Overselling A.D.H.D. - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/books/review/adhd-nation-alan-schwarz.html <comment><USER2> As someone in my 5th decade, with lifelong ADHD (though given my age it did not exist in my youth, and was only diagnosed relatively recently), I'm wary of backing away from treatments until we actually do have real viable alternatives.

It took far too long to get ADHD widely recognised, and even now it's often more likely to be received with humour than real recognition. Much more research, especially on other possible treatments and therapies, is needed before we turn too zealously against the only treatment actually shown to work. We have a long history of over diagnosing and overdoing pretty much everything.

I've only ever managed it with limited success. There's little doubt that the _drugs can work._ Despite some evidence of over-diagnosis and over- prescription there are many people who have had their prospects transformed as a result. I suggest the ADHD label is being significantly over applied because real awareness, even in the medical profession, is still abysmal. Doctors don't have time to look at home circumstances, or parents and other factors that might affect behaviour. Awareness coming from some TV comedy skit however is high.

I don't actually care that we don't yet have full understanding of how the drugs work, or that OMG they're amphetamines. I _often_ wonder how things may have turned out differently for me had I encountered more GP awareness and less ridicule, or even earlier self-awareness or teen diagnosis and treatment.

If we are too successful "exposing big pharma" and overdiagnosis in the minds of GPs and the public, lives will be ruined once again. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here rather than seek wider understanding.

<comment><USER3> Why do people on meth enjoy cleaning? There is little difference between meth and Adderall. Taking any type of stimulant even coffee helps people do menial tasks and be more optimistic while doing them.

Maybe millions of people are effected by some problem of distraction and lack of focus. But to suggest there's some biochemical reason for this that's cured by amphetamines seems like pseudoscience to me.

Drugs do work. If you want to take amphetamines to improve your work performance, go for it. But to suggest that it's a disease seems disingenuous.

There's something like 16 million Americans who take Adderall, which has drastically increased in used (300%+ from 2008-2012). Another poll said 35% of college students had said they'd tried Adderall.

The science of ADHD is ambiguous. The science of moderate uses of amphetamine or methamphetamines for improving work performance is easier to understand.

<comment><USER4> Imagine this: you're an adult professional, sitting at your desk looking at a freelance work assignment that needs to be done by tomorrow, weeping with frustration because you've been staring at it for eight solid hours, trying and trying to begin, and you can't because focusing on anything important is like trying to grip a handful of water.

Because you ran out of your meds.

This is what my life is like. If that doesn't sound like a medical condition to you, then I don't know what you're thinking. If you think I haven't tried everything else imaginable to deal with it, you're mistaken. The only thing that works is amphetamines. There's definitely downsides, and if someone showed me a better solution I'd love to try it. But, so far, there isn't one.

Maybe some people take the meds who don't really need them. That's a shame. You don't get to sacrifice my career just to keep some people from getting high.

<comment><USER5> three things:

1\. You do not enjoy your work, and thus have no motivation.

2\. Maybe you should not do the work and suffer the consequences.

3\. You have built a mental dependency that you must take amphetamines to "focus", and this hinders your real ability to focus.

All of those things ^^^ I have experienced at one point or another in my life. You can focus, you have to make yourself. There is no other way. You do not need medication... But maybe you do, I highly doubt it though.

<comment><USER4> > _Maybe you should not do the work and suffer the consequences._

I've done that. A lot. It sucks. That's why I take medication.

> _You can focus, you have to make yourself. There is no other way. You do not > need medication..._

I don't understand why people can't quite believe that mental illness is real. You would never tell a diabetic or an asthmatic that they shouldn't have to take medicine every day. But if someone's clinically depressed, or has ADD, or any of a hundred other mental conditions, people just assume you're imagining things or being lazy.

<comment><USER6> It is hereditary too. I've seen how in past generations, children with these kind of conditions were just labeled as trouble makers and got no help and eventually failed out the system.

Just simple understanding and acceptance that this is a condition, medication or not, makes a huge difference. And yet here we are still arguing it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Since I've had the responsibility of managing the treatment of at least a thousand adults and adolescents with ADHD, it's a subject I've studied quite a bit. And as the medical literature attests ADHD is probably among the most researched of all medical conditions and its reality is unquestioned based on the scientific literature.

When people say "I don't believe in ADHD" I point out it's not like believing in Santa Claus, the reality isn't changed by our "belief". Might as well say "I don't believe in cancer", it's not going to make it disappear.

The fact is that ADHD has been shown to affect 4 to 5% of American adults and 5 to 8% of children. When the same diagnostic criteria are used, populations of other countries show comparable prevalence. This means it is a much more common disorder than usually considered.

The key issue in my estimation is the level of disability ADHD can produce in adults. Studies show devastating adverse outcomes in virtually all domains of functioning. People with ADHD fall far behind peers in educational achievement and employment, and far exceed peers in rate of divorce, motor vehicle accidents and injuries, greater rates of general health conditions and larger health care costs.

Furthermore, despite the availability and relatively low cost of effective treatments, among adults with ADHD only about 1/5 receive treatment. The total costs to the economy of untreated ADHD very likely is on the order of $100 billion annually in the US alone.

Bottom line is ADHD is a very common and disabling condition with a high cost burden to the individual, family and nation as a whole. We underestimate the impact of ADHD in all these domains at our peril.

<comment><USER8> If I could ask a question that may sound like a challenge but it is not meant as one:

How does ADHD lead to divorce, motor vehicle accidents and injuries, and greater rates of general health conditions?

Is this correlation still present after controlling for confounders like education and economic status?

<comment><USER9> The two biggest factors that I can come up with would be the lack of ability to control attention, and the inability to consider the long term repercussions of actions.

If you can't force yourself to keep attention on the road, you're going to crash. If you can't think about how that daily pint of ice cream will affect you beyond "it tastes good now", you're going to gain weight.

<comment><USER10> And when your eyes continuously glaze over when your wife is talking to you, it can lead to marriage difficulties.

<comment><USER9> Sorry, sweetie, what were you saying?

Heh, yeah. I've said that a few too many times. I'm just glad she understands.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm generally not fond of this sort of article and this one is no exception. They present a case that drug companies like selling drugs but we knew that. What they don't do is present a good case that ADHD is actually overdiagnosed. The world in general is not very good at accepting psychological conditions. ADHD is commonly regarded as "youth", "laziness", or "lacking discipline". Watching a loved one fight to focus continually is just heartbreaking. We still have quite a number of cases where people are stuck fumbling without help.

<comment><USER12> Yep. Dealt with this my entire life. Teachers, doctors, and counselors suggested I see someone regarding a possible ADD diagnosis all through school as my supposed "brilliance" (their words, not mine) came along with a seemingly unbeatable tendency to zone out in class, constantly talk to other kids when I knew I was supposed to be listening, and flat out forget to do major assignments while I just sort of daydreamed or got sidetracked the moment something else came along.

But my father didn't believe in ADD or at least thought it was overdiagnosed. By god, when he was a kid, there was a name for my behavior and it was lazy, careless, or just plain selfish. So all of those recommendations were ignored.

It took me dropping out of college, going off to work in dead-end, unrewarding and un-challenging jobs while avoiding contact with my folks out of a mixture of shame, resentment, and anger to finally motivate me to see a counselor who eventually referred me to a psychiatrist.

Got put on a mild dosage of stimulant medications, got myself about $15k in loans to enroll at another state university, finished my degree with no lower than a B in any class, and finally got myself into something of a career path. It's been weird because I always felt like I'm 10-15 years behind where I should be but then I remind myself that there is no "should" and I'm thankful that I've improved my quality of life.

Medication (and stimulant medication) isn't a panacea and there are obviously tradeoffs but I think that for a very real subset of people, the avoidance of it out of some misplaced ideas of pill-pushers or lack of "grit" is a real shame that causes some very real problems.

<comment><USER13> And these kinds of experiences are why ADD deniers fill a lot of us with rage. Their willful ignorance is hugely destructive and damaging to the people they're able to influence.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The point about changing the kid instead of the environment is an important one. If attention deficit is defined as a kid having trouble coping with the standard 7-hour school day (more like 9-10 including homework) where he is expected to sit still and work on boring and non-essential worksheets, then the condition isn't over diagnosed at all.

