Sunstream

There's no part of the mechanism by which the neocortex is impaired in ADHD that explains "justice sensitivity" except dysregulated emotional control, which is present in myriad disorders and may result in hundreds of psychological pathologies.

If you've any sense of justice at all, you may feel it to a greater intensity than the average person but have less chance of directing it towards useful action. If you get so far as to take action, tendency towards impulsivity also dilutes the utility of such a trait.

You've got the best chance of taking thoughtful action if you're also intelligent, but in ADHD, all that's going to do is add a layer of imposter syndrome to a positive outcome because a part of you knows you weren't in full control when you leapt into the fray.

I'll also point out that the second result of the search you posted is a study that attempts to quantify the phenomenon of 'justice sensitivity', and concludes by suggesting "that higher justice sensitivity in people with ADHD is a coping strategy to prevent the impression that they do not care about social norms and thus to avoid social conflicts and denigration." I don't think that's the the only possible interpretation, but it does speak to what I've described.

Oof, that must have been infuriating. I know there wasn't much choice involved, but good on you for going back each time. I know a few people whose pride would have financially crippled them in that moment. Patience and persistence paid off, in the end. Congratulations on graduating :)

Nah, solidly a feature of either/both.

Misophonia, I think it was?

"Yeah, nah"

"Nah, yeah"

I think we were the ones who bullied them into it, to be quite honest. I'm not sure I'm even physically capable of pronouncing the entirety of the name 'McDonald's'.

Technically speaking, it's both of these things. The melanistic changes to skin tone are a direct response to incoming UV damage, and is intended to be a protective mechanism.

There's a limit on how protective melanin will be for you, though, and it does not protect from every type of damage that the sun does.

UVB rays, for example, does the most DNA damage, but can be less obvious in its immediate impacts than UVA, which cause the bulk of the tanning (and burning) effect.

It remains to be seen if the negative impacts of sun exposure will outweigh the positives for each individual.

Every person will be better or worse at different aspects of compensation; regenerating collagen, scavenging free radicals and removing damaged cells are all governed by myriad factors like genetics, behaviour, environment, and so on.

It is actually important for your skin to get direct sunlight touching your skin in some way shape or form, but it's prudent to be in control of how long you do so for, what part of your body you expose (arm and leg skin is generally more durable than face and chest), and at what intensity.

As I understand it, a light tan is good if you can maintain it (relatively) safely, but a very dark tan stacks the odds higher on the side of cancer. No tan at all, though, leaves you very vulnerable to other forms of cancer- some things have to die to be renewed, after all- so I encourage any behaviours that limit overexposure of sunlight, and encourages cell turnover.

There are topical creams, supplements and behavioural changes you can try to encourage more cell turnover in your skin.

You might choose to use a light daily sunscreen for your face, neck and hands, but leave the rest of your body if you're just running a few errands outdoors that day.

Or you might wear a hat with a mesh covering when working outdoors that allows filtered light.

You might check the UV rating on your phone's weather app and choose to cover up with sunscreen if it's high, and so on and so forth.

Lots of info, I know, but I hope I've helped.

You gotta think diabolically.

My psychiatrist here in Australia cautioned me when doing online research into different ADHD medications to check the country of origin and avoid American sources where possible, as there is a huge anti-drug bias in US public and medical literature, and to stick to European/Australasian/other resources for more accurate information on mechanism of action and potential side-effects.

Boy, he was not wrong. If you go on many American websites that talk about the pros and cons of one stimulant or another, it'll overemphasise its propensity towards abuse and extensively list the side effects without bothering to explain how the drug actually works in the body.

You'll think it's an unbiased source, at first, because the website itself only seem to contain basic drug information (at a cursory glance) only to scroll to the bottom and find that the website is owned/sponsored by a rehab facility, of all places.

It'd seem like there's money to be made off of dx and prescribing ADHD meds, but we all know how fucking hard it is to dx'd in the first place, let alone prescribed something that works. It's not wildly profitable to prescribe drugs with heavy federal restrictions on it.

What is profitable, however, is to give someone 6 other psychiatric medications to treat ongoing mental health issues from undiagnosed ADHD, and the half dozen other co-morbid issues like substance abuse disorders, PTSD, anxiety/depression, bipolar disorders, body dysmorphia, eating disorders, and so on- none of which you'll get much traction in treating without also addressing ADHD, and some of which may be misdiagnosed or more effectively treated when identifying the core disorder.

