at least post a link to your store

ew

I wish more people would publish their failures.

Agree.

Definitive proof that a hypothesis is wrong is just as solid a result as definitive proof the hypothesis is right.

Disproving a hypothesis does not offer “definitive proof” equivalent to proving one correct, as it eliminates only one scenario among potentially infinite others, whereas proving a hypothesis correct directly builds upon our understanding of the world. The value of disproved hypotheses primarily lies in guiding future research rather than providing solid, actionable results.

Technically

Trying to go in the other direction here, but thanks for that.

I am struggling to figure out what else dot matrix could be. For me it is either a printer or an electronic display.

And that was really good! Someone, somewhere else, could have the document - wow!

Yeah, you’d use an RF modulator to take the console’s baseband audio and video signal and modulate it onto a specific radio frequency carrier, typically corresponding to channel 3 or 4 on the TV.

ya

• 9600 baud (signal changes per second)
• 8 data bits per packet (as opposed to 7)
• no parity bit (no error check)
• 1 stop bit per packet (packet ends here)

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.

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”.