And if we're not willing to change that environment--and I don't think we are --then we should medicate the kids so at least the experience is tolerable and they can have some success with it. Given that artificial stimulation to cope with the modern workforce is universal (espresso shots, liters of coffee, energy drinks), they might as well start getting used to it.

<comment><USER15> > And if we're not willing to change that environment--and I don't think we > are--then we should medicate the kids so at least the experience is > tolerable and they can have some success with it

And as a result traditional response has been amphetamine-salts for children as you say. But I completely disagree that this is something we _should do_.

For one I think we don't have good enough science to know how potentially dangerous or helpful ADHD drugs really are. Is it going to help them adjust later, or will it be harder? Are they going to be dependent on amphetamines their whole life? Evaluation of drugs which are primarily targeted at emotional and behavioral problems is difficult enough in neutral conditions, since it is hard to control/evaluate/quantify results. Yet the conditions we are dealing with are totally _not-neutral_.

Basically big pharmaceutical companies fund lots of research - if the research doesn't support their product they can shelve it and fund some other studies until they have research which does. It's an awful field with too much money and lots of dishonest science.

Secondly, using medications to treat ADHD (because that makes money for their producers) is as you pointed out making us avoid the cultural / environmental problems which cause this issue. But I disagree that this is inherently from the 7-hour school day as you point out. Kids went to school for 7-hours 50 years ago as well, but ADHD diagnosis and medication use has been constantly increasing. [0]

A large factor to this is the increasing amount of stimulation that kids today are actively exposed to that they weren't in the past (I can't remember references of the top of my head, I'll try and find one though). Basically if you grow-up with 4-6 hours of TV or video games per day, yeah it's hard to sit down and read a book. Obvious right? And your recommendation is _really_ to give amphetamines to 7-year olds? Rather than limit consumption of mediums that are inappropriately over-stimulating for large durations?

[0] [http://images.slideplayer.com/18/5690061/slides/slide_2.jpg](http://images.slideplayer.com/18/5690061/slides/slide_2.jpg)

<comment><USER16> >we don't have good enough science to know how potentially dangerous or helpful ADHD drugs really are.

We have nearly a century of usage which suggests these drugs are incredibly safe.

We medicate a _lot_ of problems which are caused/worsened by society. We need a solution: Either we fundamentally restructure society, or we medicate.

Since we're not fundamentally restructuring society any time soon, medication is our best option and we have a lot of data suggesting stimulant medications in these doses are pretty damn safe—and certainly outweigh the negatives of _not_ medicating (failing school, abusing drugs, other mental illness).

The real epidemic here is the pejorative use of the word "medication". The distrust of treatment is always based on ignorance and appeals to nature, tradition, etc.

<comment><USER15> > We have nearly a century of usage which suggests these drugs are incredibly > safe.

Non-industry funded long term study (30+ years) citation _needed_.

> We medicate a lot of problems which are caused/worsened by society. We need > a solution: Either we fundamentally restructure society, or we medicate.

I think this is a false dichotomy, not backed by any credible research and is a clever way for the pharmacy industry to sell drugs instead of society expending effort on alternative solutions.

edit (To clarify): Specifically you are jumping from "lot of problems which are caused/worsened by society" to a polarized choice of "medicate" or "fundamentally restructure society". But it should be clear that there is a whole field of available approaches which aren't "fundamental restructuring" which can attempt to alleviate such problems and unless research has enumerated and depleted all other available gradual options, this again, is a bogus dichotomy.

<comment><USER16> We have real data which heavily backs the case for medicating.

You have emotion and conjecture.

>Non-industry funded long term study (30+ years) citation needed.

What do you want? You're suggesting all these studies are funded by pharma cos and the scientists are falsifying data?

If you're not going to believe any of the data and stick to your own emotions on the subject there's no point discussing this.

Until you have anything besides personal feelings and unfounded beliefs we should obviously stick to what we're doing. Anything else is dangerous and unscientific.

<comment><USER15> > We have real data which heavily backs the case for medicating.

> You have emotion and conjecture.

No, I asked for you to provide a reference to a credible study, you have failed to do so. There is no need or place for ad-hominem attacks here. Who is 'we' btw?

> You're suggesting all these studies are funded by pharma cos and the > scientists are falsifying data?

What I wrote explicitly was:

>>> if the research doesn't support their product they can shelve it and fund some other studies until they have research which does.

Are you claiming this is not true? Or that this does not happen?

On a side-note: standards in psychology research are much lower than in hard sciences, so the conflict of interest is exacerbated.

> Until you have anything besides personal feelings and unfounded beliefs we > should obviously stick to what we're doing. Anything else is dangerous and > unscientific.

Per chance, despite the immature nature of your tone - you are actually a researcher who has worked on many studies supporting what you claimed above and your research has been funded by pharmaceutical companies.

Has really not a single study with a source of funding which is not pharmaceutical company been able to replicate your results? I would consider that deeply suspicious in any field; and on the _contrary_ to argue that it's _not_ , _is dangerous and unscientific_.

<comment><USER16> Of course it has.

[http://www.europeanneuropsychopharmacology.com/article/S0924...](http://www.europeanneuropsychopharmacology.com/article/S0924-977X\(12\)00198-8/abstract)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> It's no coincidence that young males are more likely to exhibit ADHD symptoms. My school attempted to convince my parents several times that I needed medication because I disrupted the class.

While I am not proud of my prior misbehavior, I'm thankful that my parents had enough medical knowledge to refuse to put me on pills.

<comment><USER18> There are many who genuinely suffer from ADHD and their parents did not allow them medication due to ignorance. And they have the exact opposite story to tell.

<comment><USER19> It's a tale of ignorance all around. Overzealous diagnosis leads to problems which leads to mistrust. People who get misdiagnosed suffer, and those who are properly diagnosed, but assumed to be misdiagnosed also suffer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I am kind of disappointed with the people reporting that they have been "suffering" with adhd or add. I was prescribed add/adhd medication from 5th grade until 12th. It wasnt until I started practicing yoga was I able to make myself focus.

I had always, my entire life, HATED taking "my medicine". It changed me, it made me just like everyone else. Now that I am in my later 20's I take pride in the fact that I am "ADD". It is disappointing that people with this gift listen to society and somehow think they are not normal. Take some time and read about benefits of having add/adhd, it will surely put you in a better state of mind.

I will say there are edgecases of people that truly have issues, but I beleive your average add/adhd patient could do without it.

Another thought. We are bashing these kids that have problems conforming to or being a part of our schooling standards. Why do they have to conform, why are more schools not conforming to the add/adhd children? Why must we have to change our natural state of mind? It doesn't make sense to me that we have to take drugs and alter the natural way we were made because we are outspoken in class, or dont want to listen to a teacher lecture.

Rant is over.

</comment><comment><USER20> I've always been skeptical of ADHD diagnoses, thinking that it was widely over-diagnosed and a problem in American culture more than anything, and not as commonplace in reality. My googling took me to this article which suggests I am wrong:

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1525089/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1525089/)

<comment><USER8> I'm far from an expert on this, but I've always thought that the symptoms (inattention and/or impulsivity and hyperactivity) are only maladaptive in modern culture, where young people are expected to spend long hours sitting quietly at attention in school.

Is that a disease, or a flaw in modern culture?

<comment><USER21> The article addresses this issues: _One clinician quoted in the book more or less admits defeat: "We've decided as a society that it's too expensive to modify the kid's environment. So we have to modify the kid."_

<comment><USER8> The article briefly mentions the issue then moves on.

But is it true that "it's too expensive to modify the kid's environment" or simply that established powers make more money by "modifying the kid"?

<comment><USER22> In a way, those can both be true simultaneously. Just from the assumptions that the "established powers" make more money by modifying the kid implies that even if modifying the kid's environment cost $0, it would "cost" them lost profits of modifying the kid.