Why treat 1 condition when you can treat 7 ¯_(ツ)_/¯ Better yet, you can do that in an inpatient facility that their insurance can pay for, where you can convince them that their substance abuse issues are due to moral failing rather than an attempt at self-medicating a (widely speaking) treatable disorder, yet hypocritically prescribe them a cocktail of other psychiatric medications for their "moral failing".

That being said, I'm not saying all rehab facilities are bad or operate in this manner, but it is just one of many ways that the medical and pharmaceutical industry inadvertently or directly discourages appropriate ADHD treatment, additionally fuelled by the government's bigotry-fuelled war on drugs.

Yeah I'm 30, now. I presume they're just chilling, lol. Has anyone's come down after that point, do you think?

It can depend on how complicated your impaction is. Sometimes they look at you and go, "Yeah I can work that out no issues," other times they'll be like, "Nah fuck that, this is going to be a major surgery." The last thing you want is for them to realise it's the latter and not the former when they're halfway through the procedure 😅

I've heard of that happening, actually; the dentist ended up driving the patient around themselves trying to find an available surgeon to finish the job, and eventually gave up and just dropped them off at the emergency department.

Usually it's not that wild, but I feel safe in assuming that many dentists choose to book a general out of an abundance of caution, 'cause I'm sure that scenario features in their nightmares as much as it does the patient's.

It probably has something to do with licensing and costs for anaesthetists, too, come to think. Most dentists are qualified to give locals but not generals; verrryyy different ballgame, you can imagine.

Oh yeah, and finally, people's jaws are getting smaller. Seriously, though. The smaller the jaws, the more complicated dental surgeries are becoming, so there you go.

If what everyone else said hasn't already put the wind up you, this portion of an article below details why lithium fires are so freaking bad.

Once lithium battery fires take hold, they are notoriously difficult to put out, especially if you don’t know what you’re doing. There have been several reports of fire departments being unable to extinguish burning EV batteries, which—amongst other things—led to Tesla issuing specific guidance to firefighters as to how to deal with such fires. There are several reasons for the severity of lithium battery fires. For a start, they burn extremely hot, and have a nasty habit of spontaneously reigniting when you think you’ve extinguished them. They also burn for a long time. If there’s any elemental lithium present, it will react with moisture in the air to produce lithium hydroxide and hydrogen gas. Hydrogen gas is flammable. Very flammable. Lithium-ion batteries contain little or no elemental lithium, but any that is present—it can form on the anode during the charging process—can present a very unwelcome surprise. The nature of the electrolyte used can also be a problem—some high-specific energy lithium-ion batteries use a flammable electrolyte that contains lithium hexafluorophosphate, which can decompose into the thoroughly unpleasant hydrofluoric acid during a fire. Lithium ion fires also produce a variety of other gases, including oxygen, which means that simply smothering the fire doesn’t work, because the fire essentially generates its own fuel. Several of these gases are flammable, and can ignite explosively, while oxygen, not flammable itself, causes other materials in the battery to burn much hotter and more rapidly. Both carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide are also produced, which can present breathing hazards to firefighters. Generally, the best thing to do with a lithium fire is to stay a long way away from it and let it burn itself out. Of course, if it happens to be, say, the car or e-bike in your garage that’s on fire, this approach may prove unsatisfactory.

Or, say you put a fucked up battery into your phone, then your phone into your pocket... Well, you might be golden if you also decided to start carrying lithium ion gel with you everywhere you go, but barring that, you'll make a pretty charred shish kabob in short order.

You're not even supposed to charge your phone near combustibles like sheets and clothings, ideally, or overcharge your batteries (to avoid overheating).

There is no difference between saying Princess Monoke is one of the finest movies ever made and saying that animation peaked in the 2000s.

They are both examples of hyperbolic statements we all use to illustrate how passionately we hold our opinions.

The only difference between them is that you agreed with one and not the other, so it's a bit intellectually dishonest to go into an emotional argument challenging exaggerated opinions as though they were true statements, particularly when you pick and choose which ones you decide to take literally.

If I'm wrong and you really did see the latter as a statement, it's not a statement proveable by any metric which immediately makes you the easy victor and makes the other person look foolish.

At best it's a cheap win but at worst, frankly, it's unkind. It's okay to just disagree; it holds no bearing on the validity of your own opinions.