reason beyond “lol, random nonsense words, such non-sequitur”

Thanks for the additional context!

I’d heard the story was kind of a letdown (I don’t have hardware I can play 3 on, so I haven’t gotten to it yet) so I’m really just hoping the story gets the focus and effort it needs; 1 & 2 had really excellent writing and story design and it feels like a huge loss for the series if they can’t find that again

I don’t have anything useful to contribute, but I’m wishing you luck and I hope you’re able to get the things you’re looking for out of it :)

deleted by creator

As cool as federation is, I think in the case of a single source of information seeking to be as reputable and neutral as possible, it kinda just seems like federation and allowing bunches of different versions of the same articles would undermine the project’s ability to organize effectively and present itself in a useful way to the public…

I do like the idea of multiple separate community wikis existing with their own different culture, but I expect it’d be difficult for multiple to really exist at scale simultaneously, just cause there isn’t that big a pool of people dedicated to editing community articles and splitting them seems like a challenge. But the Wikipedia article on bias on Wikipedia suggests that articles with more contributors of differing viewpoints reduce the bias, so like there’s also an argument to be made for more conservative folks just contributing to Wikipedia

And unfortunately in the case of infogalactic specifically, I think explicitly stating that you aim your resource to align with certain ideology, or avoid a specific bias on one of the spectrum means I’ll never really see it as a reputable source. They went in the the intention of creating something with a bias or ideological slant; I respect Wikipedia because of how hard they work to minimize bias, even though it’s ultimately impossible to remove

Theodore Robert Beale (born August 21, 1968), commonly known as Vox Day, is an American activist and writer. He has been described as a far-right white supremacist,[2][3] a misogynist,[4] and part of the alt-right.[5][6][7] The Wall Street Journal described him as “the most despised man in science fiction”.[8]

Infogalactic:
In 2017, Beale launched Infogalactic, an English-language wiki encyclopedia.[30] The site was a fork of the contents of English Wikipedia which could be gradually edited to remove the influence of what Beale described as “the left-wing thought police who administer [Wikipedia]”.[6][31] It has been described by Wired and The Washington Post as a version of Wikipedia targeted to alt-right readers.[6][32]

Uhhhh, not sure this is the kind of resource I’m looking for 😅 though it might sometimes be helpful to cross reference to compare things. But my impression from online discussion is that infogalactic is generally much less updated than Wikipedia, which makes sense, it feels kinda hard for another similar platform to compete, especially given the volunteer nature of things and infogalactics more specific political bent that will limit its appeal

Thouh this isn’t the fist time I’ve come across suggesions that Wikipedia has bias issues; perhaps that’d be a good thing for me to look into at some point as well, and see if it feels like there’s substance behind that claim

Edit: entirely expectdly there’s a Wikipedia page about it that actually seems pretty helpful. I’ve not read much yet and I’ll need to take a look at other sources, but I figured I’d share for others :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia?wprov=sfla1

I didn’t actually know that. I’m happy to donate anyway when I’m able to, but thank you for making me a little more informed!

I found this article on the subject that did a really good job of exploring the nuances of Wikipedia’s funding, community critisims, and whether it’s much different from other non-profits. Highly reccomend for anyone else interested in the subject
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/12/02/wikipedia-has-a-ton-of-money-so-why-is-it-begging-you-to-donate-yours/

What I learned is that Wikipedia is not financially in dire straights, as sometimes might be inferred from their donation requests, that their funding approach is very similar to other comparable non-profits, but that because of their nature people have very different expectations of them, which one might reasonably see as either reasonable or unreasonable depending on perspective. I think I fall somewhere in the middle

Man, Wikipedia is fucking cool.

Thank you for linking! (And if anyone else finds this list super useful, maybe think about donating; Wikipedia is massive and run exclusively off donations :)

Thank you, that’s helpful to know!

Yep, there’s one called syncthing-fork that’s been around quite a while I think, lemme go grab a link

Edit: https://f-droid.org/packages/com.github.catfriend1.syncthingandroid/ :)

I haven’t followed whether the project has made any comment on the upstream being discontinued, because right now I’m not using it. But if you reading this depend on syncthing, it might be worthwhile to go check, and maybe donate to help them keep it going :)

Those are some sweet fuckin pants, I want some

I don’t presently have one, and when I do it’ll probably be like waiter at waffle-house or something 😅

Why do you ask?

Are you positive that’s entirely correct? There are definitely disorders who’s definitions are shaped by their impact on others, like Munchausen’s by proxy, but I’m not a psychologist or psychiatrist. I could see it being described as a form of impairment to an important area of life to not being able to form healthy non-destructive relationships, and I think impairment is one of the criteria by which a disorder can be defined

I could also just be wrong though, and it’s a fair point regardless. Perhaps “defined by” wasn’t quite the right way to word things

Edit: upon rereading I didn’t actually say it was “defined by”, but the wording is still imperfect. I can only be but so anal about technicalities though; communicating my point is more important

Thank you very much. As someone with a lot of challenges with mental illness myself, it’s something I think about a lot.

I think the important thing is really just that mental illness doesn’t shield you from accountability for how you impact other people, and for a personality disorder that primarily manifests in traits that harm people, that’s a hard thing to reconcile with that person’s merits. Doesn’t mean you can’t or shouldn’t, just that because you are still responsible for potentially hurting people, and have a disorder that makes you very likely to do so, those things will be very hard for people to square.

Another example is paraphilias. Paraphilias can include things like pedophilia, which manifests in a desire to do something that would subject someone to profound amounts of trauma, the likes of which most of us couldn’t even begin to appreciate. Can someone with such a paraphilia be a good person who is kind, and does not harm people in that way? Yes. Can that person be largely a good person in most contexts, but cause people enormous harm as a result of their paraphilia? Also yes.

In some ways we are all people with conditions that affect who we would be otherwise, and in other ways we are all just people, and conditions are used descriptively to communicate the traits that we have.

At the end of the day, the thing that matters is how you treat people. If you cause people harm, it might be more understandable given the context of a personality disorder, but it doesn’t absolve you of any responsibility. And if you don’t, then you haven’t done anything wrong. And I mean that for each moment in time, each interaction. Humans are messy and complicated, and generally ideas like “good person”, “bad person”, are reductive.

I’m sorry you feel trapped or defined by your diagnosis. That can be a painful place to be. I have a close friend with borderline personality disorder who has at times felt similarly. Only thing that matters is whether you’re an asshole. Only thing that ever has mattered, only thing that ever will.

Edit: just want to be very clear- the fact that it will be hard for people to engage with you purely based on your behaviour in a given interaction is not something you deserve. Its the actions and how they affect people that count, even if I can empathize with why it’d be hard for people