codeguro

I appreciate the effort. I'll give you my honest two cents. If you don't have thick skin, stop reading here. I'm going to be critical, and I'm going to be blunt. You can take it or leave it.

The landing page sucks. In my first impression my eyes immediately darted to the animated graphics/webms. The text reads like it was written by AI with the sentences in triplets everywhere. Immediately my trust for this site (which was finicky at first) has already gone down. If you can't sustain my attention in the banner, what makes me think you can sustain my attention for the app? Be direct - show me what your app does at a glance. My attention is very scarce and very expensive, don't waste it on vague niceties or depend on me to trust you on what you say other people are saying about your app. I feel like you're trying to cheat me out of own autonomy when you're selling me something (even if it's free, my time = money) that I have no idea what it does until I get to the FAQ. My 2c - put the FAQ in the very top, with the questions "Is this just another AI chatbot?" and "How does Indy fit with ADHD coaching or other support?" in order with minimized distractions. This tells me what your product is and what it isn't at face value.

>Come on. Go back to a flip phone, or make your own smartphone ecosystem. The entitlement is outrageous.

No it isn't. It's perfectly reasonable. It's my device, bought with my money, earned on my time. I didn't agree to a social contract. I bought a tool. And you're a fool if you think

>but it's the current year!

is an argument. This isn't happening because the technological cosmos demands it. It's happening because google is winding up for a monopolistic hold of the market. They seek to manipulate it for their private benefit at the expense of everyone else. If they actually push through with this, they will be broken up.

Some people also forget that end users are also developers themselves. GPL helps everyone in this way.

> In cases of emergencies government can and often does intervene (see housing crisis, airlines during covid etc). Why wouldn't government offset something like this in case of student loans during emergencies?

Because it is unconstitutional, and because it is unlawful. It is during times of emergencies that individual liberties are under the greatest threat and so it is during those times they need the strongest protections.

I find it funny you cite the housing crisis and covid as paragons because the government intervention to each of those were horrible and people in general would be much better off in the long run if the government never intervened. Maybe you don't like the idea that the government can be a threat, but I assure you that governments can and do go rogue. Never forget that the constitution was written as a document to put limits on the government. There is an important reason for framing it exactly like that. It puts into focus the very real dangers of having a centralized power encroaching in on every aspect of your life. With every piece it seizes, it also seizes a piece of your individual autonomy.

>like when bud light was encouraged to spend a bit of its marketing budget differently

But that was the whole point. They were marketing to children. They still haven't recovered from that backlash. Anheuser-Busch took a pretty damning financial hit and it sent a message to all the other companies not to pull this kind of stunt because it's bad for business. Changing their behavior was the entire point.

Becoming a doctor, lawyer, scientist, or engineer is a personal choice, and a personal investment. You don’t get to socialize the costs and privatize the gains for your personal benefit in the name of “society”. If you need to take out a loan, borrow against your future, not everyone else’s. You’ll be making more money later so it’s not like you can’t afford it anyways.

People spending money that is not theirs on services they themselves will not receive will care about neither the quality nor the cost of those services. But this at its core is exactly what the government bureaucrats do. If you listened at all to great economists like Milton Friedman then it’d be obvious to you why government spending inevitably leads to lower quality and more expensive services than those provided by a free market through the private sector. Moreover, this spending is done by force, meaning the government is violating your individual autonomy (and the autonomy of every individual they tax to fund this program) by removing your right to decide how you spend your money on services you need. We as a society don’t generally view force as a legitimating factor. We view consent as a legitimating factor, and these goods and services are just that; goods and services. And, like every other good and service, the free market is a solution to provide more variety of them at a variety of costs including ones affordable to you. There is a reason people choose to bring their kids to private school and many people who would otherwise choose to do so cannot because their income is taxed to fund public schooling.

The lesbian dance theory degree example is obviously an analogy to illustrate a bad investment and get you to understand the outrage of having to pay for someone else’s personal (bad) investments. 18 year olds are legally adults in the US and as adults they have the right to make decisions about their futures. But their inexperience does not absolve them of their responsibilities. And it’s not like they have to get a degree fresh out of high school either. They can choose to wait and watch the real world for a few years until they decide what they want to do with their lives. Stop infantilizing them.

If you’re asking me my opinion on discharging debts, I disagree with the concept in principle for the same reason as the original occupy wall street protesters. Businesses that fail, even if they are big, should not be bailed out at the taxpayers expense. Bad investments should fail; that is the risk you wager when you agreed to play that game. You don’t get to turn around and privatize the gains and socialize the losses. We live in a society.

Firstly, I don't think you're engaging in good faith. I won't humor shotgun questions like yours. They're not even on topic. If you want to talk about these topics, then we do them separately and one at a time. Those are my terms. Secondly, just because I participate in a society doesn't mean I agree with how it's run or that I don't see room for improvement. That argument boils down to a Mr Gotcha comic.

Here's a good start. Don't have people who don't make the choice to take out loans be forced to pay off those loans. I don't think it's unreasonable that you bear the costs of your _personal_ investments for your _personal_ future. Whether or not society as a whole benefits from it is besides the point. They are _personal_ investments at their core, and they can be paid off with your higher future income. Borrow against your future, not mine. Society's part is contributing to your higher income through business at each individuals' personal discretion. Don't make the mistake thinking anybody owes you anything more. You're not entitle to a higher income even if you went to college. When you made a bad investment, you pay for it. I'm not paying for your lesbian dance theory degree, and neither is the plumber making a living without some degree.

>why didn't they rule in favor of executive authority when President Biden he tried to forgive student loan debt and a Federal Judge in Texas deemed it "unlawful"?

Because it is unlawful. Student loan forgiveness is not an entitlement. College isn’t an entitlement. These are the facts. Moreover, college is a privilege, and it’s a choice, and at its core it is an investment into your future. Having the government forgive it implies the taxpayer will pay for it. That means that essentially people who chose _not_ to go to college, by their own choice or due to their own circumstances, now have to pay for the investments of the people who chose to go. College educated people tend to make much more money too, so in essence you’ll literally be taking money from the less privileged and giving it to the more/rich. And this would be done by force. In what way would that be lawful? Why would others have to pay for your personal investments? You took out a loan, you pay it off. Leave everyone else out of it.

>If X works for your use case you’re a vaccine denier

Wow, you sure are convincing! /sarcasm

If you depend on shame and straw-man to get your argument across, it shows me you lack merit. I’d continue to use X to spite people like you. And all this done in context of corps like RedHat pushing for the outing of the main X developer for the past 11(?) years isn’t helping your case either. In fact, I think I’ll stay on X for the forseable future, and convince people I know with its reliability. X11 has been around for a long time, and it works for a lot of programs.

ADHD is caused by a defective gene involving the DAT1 transporter causing it to be overactive. This causes a deficit of dopamine that predominantly impacts the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (there are other parts impacted too, but this one is the most apparent). The brain compromises with novelty seeking behavior to rebalance the neurochemistry as a depression response, and this outwardly manifests as distractibility.

Don’t talk of things you have no clue about. Saying ADHD is “manufactured” is downright harmful. And yes, stimulants do treat it, and do so very effectively. I encourage you to learn more about it from Dr. Russell Barkley, the leading authority on the subject. He does well to dismantle the myths and stipulations and is very knowledgeable. He even has a youtube channel where he elaborately breaks down the studies in a way the common man can understand.