>diagnosed with ADHD for the past few years and prescribed extended release speed
>take MDMA responsibly recently
>for a few weeks afterwards feel like a weight has been lifted
>still studying, reading, practicing and writing music, and engaging in good habits without the aid of speed, also spending way less time on the internet
Is ADHD really just an addiction to consooming the flood of stimuli offered by technology, combined with depression?

When I got diagnosed with it they just asked me some questions about my life without doing any kind of blood tests or brain scans. Is psychiatry even a legit science?

Considering that block time is probably the true nature of time, wouldn't this dispel our current notions of free will and determinism? I mean, it'd suggest all causation is more or less an illusion and that events neither effect us nor can we effect events, everything could just be laid out like a flat map that a hypothetical hype-dimensional observer could look at, and every event could even be shuffled around like a deck of cards and nothing would truly change. Both determinism and free will would be wrong then and there's nothing like either in our universe, the debates about them would be utterly meaningless then and instead we'd have to approach the topic from a completely alien perspective.

Newton's Laws:

1. In an inertial reference frame, an object's momentum doesn't change unless acted upon by a force.
2. In an inertial reference frame, the force on an object equals the time derivative of its momentum.
3. In an inertial reference frame, the total momentum of every isolated system is conserved.

I have explicitly mentioned "inertial reference frame" in all three statements since the force on an object is only defined in an inertial reference frame. Also, the law of conservation of momentum is completely equivalent to the usual statement of Newton's third law.

My observations:

[1] follows directly from [2]. It contains no more information than [2] does, so we can scrap it.

[2] is a definition, but it is not complete. We have no way of knowing whether a frame is an inertial reference frame or not.

[3] makes a real statement, but it is incomplete. We still have no way of knowing if a frame is an inertial frame.

If we assume that the total momentum of every isolated system is conserved only in an inertial frame, then we can use [3] to determine if a frame is an inertial frame. We just check if the total momentum of every isolated system remains constant to determine whether our frame is an inertial reference frame.

But then, [3] gives us no information. It simply defines what an inertial reference frame is. [2] doesn't give us any information, it just defines what force is and it's incomplete without [3].

Newton's laws are just definitions and don't make any real claims about this world.

Newton was a fraud.

imagine newton instead of neumann in picrel

I spend more time in public transportation than in classes

Seriously though, it seems impossible.
There's no way you could unify every single formula out there?

Thoughts?
Am I wrong?

Woah...

I want to create fictional creatures, but have them be "grounded" where there is a logic to how they've developed their morphological features, why they behave the way they do, why they developed certain traits as opposed to others, etc. The goal isn't to be 100% realistic (I'm not aiming to make an entire tree of life), just "convincing" or "good enough". What are some books I can read to help with this?

Is there a counting system that uses a single syllable for almost every number? I just was thinking how much more convenient it would be to count from 1 to 100 if each number was a unique single block sound

Kurzgesagt just declared that climate change is finally solved.

What should science and world leaders focus on from now on?

How do I get access to academic articles without paying for them?