Do you understand kernel memory management fundamentals? I’m asking because what you wrote here strongly suggests otherwise - so, unless you’re able to show me I’m wrong, I’m going to stick with my conclusion that this is all incorrect and likely complete bullshit.
You’re so disingenuous it’s actually amusing.
Articles and headlines do not exist in a vacuum. ‘Context’ is not even remotely straightforward.
I think they are taking advantage of the fact that Mozilla just changed CEOs; folks will be skeptical, and that is worth a few clicks. Even the beginning of the article is more ambiguous than it needs to be. These organizations (not Mozilla) exist solely to get attention, and should not be given the benefit of the doubt here.
This isn’t a reading comprehension issue.
Oh no.
:(
Sorry, what?
If you’re having a party or whatever: touch *
That’s weird. Stop it.
It’s also a study based on self-reporting from caretakers
Is this better or worse than other forms of self-reporting?
As cool as technologies like fMRI are, we have not reached any meaningful degree of objectivity in most psychological/neurological pursuits.
I mean, …
tell the story, or don’t?
Is this really your response?
Nobody said environmental factors “cause ADHD”; this debate is about whether environmental factors can amplify presentation of executive dysfunction type symptoms in the genetically predisposed.
Just because environmental factors can alter brain function, it doesn’t mean every disorder or behaviour is potentially generated by environmental factors!
No, but it does mean that it is incredibly unlikely that they are not sometimes exacerbated by environmental factors.
Dismissing the role of environmental factors in ADHD overlooks the basic science that our behaviours and surroundings can fundamentally alter brain function. It’s a leap to equate cautious exploration of these effects with debunked myths.
You’re literally doing the thing you accuse others of—jumping to conclusions without full evidence. Declaring ADHD purely genetic, while ignoring potential environmental factors, is a leap without scientific backing. It’s not about muddling waters; it’s about acknowledging our current limits and exploring all possibilities. That’s the essence of true scientific inquiry.
Casting doubt on environmental factors without conclusive evidence simplifies a complex issue. Science thrives on openness to new data, not dismissing possibilities without thorough investigation.
Personally, I don’t think you should be telling folks “how science works”.
neuroplasticity
And they all fucking suck.
We’re just word predictors too.
With 64GiB or more of RAM?