blady_blah

joined 2 years ago
[–] blady_blah@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

My son's case wasn't severe. The specialist basically said "I can diagnose him with ADHD if you want" after seeing him for a 30 min session (may have been an hour). The specialist laid out options and let us decide. They never recommended anything. That's the way health care is these days in this part of the country. Don't fool yourself into thinking the specialist just knew the right answer and we just ignored it; that's not the way it worked in our case (and probably most cases).

I feel like you guys are crazy to act like this is a infallible binary diagnoses or that one solution fits everyone. Or that as parents we shouldn't be cautious with a drug that will affect the way our child thinks. That's just bonkers.

[–] blady_blah@lemmy.world 16 points 5 days ago

IMHO it's really all about you being worried about how others react. Speaking as a 50 year old guy, I would walk around naked if it was normal in society. Put the bikini on and stand in front of a mirror. Make sure you're confident that it looks normal (no tags still showing, nothing that is too revealing or pinching in the wrong spot or whatever... then put it on and go out in public and don't think about it. It'll be fine and nobody will think twice about it other than maybe saying "damn she's keeping herself in shape!"

It'll be fine. Don't let others get in your head so much that it determines what you're going to do or wear.

[–] blady_blah@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago (6 children)

As a parent of a child with ADHD, bad grades are a signal they aren't able to cope or excel in their normal state. If the child is able to get good grades then it's really hard to justify putting your kids on a mood altering drug.

My oldest child has ADHD and is currently on drugs for him to be more successful. He started taking ADHD drugs in high school and that made it much easier as a parent to make the decision to put him on the drugs because he could provide intelligent opinion and feedback.

I know there is a tendency here to think that the parents are doing this for nefarious purposes, but wouldn't it be more nefarious to put your kid on mood altering drugs because they were hard to deal with?

Everything is a shade of gray for most kids. If it were black and white it would be easy. I want what is best for my kid, but that's not necessarily an easy thing to know what is best. If it's a close call, then it seems the safest route is the one where you don't give your kid potentially addictive mood altering drugs... and that's where we were for several years in junior high after he was diagnosed. He actually did quite well during covid doing school at home, and when he went back he struggled.

Let me emphasize again, this is not an easy decision. Almost all parents are trying to make the best decision for the sake of their child. You can always come up with the shit parent examples, but for every one of those there should be at least two or three good ones trying to make the best decisions possible.

[–] blady_blah@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Dances With Wolves Last of the Mohicans

[–] blady_blah@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

It's funny, I hate clinical people like you almost as much as the evil people doing this to us. Democrats are not complicit, especially when they don't have any power.

[–] blady_blah@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

It's stupidly low. It opens our government up to being bought very easily.

[–] blady_blah@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

What? Really? Chiang Kai-shek just ran his army over to some other random country and took it over? That can't be right.....

[–] blady_blah@lemmy.world 15 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I am 100% not convinced. It seems incredibly obvious that if you have a building that you can't jump the windows of, do want at least two avenues of escape in the event of a fire?. What moron is arguing otherwise? If you want to argue that then show me statistics.

Also fuck whoever created that website, a constant upward scrolling was awful.

[–] blady_blah@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago

When waymo was first getting qualified, they had human drivers too. Once they had so many miles, they quit needing the humans.

[–] blady_blah@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

If you can't tell the difference between Biden and Trump, then you need to quit sniffing glue.

[–] blady_blah@lemmy.world 17 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

He plays one character, but the character is kind of likable and funny. To me he's the definition of a popcorn flick actor.

[–] blady_blah@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

Yes.

I was never a "kid person" growing up. I didn’t relate to children and didn’t have much experience with them, but I always saw having a family as the natural path in life. Just like dating leads to marriage, I saw kids as the next chapter after marriage. When I really think about why I wanted kids, it comes down to two main reasons.

First, the experience itself seemed undeniably compelling. I’m introverted and not naturally a risk-taker, but I’ve learned over time that it’s important to challenge yourself and embrace growth. The last thing I want is a life that feels stagnant or boring. Skipping out on something as profound as raising kids felt like missing out on a major part of life.

Second, my wife is incredible. The idea of taking on the adventure of parenting with her felt both exciting and deeply meaningful. It’s intimate, difficult, fun, scary, and rewarding — and I couldn’t imagine a better partner to share that with.

Now, fast-forward to the present: we have three teenagers, and we’ve genuinely loved raising them. I’m not looking forward to the quiet days after they head off to college — the energy and fullness of having kids around has been one of the best parts of our lives and I'll miss it when they've gone on to start their own independent lives.

 

I see CEO's as the last working person in the system. They are at least putting in the time and effort to make money. The are "the last working man/woman" in the chain up to the owners. The real travesty is the owners who get all the money without doing any actual work.

If the CEO makes less money, do you think you'd get more? The answer is no. A company will control costs and not pay employees more than they have to. Your salary has nothing to do with the CEOs salary and at least in theory you have a chance to become CEO... more of a chance than you have of becoming an owner.

The inherited wealth, the hedge funds, the owners... they get all the return. They get all the rewords. Even my boss, who started the company I work at, he makes his money by being an owner. His salary as a CEO is pennies vs his salary owning the company. The success of the company should be shared amongst the employees who made it happen, and the truth is they aren't. That's the real kick to the nuts, not the salary of the CEO.

view more: next ›