Costs are relative, and I think the point remains that the kid's parents are relatively powerless to alter the kid's environment significantly enough to solve the adhd problem. Thus, the decision of the cost/benefit analysis of modifying the environment vs modifying the kid falls to the "established powers", also known as, collective society.

<comment><USER8> By "established powers" I meant the people with enough political power to influence educational and medical policy.

As long as everyone with significant influence is comfortable with the status quo, there's little pressure to search for other options, even if many parents might prefer another option.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Why single out ADHD? What about over-diagnosis of depression and other mental illness? This kind of nonsense is fodder for those who believe ADHD and other disorders aren't a serious problem. What's the solution to overprescription which doesn't deny safe, life-changing drugs to those who need it?

"People deserve a wide range of treatment options"? Insightful. There _is_ a wide range of options, but stimulant medications are significantly more effective than anything else.

If faking symptoms for drugs is the concern here... why? How much effort should we really put into weeding out fakers at the expense of those in need? Stimulant medications used properly are incredibly safe and improve attention/focus in healthy people. Maybe it's time certain people stop forcing their outdated moral ideals on the rest of us.

</comment><comment> crack-the-code While I do think that ADHD is a real condition, I don't think that the solution is to medicate children with a very serious life changing drug that alters the core aspects of a child's personality and behavior.

The true solution is to revamp our country's education system and provide a framework that can accommodate the wide variety of personalities that come into the classroom. Instead of forcing children to think one way, we should let them think the way they NATURALLY think, and flourish with their native mindset.

I strongly recommend this eye-opening video for those of you who haven't already seen it: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U)

<comment><USER23> "I don't think that the solution is to medicate children with a very serious life changing drug that alters the core aspects of a child's personality and behavior. ... Instead of forcing children to think one way, we should let them think the way they NATURALLY think, and flourish with their native mindset."

This is wildly inaccurate and ignorant, and basically perfectly sums up why the problem isn't being treated effectively.

1) The drugs aren't serious and life changing and they don't alter core aspects of your personality. People seem to confuse the effects of mild stimulants like ritalin and adderall with the effects of powerful antidepressants like prozac (I blame South Park, et al). Stimulants can have negative side effects, but they're more along the lines of what you'd expect from too much coffee: loss of appetite, hyperalertness and sleep problems, in extreme cases twitchiness and cardiovascular problems. These are well- understood, and any doctor would adjust/halt the drug if they got worrying. In terms of personality, the person is just getting a boost to their deficient executive function. The net result could be that they're less likely to do things impulsively, but not that they're less likely to do things, period.

2) I'm all for letting children think how they're going to think, and agree that our education system is far too constraining and cookie-cutter. But there's a huge and meaningful difference between "let kids think how they want" and "don't treat problems that are preventing kids from thinking lucidly". Some excellent research has shown that even if parents and teachers bend over backwards to facilitate kids with ADHD, unless they get some kind of treatment (and medication is both much more effective and far less expensive than behavioral therapy) they're still going to struggle.

So what people who advocate "let (kids) think the way they NATURALLY think" are effectively saying is "let some non-negligible fraction of kids have a dramatically lower chance of success and happiness in life rather than acknowledge that they have a disorder and treat it".

<comment> crack-the-code To your first point, I would strongly disagree, and actually argue that you are the one being wildly inaccurate and ignorant. I know many people first- hand who were affected negatively from the drugs. As an example, I once had a very charismatic friend who was extremely bright, happy, and just fun to be around. In middle school, he started taking medication. He became detached, depressed, quiet, and generally dull. He would at times be himself, but overall, other friends and I noticed a drastic [negative] change in his behavior. To me, that is extremely serious, especially as a child where you are forming your character and social abilities and exploring your imagination. Another example, I have a cousin who takes the medication. Throughout her childhood, she experienced unusual and unpleasant side effects like headaches, stomach pain, anxiety, sleep issues, etc. Her doctors have rotated her through different medications, but it seems there was never a golden ticket with 0 side effects. You argue that these are negligible side effects, like coffee. I would say that these are much worse than coffee, at least in the extent of how they effect people, and at the same time would argue that it doesn't even matter if the effects WERE the same as coffee. Do you want your child to be on coffee and redbull? Not me. I know plenty of other people who experienced the same symptoms and personality changes I described here, and although that is not conclusive evidence, there seems to be a large consensus on this issue (as far as the side-effects and changes in personality). And if you think there is no chance of any long-term health consequences derived from prolonged use of these "mild stimulants" like ritalin and adderall, then I am going to reluctantly step back and say we should just agree to disagree.

To the second point, you seem to be confusing my observation as a call to blindly end the use of medication. My argument isn't that we must end the use of medication and ignore the issue, it was that we need an overhaul of the education system so that we can get rid of the pills and preserve the well- being of the children. Not a practical or easy solution, I agree, but it is an important one at the least. And of course there will be children who fall at the far end of the spectrum, where no matter how accommodating the system is, they will still need the assistance of medication to truly thrive. But at least we can safely say we tried at that point, instead of assuming that these children are all "troubled" and need big pharmamama to feed them the milk of corporate greed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> In the U.S. we force children to sit still through hours of classes, wonder why they get distracted, and then medicate them. In other countries kids get more breaks to expend energy and are then more attentive - e.g., [http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/06/how- fin...](http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/06/how-finland- keeps-kids-focused/373544/) "In every one of the experiments, students were more attentive after a break than before a break. They also found that the children were less attentive when the timing of the break was delayed—or in other words, when the lesson dragged on."

<comment><USER5> I agree. How do you expect children to sit in a class room for 7 hours a day?

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I got my diagnosis for ADD (and a few other stuff) a little more than a year ago when I was 19. For me, it's always been really "weird". I suppose I could share this personal anecdote here, in a hope that people stop seeing everything as binary. Sure, there is "big pharma" problem. I buy 150 USD worth meds on my own to know that (insurance does not cover it). But that doesn't/shouldn't hinder those who genuinely are in need of help, be it in form of medication, therapy, or just plain ol' family support.

Without and before the stimulants, absolutely nothing was urgent to me. Not showering, eating, getting work done, studying. Nope. It always came as a surprise when I used to see other folks deciding to do something, and then _actually_ getting it done! How is that even normal! Now, though, I realise that that's what "normal" is.

But that's just probably what others see as laziness? I don't know. Perhaps it is Executive dysfunction? But I am glad that I managed to get help, and ever since that, actually able to get myself together.

Having lived in India, mental illness is still taken as a taboo, at large. Nobody at my family, myself included, knew about even the existence of ADHD, let alone see a psych!

I remember my parents always being told: "Your kid can do better, but he doesn't study! If only." And this went on all the way till my second year at University, when the night before my end-term exam, I ended up with a breakdown because I __just could not__ manage to focus and study the material. I ended up barely passing the paper.

Not everything has been bad, though. There's always this phase of "super focus" for me -- I find something interesting, and then obsess over it until it isn't interesting anymore. Channelled in right direction, I managed to learn a __lot __in math, computer science and of course programming.

I do think that a lot of mass-education is needed with this regards.

</comment><comment><USER26> "We've decided as a society that it's too expensive to modify the kid's environment. So we have to modify the kid."

Unfortunately, we can't modify much of the environment without giving up a lot of what we have. And, that's the trade-off of rapid progress - evolution is no where near as fast. We probably should change the schools for many reasons. But, changing them so that they're somehow more natural is probably an impossible goal, at least until we invent more technology.

Humans have had to deal environmental diseases at every major milestone: choosing residential over nomadic; domesticating livestock; using grain as a primary food source; choosing urban over rural; inventing industry, the corporation, and desk jobs; inventing dangerous chemicals for products and fuel; inventing processed foods; inventing weapons of mass destruction. The diseases that have come with these have been trade-offs that we have accepted.

As a sufferer of several psychological diseases, I suspect that mine are all environmental in some way - stress, close-quarters living, giant social hierarchies, living by the calendar and clock, being exposed to all sorts of toxins, etc. My nature tells me that I should be out running through the forest and chasing game - not sitting at a desk and typing on a keyboard. But, am I going to live alone in the forest? Hell no; I enjoy what I have.

