> “Since e-bikes do not require a license, drivers of e-bikes can simply ignore their traffic summons with no repercussions whatsoever, making any enforcement futile,” the police spokesperson said. However, the new requirement that cyclists appear in court, or face an arrest warrant if they fail to, creates “a strong incentive to show up in court.”

Cannot speak for its accuracy.

Anecdotally (London not NYC) I feel like I am "endangered" by e-bikes much more often than cars, because they seem to regularly skip red lights and come silently shooting out from the other side of a car while you are crossing, which a car simply cannot do. They are far heavier than a normal bike and seem to be closer to a small incredibly quiet moped.

Obviously lives-saved is the most important metric, but that doesn't mean the "feeling of safety" component is worthless. The comparison around deaths is only useful if those figures are primarily car deaths caused by running red lights.

I feel like the most sensible policy is requiring licenses for e-bikes above a certain power level (not easy!) and then bringing parity to the treatment of cars vs e-bikes after that

You could use the exact same line of reasoning to ask "if just talking about an issue with a professional alleviates an issue, isn't that a placebo?"

And the answer is obviously, "No, talk therapy is an extremely well-known mental health intervention with an extremely high effect size on average"

Anxiety and depression are disorders in the way you think about things. If you provide someone with a different and effective way of thinking about things, your are directly treating the disorder. The "maladaptive pattern" flowchart[1] might be a meme, but it's also a very real concept in psychology.

From a more personal point of view: while a label can defining be used in a confining way where it serves as an excuse to not "have to" do a thing (and I certainly know people like that), I find it's very useful to have something concrete to point at and say "this method that other people claim works great won't work for me because my brain doesn't work like that, I need to find a way to alter the method to make myself successful".

[1] https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/maladaptive-pattern

But a while later, I found it was not enough. I hadn't reached "true happiness" or at least whatever I can call my current state of being. I took a different path, shed all my labels, self-prescribed or otherwise, and am happier than I was before.

I still think I am "different" and have quirks, etc. So in practice, not a whole lot different than before. I just don't use the labels to describe these differences that others might use instead.

I think this only emphasizes that one approach does not necessarily apply when generalized to all people. In my case it only served as one step towards a greater solution, and hopefully even more effective solutions I can build on top of that later.

The same goes for heightened awareness for ADHD. More knowledge can be a blessing (as in your case). At the same time, the population such awareness can serve is shaped like a very complex blob, the form of which nobody truly knows, but I believe some clinicians/promoters see the "blast radius" of promoting awareness as a perfectly round circle overlaid directly onto the population.

My experience also made me realize what one can term "ADHD" may change with overarching cultural shifts or personal growth. I think ADHD should be seen closer to a symptom of a constellation of any number of potentially unrelated causes than a "disorder" to be focused on alone. Unfortunately the established terminology seems to have won out there.

The way we see health conditions and the words we choose to describe them can have profound effects on our understanding of ourselves.

Surely you have more you want to do and achieve than just that one side hustle? Have you never wanted to write a novel? Learn a musical instrument? A language? How to speedrun your favorite video game? Contribute to open source? Plant a vegetable garden?

There is so, so much to do, and instead I spend all my time working to keep a roof over my head.

They respect my time, when I need something they're incredibly helpful, and they care about my career development.

IMO the culling over managers over the past few years is really a way to make sure you don't have someone you can discuss career development, promotion, and pay increases with. I have very honest conversations with my managers about these things regularly. If I had to deal with someone a few layers above I doubt I'd have the same success.

Another 'benefit' for the company in culling managers is that the manager track generally has higher pay at each level. Understandable given it seems to involve more time commitment and dealing with people can be much more tricky than dealing with code. Less options for IC's to transition == lower salary burden. Reduce the number of people on the manager track and you reduce the amount of salary an employee can hope to attain. I've definitely been put off switching from IC to manager because I feel the jobs are less secure over the last few years.

Isn't this about the most condescending thing they can start with?