Isn't there evidence for neurotypicals only _thinking_ they are focussing better and actually not? Also note that this 'high' you are talking about would likely only apply at higher doses than ADHDers actually get.
I think the comparison was more based on the rooster approaching when they werent looking and stopping when they were. I can't recall any other monsters that do that.
I have grown up on a purely vegetarian diet since I was born and I don't have any health problems from that. I know anecdotal evidence is usually not great and I will admit it is harder to maintain a healthy diet whilst vegetarian (but not too much), in this case it surely cannot be true that you can't live on a vegetarian diet without any bad consequences if I have done that?
probably because when humans pay full attention and think clearly they can not hallucinate for 99% of things they can sense (disregarfing optical illusion), but there is no 'pay attention and dont hallucinate' switch for LLMs.
I think amount of is usually used for 'continuous' (I'm not sure on the word) substances like flour, water, or salt, rather than multiples of discreet objects.
It says because of the airflow from the engine it could be punctured by up to 6 .30 calibre bullets and maintain pressure. Is this enough resilience? (I don't really know about aircraft combat)
I don't know whether this is the account you are talking about, but of the second account they discuss an image posted by saying: 'It had originally been posted by a satirical account that generates images of the former president' so if this is the account you are talking about..
I won't deny the BBC has often very biased reporting for a publically funded source.
I don't know whether this is the account you are talking about, but of the second account they discuss an image posted by saying: 'It had originally been posted by a satirical account that generates images of the former president' so if this is the account you are talking about..
I won't deny the BBC has very biased reporting for a publically funded source.
I don't know whether this is the account you are talking about, but of the second account they discuss an image posted by saying: 'It had originally been posted by a satirical account that generates images of the former president' so if this is the account you are talking about..
I won't deny the BBC has ofteb very biased reporting for a publically funded source.
I don't think there are any (even far) leftwanting to ban non-diverse representation.
I think it's impossible to ban 'conservative thoughts' because that's such a poorly defined phrase.
However there are people who want to ban religion.
One difference is that a much larger proportion of far right (almost all of them) want to ban lgbtq depiction and existence compared to the number of far left who want to ban religion or non-diverse representation.
It says on the wikipedia article itself
'The horseshoe theory does not enjoy wide support within academic circles; peer-reviewed research by political scientists on the subject is scarce, and existing studies and comprehensive reviews have often contradicted its central premises, or found only limited support for the theory under certain conditions.'