I take several psychological drugs, and they have awful side-effects. And, I self-medicate in other ways. But, those are the trade-offs that I've chosen to be able to do all the things that my mind conjures.

</comment><comment><USER27> I was diagnosed ADHD when I was 7 and the doctors put me on Ritalin.

This was the early 1970s when very little was known about how to prescribe the drug to children. The doctors put me on a dose of 20mg 3X per day. It almost killed me. I remember having an overdose in 2nd grade (at least now I know that it was a Ritalin overdose). 60mgs of Ritalin is high even for an adult much less a 7yo.

The teacher was required to distribute the pill to me mid-day. She would stop class, and say, "Rip, come up front and take your 'hyper pills.'" Thusly singled out, I would sheepishly trudge up to the front of the classroom and get my medication to the snickers off all my classmates. It was scarring.

Also my nighttime dose was usually enough to keep me awake all night. At that age I had night terrors which were exacerbated by the drug and lack of sleep. I'd return to school wiped out like a zombie.

I'm sure I did present with all the classic symptoms of ADHD: inattentiveness, restlessness, talkativeness, inability to complete tasks, constant need for interaction, etc.. I am still this way to a degree.

I'm pretty sure that nobody really bothered to try to understand what my home life was like. I was the only child of two raging alcoholics. They would get drunk and fight for hours 3-5X per week until all hours of the night. I was a terribly depressed, anxious child. And since the underlying cause of the anxiety (my horrible home) was never addressed, I've no doubt that to this day I carry around a form of PTSD from my childhood.

I'm sure there are many people from great homes with no external factors driving their ADHD. However, I know in my case, I suffered greatly from an untreated trauma, and was simply medicated so that I wouldn't disrupt my peers at school. It also didn't help that I have ~140IQ and found school absolutely tortuously boring until I finally got into an honors program in my high school. My peers were still struggling to read books aloud while I was knee- deep in LoTR.

How can we blame young children because they can't sit still and quiet day in and day out while absolutely nothing interesting ever happens? How is it that after years of being unable to complete homework assignments, nobody ever really started questioning what was happening at home?

Looking back, it is absolutely shameful how this was handled.

Treating behavioral problems in small children must begin with understanding and treating the possible behavioral problems of the adults first, otherwise it's just compounding the damage.

Interestingly when I got old enough to start using marijuana I quit the Ritalin. I found myself quite able to study on weed and my grades in college positively reflected my increasing marijuana consumption. My first year in college I used none, thinking that this would be best for my schooling, and I performed poorly. Thus discouraged, I figured that if school was going to go badly I might as well get high. My grades went from Cs and Bs to Bs and As and onto the Deans Honor Roll. I took my senior final in probabilistic modelling thoroughly blazed and broke the curve for the whole class.

Also interestingly, I cannot take other typical anti-anxiety meds. Anything in the benzo class, for example, causes terrifying complete amnesia even at low doses.

All anecdotal, I know, but I also know a lot of other people with more or less my same story.

<comment><USER28> I know exactly how you felt.

I was diagnosed with ADHD, OCD, and tourettes quite young, my mother and father separated when I was very young, and my mother had the habit of moving to a new town every 2 years. All of this lead to a less-than-stellar experience in school. I eventually made it onto the short-bus. As you were ridiculed as an individual in class, I was ridiculed by group association.

I don't know if my "IQ" was up there , but I was the kid making web-pages while my class-mates were doing the word-processing class. Obviously this meant I'd get terrible marks in class as I'd never get around to doing the work but that's the over-reaching theme of my experience in high-school.

So. Bored. Every. Day.

Except I didn't listen. Nope. When I was interested in something you could bet I'd be in the top-of-the class. If I wasn't, I'd probably not even finish it. Unlike you, who got though it, between my home life and everything else I didn't even finish. I dropped out in grade 10.

However I never really did have trouble focusing. I focused on what was important to me and now I'm in a place in my life where I'm happy and working in a skilled, knowledge-based career making great money for my age and I'm doing the things I've always wanted to.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Its important to note that in addition to supply-side forces increasing diagnoses, there are demand-side incentives as well.

I don't know how many parents are eager to put their kids on speed, but there are also accommodations provided by schools that they might very much want their kids to have. Like having the option to turn homework in late, or getting extra time on tests. Its worth noting that the option to turn homework in late is probably useless or worse for actual cases of ADHD, since it just moves the consequences of actions even further into the future, for people who have a deficiency in the ability to handle loose feedback systems (as opposed to tight feedback systems where consequences are immediate).

</comment><comment><USER30> Wish this article was not paywalled.

I believe I am "ADD" (not hyperactive) myself, and so is my 8 year old daughter, at least so far.

But I do not want her to get that label, and for the school system to label her that way, because the last thing I want is for them to demand that we medicate her.

When we are talking 5% or 10% of the population, from my perspective "disorder" starts being the wrong word to use. That is a significant enough of a percentage of the population that the classroom/workplace should adjust to _them_ not the other way around.

Somehow I've made that happen for my own life, with a lot of frustration. I just need to figure out how to make it work for my daughter.

</comment><comment><USER31> We don't have to give up modern education to meet the basic biological needs of children any more than we need to give up our jobs to be healthy adults. Initiatives like [http://standupkids.org/](http://standupkids.org/) demonstrate pretty clearly that there are plenty of obvious, easy ways that we can address these needs. The obvious answer as to why we haven't tried them yet is money. But that seems like a lazy explanation, because American schools are some of the best-funded in the world. I think it's really a reflection on how we in the West view child-rearing in general. I read a really interesting interview a few months back discussing Freud, where the psychologist being interviewed was basically saying that Freud's model was implicitly based on the shame he felt about his childhood self, how the relationship between therapist and subject is derived from the relationship between parent and child, and that every time Freud was speaking to a subject sitting in a chair in front of him, he was talking to his 8-year-old self. Ironically we tend to see the natural reaction of a child as somehow wrong. If a child can't sit in a chair for 3 hours, the child is wrong, rather than the idea of sitting in a chair for 3 hours. So as the article points out, the conversation begins as "How can we modify the children to fit the environments we've built for them" rather than "How can we modify the environments we've built for children to fit their needs?"

</comment><comment><USER32> I started taking these stimulants like vyvanse in college about five years ago. Although I can exhibit symptoms from time to time, I do not think at all that it is medically necessary for me. After trying them once, it made things a lot easier, and besides a few episodes, the good effects have been able to balance out the bad. I do get very worried occasionally though that I will have to suffer long term consequences. I am very much dependent though now this fear has not yet been strong enough to get me to stop.

</comment><comment><USER33> The article briefly mentions "hyperkinetic infants" and doesn't address the well known effects on neonates by the consumption of caffeine by pregnant women ([http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3420441?dopt=abstractplus](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3420441?dopt=abstractplus)) and the way advertisers market sugar and caffeine to children.

</comment><comment><USER34> Note that the author directly acknowledges the existence of ADHD in the book. His concerns are directed toward the pharmaceutical industry's push to increase sales of stimulant medications. From the article:

      Schwarz has no doubt that A.D.H.D. is a valid clinical entity that causes real
      suffering and deserves real treatment, as he makes clear in the first two
      sentences of the book: "Attention deficit hyperactivity is real. Don't let
      anyone tell you otherwise." But he believes that those who are disabled by the
      condition deserve a wider range of treatment options than an endless litany of
      stimulants with chirpy names like Vyvanse and Concerta.

In my experience, I think most patients, parents, and clinicians would readily agree that ADHD is over-diagnosed and over-medicated. It's surprisingly common on internet forums and threads like these to find people insisting that ADHD is over-diagnosed _in others_ , but that their own case of ADHD is genuine. Or parents who believe that stimulants are over-prescribed in general, but that their own child's case is an exception.

Clinicians feel this pain perhaps most directly. Few patients or parents arrive at the clinician's office seeking a diagnosis for their attentional symptoms without already having self-diagnosed themselves or their children as having ADHD using online tests, often from the pharmaceutical companies. Even fewer patients are open to alternative suggestions for addressing their problems, having already decided that they want a prescription for stimulants, and they want the exact stimulant formulation they saw online or heard about from their friend. It's an uphill battle for the clinician to argue against this, as denying patients the medication they've decided they need for themselves is a recipe for angry complaints that increasingly-busy clinicians don't really have time for.

