For those who remember, the flagellum was a major site of the Intelligent Design debate that gave us Christopher Rufo (via the Discovery Institute)
The general idea was that there were specific examples of "irreducible complexity" that proved that there was an intelligent designer. The project on the part of certain Christian political factions was to add a veneer of hypothesis testing to creationism. The god of the gaps retreats further
Doesn't "irreducible complexity" here mean "it wouldn't function in any reduced form", e. g. "it would not be possible to build this up in tiny parts useful for other things and then have those things transformed into these things by tiny accretions and removals over the course of the lifespans of these creatures."? The article doesn't cite anything that would suggest that this argument is any less relevant now that we understand how the system works than it was before we understood it at this level.
It does raise the question of the steps that happened to reach that functionality (not suggesting intelligent design here). I'd assume there'd be quanta of evolutionary evolvement but it isn't clear what that would look like (especially to someone like myself who is not an evolutionary biologist).
One thing to know about DNA is chunks of it can around not doing anything for long periods of time till suddenly more DNA comes in from somewhere and suddenly you have working behaviors. Things like Transposons are crazy.
Scientists collect many examples of different type of flagellum. So we can understand how it change during the evolution process. This article introduces the finding of organism structure.
The article states that the rotor very much evolved. But if you follow the linked evidence, various flagellar motors appear to have evolved from an original ancestor. This is exactly consistent with intelligent design and creationism. It does not demonstrate the origin of the flagellar motor in the first place. Everyone, whether creationists, theistic evolutionists, or materialistic evolutionists all agree that mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow etcetera occur. This paper advances the debate about origins no further distance. The debate is not about the survival of the "fittest", the debate is about the arrival of the fittest.
There really ought to be a class of professionals like forensic accountants who can show up in a corrupted organization and do a post mortem on their management of technical debt
Society is kinetic and disparate because of social media
We're all on top of one another, and different cross tabs feel different ways about the same thing. So there is room for empathy and antipathy to coexist
If you read the New York Times and The Atlantic there is lots of empathy for the male loneliness crisis
I am in between the age of you and your son it seems. As a man who has not missed any of the "misandry", I think the overly online conservative young men are an embarrassment and I hope they grow out of it
This is a viable solution, but as the article mentions, you lose intent and readability (e.g. seeing a query parameter for “product=laptop” vs. “state=XBE4eHgU”). And in general, it’s unlikely you’ll run into issues with URL length. Two to eight thousand characters is a lot!
I remember bouncing into this limit once in a project because we wanted to make a deeply customized interface shareable without a backend, and while on the site itself we didn't hit a URL limit, when someone shared it via some email clients it added it's own tracking redirect onto the URL which caused it to hit the limit and break.
Because a hash is by definition a one-way mapping, so then you'd have to keep a map of the reverse mapping hash -> state, which obviously gets impractical with state such as page index or search terms. Better just make two-way "compression" mapping
>I bet if you knew your house would burn down if you didn't do "normal" things you would have done them no problem
Getting yourself to do things in a boring situation that you might only do in an exciting situation is a big challenge in ADHD management
If everything was a "house on fire" level emergency, many ADHDers would get more done but would eventually collapse from running around on adrenaline for days
The point is it's obviously a problem of perspective. Things are not important because they aren't considered important. If the stakes are higher they are elevated in importance and more demanding of attention.
To pretend that humans are hedonic beasts incapable of cognitive adaption is ridiculous. We do not operate purely on impulse save for pharmaceutical intervention. We can force ourselves to give things more or less importance regardless of the actual stakes.
Exciting and even emergency situations don't cure ADHD or allow people with ADHD to magically function "normally" (or even effectively enough to avoid serious harm to themselves/others). The amount of importance a person with ADHD attributes to a task doesn't tell you if they'll be able to complete it as well as they would if they were being treated with medication or even if they will be able to complete it at all.
People with ADHD cannot all just "force themselves" to function. Novelty, excitement and interest can help, some of the time, but the rest of the time it's disaster. Depending on severity, the result of not getting the treatment they need can often include things like an inability to keep a job, homelessness, prison sentences, and accidents/injury. Those kinds of outcomes are pretty damn important to avoid, extremely stressful (exciting) to experience or be in imminent danger of, and certainly more than enough to motivate people to do the best that they can, but some percentage of people will never be able to avoid those outcomes by trying to will themselves into "cognitive adaption".
Others may be able to stave off the absolute worst outcomes without medication, but only through exhaustive efforts that prevent them from accomplishing the things they want in life. Why should someone constantly and needlessly push themselves to their absolute limit just to accomplish what comes easily for most people? For what? Bragging rights about how they reshaped their brains by sheer force of will? If medication for a mental condition can make people's lives better they should be free to take it.
To whatever extent you've been able to function without medication, that's great. Don't assume that what worked for you is applicable to everyone else, or even to most other people.
You are forgetting what people did before psych meds were available. Almost everyone treated themselves with alcohol and tobacco. Coffee is up there, too. There is cognitive adaptation, not denying it, but only up to a point.
Tobacco didn't exist for most of the world until the 17th century and you're discounting the fact that life was objectively much worse by virtually every metric.
People were constantly bombarded with death, disease, things like starvation were near term risks, violence was everywhere, etc.
You're also overestimating the prevalence of alcoholism. Alcohol consumption was largely driven by safety and necessity, not abuse. Alcoholism was arguably more of a social stigma historically than it was today, certainly with harsher criminal penalties in many societies.
The situation you're describing is circular. Perspective taking and prioritization are executive functioning skills and executive functioning skills are precisely what are lacking in a person who has ADHD
The general idea was that there were specific examples of "irreducible complexity" that proved that there was an intelligent designer. The project on the part of certain Christian political factions was to add a veneer of hypothesis testing to creationism. The god of the gaps retreats further