6 months is a reasonable cutoff for a screening tool because it allows for changes in the environment. E.g. you might cope well in high school, but you move to university and suddenly your old strategies don't work anymore and your life is falling apart.
For the full assessment with a psychiatrist, they do look at one's entire life history.
It could very well be ADHD. Depression is certainly another possibility, but if your symptoms are more or less consistent throughout life, then it makes ADHD much more likely.
It's definitely a bit tricky. Depression can cause problems with attention. But also: ADHD people have depression at much higher rate.
> When I was young I used to look at the watch compulsively to check what time it is and I never went late to an appointment.
Lots of ADHDers come up with all sorts of coping mechanisms. It's one of the reasons the test misses a significant chunk of ADHD population.
> In addition these general questions that a lot of people can relate to will cause a lot of people to get unneeded screening
Yes, a lot of people have ADHD. I link to the study that shows high specificity in the general population. Empirically, the tool works. You gotta start getting concerned about your symptoms from somewhere.
The two minutes is a very short amount of time — much shorter than a typical speed dating slot of 5-10 minutes. People chat about all sorts of things: from work to previous relationships to “where are you from”-style questions.
With regular speed dating I had all sorts of chats, it usually enough for 1-3 threads of conversations.
This depends on your views on personal identity. It's not necessarily true that "you" exist from death to birth. Consciousness could be a singleton, and "You" could be everyone in the universe. Or perhaps "you" is only a single person-moment instantiated for a split second.
Telegram is more of a social media platform than a messenger. It has public 'channels' - read-only blogs without likes and comments. The biggest Belarusian channel 'Nexta' has 2M+ subscribers.
The SMB3 ACE is one of the most technically interesting glitches. The usual skips and saves are much more mundane.
My point here is that there is similarity between (some) human players and some AI players. Even the discussion whether exploiting a glitch is actually 'winning' also looks very similar.
> Evolved player makes invalid moves far away in the board, causing opponent players to run out of memory and crash
Well, this sounds like speedrunning. People have found arbitrary code execution vulnerabilities in SNES and used them to jump to the credits (which counts as completed the game) in less than a minute: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf9i7MjViCE
The growth pattern is still exponential, instead of going x -> 2 * x, you go x -> 9/8 * x + 6. I think it should still be O(1) amortized, you just need to adjust your proof for doubling a bit.
> Because lists are dynamically typed and heterogeneous, does that mean the underlying C is basically a contiguous segment of memory of python object references?
Email: [email protected]