The pharmaceutical industry knows full well that their target market tends to self-diagnose and decide what they want before ever stepping foot in to the doctor's office, and their marketing material is geared to maximize that effect. The ADHD information on the Vyvanse website, for example, reads more like a horoscope than a list of symptoms. From the Vyvanse website:

      Kids may make careless mistakes in schoolwork, have difficulty remaining focused in class, and seem not to listen when spoken to directly.

      Teens may avoid homework and may be easily distracted by many things, including unrelated thoughts.

      Adults may forget to keep appointments, pay bills, or return calls and avoid completing forms or reviewing paperwork.

Unfortunately I don't know what the solution might look like, as the blame is shared by patients, parents, clinicians, insurers, and pharmaceutical companies alike. The fact that we allow companies to market diagnoses and medication directly to people represents a massive conflict of interest, as this incentivizes them to appeal to the widest audience as possible.

Better education of patients and parents would go a long way toward dispelling some of the myths around ADHD. It's entirely normal and expected for teens and children to not want to do their homework and to be distracted at times, just as it's unrealistic to expect adults to never miss an appointment, bill, or phone call. Kids naturally want to play video games or browse YouTube instead of doing their homework. At some point these issues reach the level of ADHD, but that level is much higher than most of the population would like to believe when it comes to themselves or their children.

</comment><comment><USER35> I don't want to add anything further beside asking people who are about to comment how it's not a real disease to read the comments here, written by people who have ADHD or which friends and relatives struggle. Listening to them and whether it helps is much more relevant than any opinion or vision of a world without need for Ritalin.

</comment><comment><USER36> I've observed this whole drama unfold first hand. Having been born in the early 80's, I grew up on Ritalin and most of my classmates did too.

I actually _do_ have ADHD, but I'm unmedicated for well over 15 years now. This is completely by choice; every time a new doctor sees my medical history they basically ask in a rather pushy manner, "Ya want some pills for this?"

I didn't grow out of ADHD, but I have had to learn a lot of coping mechanisms. I can't work with silence, I always have to have music on. If I don't, I start wandering around the internet and getting nothing done.

Pair programming is basically God's Gift to ADHD. All of my team knows that they are encouraged, and appreciated if I'm driving and they're like, "Whoa you are WAAAAAY off on some tangent here. Our card says to do X, let's do X."

To-Do lists and journaling are a way of life. Note taking during meetings is simply a must. If I don't, my short term memory gets really slippery and I start interrupting people with questions and thoughts lest I forget them in the next 20 seconds.

But the point is, while I have all sorts of weird hoops to jump through, they really aren't things that normal, non-ADHD people don't do. I just rely on and need them far more than non-ADHD people. Yet every doctor wants to give me a prescription for my ADHD. This is extremely ironic give a later point in this comment.

Meanwhile, while medication isn't an answer _all the time_ , sometimes it is really the only option. Taking the medication is hell.

I know a group of people I grew up with who can't get through a workday without prescription stimulants. Then, they have to try to handle kids sporting events, social events, etc. on the weekends without it to try to keep their tolerances down. Still, those tolerances don't quite reset fully. Almost everyone in that group has to take regular PTO every 6 months and go off them for two weeks. They can't work. They can't clean the house. They can't care for their kids. It's pure misery. Sure, they may run off to a resort, but they're mostly just doing that so they can drink and sleep their way through withdrawals while their other half handles the kids.

In same group, there are a few that actively struggle to take their medication as prescribed as opposed to eating a 30 day supply in 10 days. We're talking getting the day's doses each morning from a significant other with the rest kept in a lock box that only said SO has the key.

Also, it's insanely embarrassing and stigmatized to get your medication filled when you're an adult. Pharmacies will be out of Ritalin when you show up to fill your prescription in the morning. "I don't know when we'll have more in, sorry." Then, a few days later you'll hear that same pharmacy filled your friend's daughter's prescription in 20 minutes a few hours after you left.

So on one hand, you have Big Pharma pushing the diagnosis and medication on children who are still neurologically developing. On the other hand, you have an informal cadre of pharmacists that think it's okay for kids to take this, but if an adult is taking it they're some meth'ed up tweaker. So kids who don't and probably shouldn't take these drugs are flooded with them. The adults that need it just to hold down a job and make rent can't get it.

The entire ADHD situation is just one massive, never ending mess. I'm so glad I'm on the lighter end of it and can side step the medication entirely.

<comment><USER37> > I can't work with silence, I always have to have music on. If I don't, I > start wandering around the internet and getting nothing done.

> Pair programming is basically God's Gift to ADHD.

Just keep in mind that there is a huge variation, not every AD(H)D-er is the same.

> Taking the medication is hell.

Then you should possibly contact your doctor, it shouldn't be that way as long as you follow the recommandations, but sometimes even minor changes can make major differences, even changes in dosage or even type based on the same active ingredient.

> Then, they have to try to handle kids sporting events, social events, etc. > on the weekends without it to try to keep their tolerances down.

This isn't R, is it?

<comment><USER36> > Just keep in mind that there is a huge variation, not every AD(H)D-er is the > same.

I covered this later on. The whole "sometimes medication is necessary" bit.

> Then you should possibly contact your doctor, it shouldn't be that way as > long as you follow the recommandations, but sometimes even minor changes can > make major differences, even changes in dosage or even type based on the > same active ingredient.

It's less the effects of the medication and more the way that medication impacts your life as an adult. You're often accused of not actually having ADHD and faking it for "legal meth". Some people actually struggle with the temptation to use recreationally.

> This isn't R, is it?

Relevant? Yes. It is. If you can't make it through a workday without your medication, you can barely handle your social life. ADHD trying to be social is always late, always harried, always forgets to bring the thing it promised to bring, and much more. Trust me, I can't tell you what my plans are for this weekend without checking my calendar and every appointment on that calendar has a checklist of things to bring if any.

The problem is, when you go off meds, it's ten times worse than if you never took medication. Alongside that, there are the usual stimulant withdrawal symptoms, though to a lesser degree if you're not taking above as prescribed.

The reason people do this is because if you find something that works for you and you take it daily, you'll be well past the maximum dosage in a few years. Then you'll have to change medications and that medication may not work as well or the same way. You also may end up with withdrawals.

Furthermore, you really do need a reserve of pills. The only way to get that is to skip doses. The legal structure around Schedule II drugs is fuzzy. Most pharmacists will only allow you to refill your medication 30 days from the fill date of a 30 day prescription to avoid liability. If you try to fill it and something goes wrong, you could be up the creek on a Sunday with a week of work ahead of you. Insurance, pharmacists refusing to fill a prescription because they suspect you're abusing (which is literally as little as, "I thought they looked strung out"), family emergencies, and everything else under the sun can cause this.

Also see the bit about pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions. This does actually happen, a lot.

Being prescribed a Schedule II substance is bad enough, but pharmacists and pharmacies tend to take adults and ADHD medications to the furthest limits legally possible to make your life a living hell. Imagine if schizophrenia medication was that difficult and strict to keep a steady supply of. They have trouble getting a refill and it's completely within the realm of possibility they could lose their job (or worse).

Same thing with people with serious, debilitating ADHD.

<comment><USER37> >> Just keep in mind that there is a huge variation, not every AD(H)D-er is the same.

> I covered this later on. The whole "sometimes medication is necessary" bit.

I was just thinking about the ways to cope, music/sound, pair programming. I know not every ADHD-er prefer pair programming.

>> Then you should possibly contact your doctor, it shouldn't be that way as long as you follow the recommandations, but sometimes even minor changes can make major differences, even changes in dosage or even type based on the same active ingredient.

> It's less the effects of the medication and more the way that medication > impacts your life as an adult. You're often accused of not actually having > ADHD and faking it for "legal meth". Some people actually struggle with the > temptation to use recreationally.

That's a shame if you ask me and you have my sympathy here.

>> This isn't R, is it?

