A difference is that in those white papers they usually argue that their solution is more perfect in some sense than some more adopted alternative, here they instead claim that their commercial offering is "general purpose".

It's excruciating that this person is so close to reinventing moldable development and just keeps on skipping around it.

Yes, you should build tools that answer questions about your code, runtimes and systems. You should have tools that trivially allow you to incrementally and very immediately develop tools for inspection and getting clear answers. Going a roundabout way through some non-deterministic database to try and get there seems like a waste.

For treatment of ADHD amphetamine is pretty much never the first reasonable option. It's reasonably among the last, way over there with meth, on the other side of reuptake inhibitors with a much nicer toxicological profile.

"When dosed properly" is basically a circular premise. When things are good, things are good. Great. Brilliant. This is the kind of solid ground we need for making judgements about psychoactives and health.

The thing is this, this ideal world does not exist. If you raise the dose or take an extra dose of caffeine, what happens? You'll probably feel sick and correct. What happens with amphetamine? In the best case you inch towards euphoria. At worst, if you really hit it on, you'll get a rush like little else and then euphoria.

Caffeine is very not sneaky, it clears the fog and you trivially find your equilibrium where you take roughly the same amount of a hundred millis per day. It carries very little risk for changes in personality and perception. Amphetamine is quite different. It affects confidence, behaviour and changes your perception so that the amphetamine starts to look like a solution to more and more problems. It does this in nefarious ways that usually aren't obvious to the newcomer. It's also way more potent than caffeine, therapeutic doses being in the few milligrams rather than hundreds a day.

Perhaps you've eaten more pills than I have, but I'm sure you didn't pay as much attention as I have. I like amphetamine as a very sporadic recreational drug, but that's on a hiatus because I have kids that depend on me. I'd never take it on a casual basis because I'm not disabled in a way that makes up for the risks. And there are risks, for one it's neurotoxic due to excitotoxicity. How much can't easily be predicted but chronic exposure is unlikely to be safe in the sense caffeine is. As far as I can tell this is more pronounced with dopaminergic than noradrenergic effects, i.e. if this is the case then dextroamphetamine is likely worse than the levo enantiomer.

Then there's the issue of mixing drugs. In many users amphetamine will not lessen or stop the consumption of caffeine.

That's a lot of alcohol. Where I live they'll for sure tear your license and sentence you to up to two years if you're caught behind the wheel at that level of intoxication.

As for so called energy drinks and alcohol, I'd bet taurine is much more important than caffeine.

Recommending going from caffeine to amphetamine comes across as rather weird to me. 'It seems you have trouble regulating intake of a weak stimulant most people have little issue with, how about you take one of the strong, seriously treacherous ones instead?'

I don't think cars should whine about what I do or don't, because they suck at being drivers. As I understand it, this kind of crap comes from the US, which is a society that tries to force people to spend as much time as possible in the car regardless of whether they should be there or not, even allowing people to drive when rather drunk at 0.08% BAC. It's not something I welcome the spread of.

Infamously analytical philosophy quickly turned out to be a dead end and led them to metaphysics to try and salvage their community.

Being and Time has a lot of interesting material but it is ill advised to approach it without having spent quite some time studying the philosophical tradition from Plato up until Heidegger himself, including Nietzsche. The old nazi presupposes a firm grasp of this history of ideas and makes an attempt at a 'reboot', which unsurprisingly turns out rather inscrutable without this background.

As for traumatising, in my experience Heidegger just lays down some groundwork for Derrida and Baudrillard. They're seriously efficient at questioning the foundations of language, thinking and society. Though I'd sooner recommend Merleu-Ponty, whose phenomenological achievements are more accessible and more easily applied in everyday life.

One could make the claim that some knowledge and experience does not fit into language and writing, the primary vehicles of philosophy. Here theology is a long tradition of approaches to such knowing and experience, which tends to be more foundational than the problem domains of philosophy.

Also, lane assist fucking sucks. It places all cars in the same place on the road, i.e. all wear is in the same place as well, and in relation to the marked edges of the road, which often isn't the natural placing in curves and so on. As a consequence roads likely need maintenance more often, and as a proficient driver that does not let the car have opinions about placement on the road one commonly has much smaller margins when placing the car in the nice trajectory through a curve due to the sunken lanes from the assisted cars.

Hard no. Theology was first, and will forever be.

Where was Plato's Akademia? In a chapel of Athena, goddess of wisdom. In Aristotle you'll often find that philosophy is actually a method of theology, it's a way to figure out the divine, and what is most or least divine.

They'll basically be your friends, partners and coworkers. Making a sudden change in how you associate with each other can have rather negative consequences, ranging from anxiety to them trying to murder you.

You can't select some random person and do a bit of bureaucracy and then tell a family whose member you killed that this rando is now part of their family as restitution for your mistake. You can give them money but in general it is considered somewhat distasteful to put an immediate pecuniary value on human life.

I can also tell my tools to automate my work once I understand it well enough.

One of my more senior colleagues at that company called himself a 'fixer', because to his understanding, what he did was fix things.

Once meetings and documentation is working, decide on a small issue that you know that more people in the workplace are annoyed by and would be an easy fix for the organisation. Then you write to the relevant boss and present the demand. Either they fix it voluntarily, or you wait a while and then you write to them again and add a demand to have a meeting about the issue.

Escalate slowly and methodically, and when you get the win, lay low for a bit and use it to recruit. Make all decisions by consensus in the beginning, don't start with majority decisions until most or all of the workers in the department have joined. Always escalate slowly and gradually, until you have the power to shut the entire organisation down on a short notice.

Act in a way that makes your union predictable to the bosses. Corporate management is easily confused and you'll prefer them to negotiate over lashing out wildly. When people are inevitably fired, keep in contact with them, both personally and through routines you establish in the union. Some people are unsuited for negotiation, documentation and so on but are good at doing phone calls and checking up on previous members and reporting back.

Focus entirely on things that are important to make the daily work less dangerous, more convenient, more rewarding. Small steps, low hanging fruit first, only one issue at a time. When you have a success, send a note about it to some local labour friendly organisation or publication.

Don't waste time on identity politics, everyone in the workplace who isn't a boss is a worker regardless of what they do or how they're compensated, the union does not need a name or bank account until you have federated with quite a large amount of people. You don't need to register some association to have meetings and make decisions, that's for when you have like a few hundred people and want to throw parties and have conferences and things like renting a place requires you to register with some bureaucracy.