> Relevant? Yes. It is. If you can't make it through a workday without your > medication, you can barely handle your social life. ADHD trying to be social > is always late, always harried, always forgets to bring the thing it > promised to bring, and much more. Trust me, I can't tell you what my plans > are for this weekend without checking my calendar and every appointment on > that calendar has a checklist of things to bring if any.

I know what you mean.

> The problem is, when you go off meds, it's ten times worse than if you never > took medication.

This is where our experiences differ

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> There are books like "The Shallows" which make a case that the internet is shortening our attention spans. Could this lead to someone developing ADHD?

<comment><USER39> No. Modern understanding is that it is hereditary and only can be amplified by environment, but it is either you have it, or you don't.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> What are the ADHD rates of children in countries with better school systems like South Korea or Sweden?

Are other countries even diagnosing these symptoms as much as the USA?

</comment><comment><USER32> I challenge someone to provide evidence enough to scare me into stopping. Go ahead, save my life

<comment><USER41> >> I challenge someone to provide evidence enough to scare me into stopping. Go ahead, save my life

From TFA: Schwarz traces the Icarus-like trajectory of Richard Fee, an aspiring medical student who fakes the symptoms of A.D.H.D. to get access to drugs that will help him cope with academic pressure. When he eventually descends into amphetamine psychosis, his father tells his doctor that if he doesn't stop furnishing his son with Adderall, he'll die. Two weeks after burning through his supply, Fee hanged himself in a closet.

Are you sure your supply will never be disrupted?

<comment><USER36> To be honest that's stereotypical of someone who was taking far, far more of their pills than prescribed. Most people, while they're prescribed a 30 day supply, skip pills on the weekends and vacations to maintain lower tolerances. They typically "save" those pills for one of three reasons:

1) The pharmacist at your pharmacy randomly decides you're a tweaker and you have to spend 2 weeks finding a new pharmacy.

2) PARTY TIME!!!

3) Pulling an all nighter and surviving the next day.

Without the book handy and the whole medical school bit, I'd say it was 3, except it was more like a couple-dayer without sleep.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> >Psychiatrists are not that much different from witch doctors

I wish you had said this several comments ago.

We have nothing to discuss here.

<comment><USER42> I agree that that was an inflammatory statement that went over the top, but please keep internet tropes of rudeness off HN. They send bad signals into the community.

We detached this comment from [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12345614](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12345614) and marked it off-topic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> I get really skeptical whenever someone uses the term "Big Pharma". 99% of the time the person using it is selling something (hey, look, a $28 book).

How dare a pharmaceutical company sell a product? How dare doctors decide to prescribe medicine? While that was slightly melodramatic, here is a quote from the article:

 _Schwarz has no doubt that A.D.H.D. is a valid clinical entity that causes real suffering and deserves real treatment, as he makes clear in the first two sentences of the book: "Attention deficit hyperactivity is real. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise." But he believes that those who are disabled by the condition deserve a wider range of treatment options than an endless litany of stimulants with chirpy names like Vyvanse and Concerta._

... Great, so it all boils down to the pharma companies not creating enough drugs for ADHD? But it's their fault that there are too many drugs? I am not particularly impressed, and to me it feels like the author is just manufacturing conflict for the sake of selling a book.

<comment><USER44> The quote says:

 _> a wider range of treatment options than an endless litany of stimulants_

Notice the "than an endless litany of stimulants" part. Saying something like:

> so it all boils down to the pharma companies not creating enough drugs for > ADHD?

afterwards almost seems like you are intentionally misconstruing this.

Is it not possible that the author wants "Big Pharma" to spend time researching alternative treatments rather than just cranking out "yet another stimulant?" Is it not possible that the author wants more non-medicinal treatments to be explored?

\---

That said, I think that "Big Pharma" has earned its negative moniker. Just look at the front-page story from yesterday about EpiPen prices being jacked up to the point where people may not be able to afford them. I don't think that being against price gouging a "captive audience" in a way that possibly threatens their health is the same thing as being against "a pharmaceutical company selling a product."

<comment><USER45> > Is it not possible that the author wants "Big Pharma" to spend time > researching alternative treatments

Or _society_ to do that; relying on Big Pharma to spend money directly contrary to Big Pharma's interests doesn't seem like it makes a lot of sense.

<comment><USER44> Whether you consider the opinion right or wrong is beside the point that I was making (that the parent to my post seemed to be "tilting at windmills"). Saying that the author has an inconsistent position of "there are too many drugs" and "there need to be more drugs" seems like a poor reading of that sentence.

<comment><USER43> I understand the point you are making, but in reality drugs will get developed based on their likely risk/reward ratio only.

If you want more diversity, unless there is a non-market force (which honestly shouldn't be needed here, there is high demand), pharma companies will just keep picking at the lowest hanging fruit.

Eventually, they'll get up to the non-stimulant variety, but developing an entirely new class of drugs is a Herculean effort with very low likelihood of payoff. To make it work, you need more data on the disease (e.g. more time), and some luck out of academia (which is where 99% of drugs come from anyway). They will also need a lot of money to do it, so anything they can produce in the meantime is essentially on that track. Thus, the wording "even more drugs".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> I tried to read the whole article but couldn't sit long enough. Perhaps I need a drug.</comment>


What exactly is Full Stack these days? - <AUTHOR> I don't know if it's just me, but I'm getting pissed off at job requirements. For example, below:
<comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>====
The ideal candidate has the following qualifications:
Deep understanding of front-end JavaScript development using libraries such as React, Angular, etc. Basic understanding of AWS Services, such as Lambda, API Gateway, CodeCommit, CodeBuild, CodeDeploy, and CodePipline Expert in CSS/HTML5 Deep understanding of development using either Python, Node, or Ruby Comfortable and excited about interacting with clients and end users Expertise in developing under Linux or OS X Desire to pursue AWS Development Certifications toward expert-level achievement Familiarity with SQL and NOSQL databases Experience with orchestration tools such as Ansible, Salt, Chef, or Puppet Experience with Vagrant or Docker
Familiarity with continuous integration systems such as Jenkins or Bamboo Familiarity with tracking systems such as JIRA Ability to work independently and collaboratively – self-motivated, accountable, and able to offer up new ideas Critical thinking, troubleshooting, and problem-solving talents A balance of technical, business, and social/emotional intelligence Passion about learning coupled with an ability to learn new skills quickly
</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>====
Oh really!?!? So, you're looking for a sysadmin, a backend developer, a front-end developer and you expect them to be socio/emotionally well balanced?!
Is this an exercise for the hiring manager to feel better about themselves? Face meet palm, they're trying to hire Superman.
Fuck the hell off. </comment><comment> r-s "Full Stack" dev here, been coding for 16 or so years. CS degree in there somewhere.

I've used every one of those technologies with the exception of Salt (Nothing against it, just have not used it). I don't think I am that much of a rare breed. Some of the AWS technologies many would not be exposed too, but learning an AWS build pipeline is not difficult if you have used competitors.

I don't think that is that crazy of a job description. If someone has focused on breadth of skill over depth, you are going to run across most of those technologies (With the exception of some of the AWS services I don't see that much).

Ive mostly worked for startups and its not uncommon for me to write front end modern javascript, build backends, orchestrate deployment pipelines and be involved in a sales call all in a single day.

I am very far from superman. Its pretty easy to be "Ok" at many technologies. Its pretty hard to be truly great at a single technology. I admire those who truly master a specific technology but I learned that my strength is breadth over depth. I am sure if a truly seasoned JS developer saw some of my frontend code they would have lots of suggestions for improvement, but that is fine by me. I can build stuff which meets the intended goals and generally everyone is happy.

<comment><USER2> Pretty much agree with what r-s has written above.Have spent 11+ years working/consulting for mostly startups. Have used everything listed above except Salt (Nothing against it but the Salt team should look to so some PR and build their case) and a lot more.

For example, this job post mentions nothing about monitoring solutions like Zabbix or centralized logging solutions like Graylog or message queues like RabbitMQ or any of the myriad specialized data stores, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I guess it all comes down to what they mean by "basic understanding", "experience" and "familiarity". I am pretty inexperienced with modern web developer, but I still have a basic understanding what the difference AWS services do (ie I've read the description of them on the AWS homepage). I have experience with Vagrant and Docker (ie I've installed and played around with both and some point). I'm familiar with tracking systems such as JIRA (although not actually JIRA).

Basically don't read too much into lists like this. As long as you've heard of everything on the list and are good at two of the most import ones you're probably good to go.

</comment><comment><USER4> When I see job descriptions like this, I think one of two things: (1) either they don't know who they want, or (2) they don't know what they are making. Part of me wonders if they are trying to convey how smart and relevant they are. Of, perhaps, this is what happens when you write content with SEO in mind.

My personal red flag is the 'development certification'. Most of the certifications I have seen are more about the appearance of expertise than having actual expertise. This is something that you almost exclusively see in large bureaucracies, which leads me to believe that (1) -- they don't know who they want -- is the case and they are using a scatter-shot approach.

<comment><USER5> Certifications are big for consulting type jobs like the one OP described as it helps the clients gain confidence. This description even stated that they just want you to get it after you are hired, which is fine. Many developers will put it off or refuse to do it so it's good to set that expectation up front.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I see nothing here that an inept individual with a 4 year degree and an attuned interest in the industry couldn't achieve within 10 years. Much less if they are motivated and establish healthy habits.

I don't see bullet-proof or laser vision on the list.

Besides, wouldn't you want to know all of this? The bigger your tool set, the better your development.

<comment><USER7> But they'd need to also be read tea leaves and predict that there will be this job ad back in 2008, so they can spend 10 years fine tuning their career and tech choice of stacks to suit this ad, imposing CV-driven development as collateral damage at every company they have worked for.

... Or they could have purchased 1000 bitcoins for $10. :-)

<comment><USER8> Eh it just optimizes for someone with high intellectual curiosity imo ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

<comment><USER7> Imagine tech stacks are lottery balls. And they ask for 6 specific ones. What are the odds that you've picked the right balls? Unless we are talking about quantum humans that can learn all the things at the same time.

<comment><USER6> Staying informed, daily, on trends and reading the latest material helps the individual to adjust to meet the changing industry.

Study Computer Science, pick up a few languages, familiarize yourself with various technologies, read white papers and journals, and connect with experienced professionals in the industry. You needn't be fully prepared for all of the requirements, you need only be cognizant of the evolution of the industry and quick to study advancements in your field (as with just about any industry).

<comment><USER7> I think the job wants people with experience in those technologies, not just people who have read about them on HN.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I am a "Full Stack" engineer with 2 years of experience working for a small company. Worked in everything of that except Ruby include ios(swift,Objective C),android,Java,Scala,MySql,DynamoDb,MongoDb. It was frustrating at the start and then it became a joy.But then not sure if I am good at any of those. The same day I would be fixing a Jenkins build, write some Node and fix bugs in the ios code base, completely normal. I am not ashamed to show off.

</comment><comment><USER10> That is an hilarious list of expectations. It's akin to announcing they have an concept for a product and no idea how to make it so you'll have to know and do everything that might possibly be needed to accomplish it from start to finish including the patience to address their every whim along the way.

They don't say how long they'll give you to make it but I'd bet they'll expect it ready to ship in a few weeks or a month at most :D

<comment><USER11> I just envision this drag and drop idyllic list where recruiters/HR say to themselves "sure, why not A, B,C... and P, Q, R S T languages"

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I fail to see the issue with this post. Frankly, if you are learning and willing to try new technologies across areas of the web dev stack you should have a grasp on 80% of these things at least (I didn't say expertise).

What I am more surprised by is the unwillingness by many - indicated in the comments - to explore things outside their domain.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not sure you parsed the description correctly. They're not looking for someone with a mere grasp on these technologies.

</comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>===

* Deep understanding of front-end JavaScript development using libraries such as React, Angular, etc.

Deep understanding of means you know these frameworks and libraries well. If you know these libraries well, you're a front end developer. The title front end developer exists solely because people need to focus exclusively in this area because the job is both challenging and complex.

* Expert in CSS/HTML5

Ok, not too crazy. But I wouldn't expect the Bootstrap guys to know sysadmin tools.

* Deep understanding of development using either Python, Node, or Ruby

So in addition to deep understanding of the front end, we also want someone deeply skilled in a general purpose programming language. AFAIK you can't have a deep understanding without being deeply skilled.

* Desire to pursue AWS Development Certifications toward expert-level achievement

Ok, so sysadmin/devops guy.

* Experience with orchestration tools such as Ansible, Salt, Chef, or Puppet

Sysadmin/devops guy.

* A balance of technical, business, and social/emotional intelligence

Basically we want someone that can do it all. Don't let all those requirements break your confidence. Leave that imposter syndrome at home!

</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>==

I wouldn't say it's an unwillingness. It's just not realistic. There's a reason cardiology and neurology are separate fields.

This job description to me doesn't read as "we're looking for someone who's handy". They want three people for one job. To me it's a bit appalling.

<comment><USER13> As long as they are willing to pay three salaries it should be OK.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The candidate that fits all these requirements wouldn't be looking at their job posting.

<comment><USER2> Agree.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Is that the job description for senior level+? It honestly doesn't sound unreasonable to assume a senior+ engineer to have experience with all of these technologies in this day and age. Software development tools have come a long way in the past decade and it's become possible for a generalist full stack dev to learn about and use every part of this (not having to be an expert in any, of course).

I'd say the more problematic part of hiring is in the interview stage, where inevitably you'll be asked questions around binary search trees, merge sorts, and the like. (Admittedly, I am also guilty of using such interview questions myself in the past as an interviewer.) I find that it's actually more reasonable to expect knowledge and working experience with all the tech tools you listed, than actually asking about inverting a binary search tree. I don't have good answers for what one should ask instead.

<comment><AUTHOR> I imagine it is a more senior role. While it's not uncommon somebody has "experience" in those items listed, it all comes down to what exactly that experience is. Dabbling in miscellaneous AWS services IMHO is a lot different from someone managing 11 billion requests/day and the challenges there.

So true re: binary search trees, merge sorts, and the like. I think web dev's need to realize their real world work has more to do with plumbing than it does dealing with programming puzzles.

Unless you're FB or operating at web scale.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I don't think that's too bad though - I'd prefer them to clarify what they mean by 'deep' vs 'basic' understanding, but I certainly know a few developers with 3-5 years experience who could comfortably tick the box

<comment><AUTHOR> You need them to clarify deep understanding? If someone said they wanted a candidate to have a deep understanding of jet engines, I'd expect they know every single thing there is to know about them.

<comment><USER16> except we're not talking about jet engines - I was asking at what point does basic become deep, hence the next remark referring to 'years of experience' as a benchmark

<comment><AUTHOR> Really? At what point does basic become deep?

<comment><USER2> When you stop consulting stackoverflow to find answers to your queries because you know that you know more than the most people browsing and willing to answer your question on stackoverflow. Or when you start answering questions on a topic rather than just reading answers posted by others.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Not only would the ideal candidate have the above experience, they would also have to be able to pass whatever interview process they have lined up.

When a company wants such a broad skillset/range of experience, how would they interview for it?

Unrelated edit: I looked up the job post, and one of the listed benefits is "2 weeks paid vacation". Personally I would need more time off to decompress from constantly being pulled in different directions.

</comment><comment><USER18> This person does not exist. It is a myth created in Silicon Valley. What 'Full Stack' should really mean is someone who can learn new technical skills real fast. Someone with a passion for learning and implementing what she learns. In an ever-expanding technology scope, it is really impossible to know it all, but one can be on a journey to be curious and learn the skills that the job needs.

</comment><comment><USER19> IMHO, a Full Stack developer would be someone able to bootstrap a project on his/her own. He/Her doesn't need someone else to have an MVP in production.

But I agree that the job requirements you gave as an example are insane, you can't be an expert in every stack of a product. At least not with the current implicit age requirement of the industry.

</comment><comment><USER20> What do you expect from a job these days?

"Has skills in a single area"?

To be honest, it's not that hard to gain a bit of familiarity with all this tech.

<comment><AUTHOR> See my reply above...

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> > sysadmin (devops), a backend developer, a front-end developer

That's basically what full-stack means. I don't get what's your problem with this is.

<comment><AUTHOR> My understanding of full stack is frontend + backend web development. Sysadmin/devops is it's own discipline.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> When I see something like that I just run away and don't look back.

</comment><comment><USER7> But but they have a ping pong table and infinite vacay!

</comment><comment><USER8> Lol idk if you've been doing this stuff for 20 years you'll have those skills ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

<comment><AUTHOR> Probably except this one: A balance of technical, business, and social/emotional intelligence.

More than likely someone with this sort of technical capacity doesn't score well in other areas.

<comment><USER2> Have to disagree a bit. If you aim to have this level and breadth of skill over a n-year period where n<5, yeah, your personal and social life would suck.

But if this is built over 5+ years by reading, doing and learning from others and teaching others while understanding what level of abstraction/detail meets the current and future business requirements reasonably well, it's not that difficult or rare.</comment></comment></comment>


Europe mostly ends mobile roaming fees from today - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/15/europe-mostly-ends-mobile-roaming-fees-from-today <comment><USER2> This idea was good. But in reality what happened in Latvia was very simple and expected move by telcos - all three of them raised prices for all subscriptions by about 3€-4€ monthly (which is ~30% increase). Yes, now you can feel better while traveling, however everyone now pays extra every single month. For some situation now is better, while others pay for it even if they do not need such freedom. Those who are in first category are happy, others not so much.

Edited: It's interesting to see how comment which states facts, can get upvoted and downvoted this much. Sometimes voting in HN does not make any sense (to me). I understand that upvote is "thanks for letting us know those facts". What are downvotes representing? That I should not write at all, that price increase for all 3 telcos is fine, that everyone should be happy? Rhetorical question.

<comment><USER3> This doesn't really make sense - what was stopping them from raising prices before, if people are really willing to pay 3-4 EUR more?

<comment><USER4> It's good timing because it will have the customers "blaming Europe" for the cost increase rather than the Telcos.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> A lot of people complaining here. I am based in Luxembourg currently, and went to London last week. The peace of mind of landing in a foreign city and being able to use your phone as if at home truly is incredible. I could really feel the barriers to traveling fading. (Ironic that it was London, I know). BTW, my Luxembourghish telco actually aligned with the EU directive ahead of time (June 1st).

<comment><USER6> Agreed. I now use Google Fi (free roaming in 150 countries) but that didn't use to exist.

When I was doing an internship in Switzerland about 9 years ago I often travelled to nearby countries on weekends and internet access was always a problem. Free Wi-Fi was largely nonexistent back then, and roaming charges were upwards of USD15 per _megabyte_ (yes, _mega_ ). Simply trying to use Google Maps to get to a hostel might cost more than the cost of staying at the hostel. And being on a prepaid plan, there was always the risk of accidentally clicking on an ad and burning up all of the quota that I purchased, leaving me stranded without internet access.

I relied mostly on printed paper maps that summer.

I always thought it made zero sense in a part of the world where crossing country borders could be an everyday occurrence especially if you live close to a border.

I also thought it made absolutely zero sense that the various Oranges and various T-Mobiles of different countries don't have free roaming plans with each other. Why didn't Orange UK, Orange France, Orange Switzerland, Orange Egypt, Orange Romania, etc. work together to give free calls and free internet access on each others' networks, routing everything over IP? They could have won over a bunch of business customers by doing that and killed some competitors.

<comment><USER7> > Why didn't Orange UK, Orange France, Orange Switzerland, Orange Egypt, > Orange Romania, etc. work together to give free calls and free internet > access on each others' networks

Because they made boatloads of profit from charging their customers for roaming.

<comment><USER6> Sure, but they could instead sweep all the customers away from their competition since the same parent company has a foot in multiple countries. They could have even undercut business from Skype by offering almost-free roaming.

Also, if roaming charges are prohibitively expensive, people just stop using roaming. If they are at least reasonable, they will profit significantly more because people will actually use it. At $15/MB I just shut my phone off. They're not making any money from me.

<comment><USER8> > At $15/MB I just shut my phone off. They're not making any money from me.

They didn't need you. Their real customers back at the time were businessmen with next-to-unlimited travel funds.

These days it has changed because especially young people demand being able to Instagram/Snapchat their travels from anywhere... but still data in Germany is horribly expensive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Here in Switzerland we have some of the highest mobile prices ($30+) [1], yet our mobile providers will not remove the fee like the rest or Europe. Our politician try to enforce every single new EU-law, but when there's once something that would benefit the people, they come up with many excuses why this couldn't be applied and how Switzerland isn't part of the EU and doesn't have to follow through...

[1] [https://www.swisscom.ch/en/residential/mobile/subscription-t...](https://www.swisscom.ch/en/residential/mobile/subscription- tariffs.html)

<comment><USER10> Amazing, $30 is considered high for a mobile plan. In Canada it's the price of the lowest end plan from the lowest end provider. A plan from a big name provider will be at least $60 with capped data.

<comment><USER9> Is that USD or CAD?

$30 is also among the lower prices you have to pay for a plan in Switzerland. But it's kind of hard to define, since there many variables (data speed, data cap, phone call prices, coverage, etc).

Most people I know are running on $60 to $100 plans.

I'm looking forward to when my company is paying my mobile bill.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Moving more freely in EU why are people against that? Sure LT, LV, Poland, Romania etc probably got a slight raise. At the same time these countries are heavily subsidized by the rest of the countries already. What they also have is alot of people working abroad… so then they are allowed to surf with their cheap plans in not so cheap countries.

I can also note that this law has resulted in alot more unlimited plans. I myself have just gotten one which includes 30gb of roaming. Is it cheaper than before? Hell no. Do I have to care about how much I surf, when or where? Not anymore - and freedom is worth the extra €20.

<comment><USER12> As an American I was shocked at how cheap cell phone plans already are in Europe. You can get a great 4GB data SIM for like 10 euros, where it would easily be several times that in the US. My Verizon unlimited plan is $86/month per person, and even that is a special thing that's grandfathered in.

<comment><USER13> It's not so bad if you shop around. T-Mobile has a PAYG SIM card that is $30/month for 5GB of data, unlimited texts and 100 minutes of calls.

I suspect part of the difference in price is due to geography - the US has vast, vast areas of unpopulated land that people still want to receive cell coverage in. Europe has less of that. It would be interesting to see the customer response to a new US network that I'd cheaper but only covers major metro areas.

<comment><USER14> USA has twice the population density of Finland, for which Sami_Lehtinen quotes prices in the sibling comment.

So it's not that, or not just that at least.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm wondering why the regulation was necessary and why the free market forces didn't bring the prices or roaming down? What are the forces in telecom industry that kept the prices so high (assuming that the prices were higher then necessary)?

<comment><USER16> Because it's a confusopoly[1] and roaming charges (like data overage charges) weren't part of the headline offer, which was generally _UNLIMITED calls and texts and a FREE phone when you pay £X per month_.

Same as 'free' banking in the UK, which is in reality heavily cross-subsidised by the poorest customers paying overdraft penalties.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confusopoly](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confusopoly)

<comment><USER17> Roaming is relatively niche, but very expensive product, compared to other telecommunication services, so in my opinion it was fair to charge additional fee for that.

Now that EU regulation is in place mobile operators are no longer allowed to charge the additional cost to people actually using roaming, they have to spread it across all their customers. So, net effect will be: poor people who do not use roaming (e.g. because they cannot afford vacations abroad) will pay for the convenience of middle and higher class people who travel a lot.

<comment><USER18> > So, net effect will be: poor people who do not use roaming (e.g. because > they cannot afford vacations abroad) will pay for the convenience of middle > and higher class people who travel a lot.

You'd have to be fairly destitute to not be able to afford to travel within Europe[1]. For example, even people on social welfare in the UK and Ireland can afford cheap sun holidays to Spain or wherever.

[1] [https://www.ryanair.com/gb/en/cheap-flight- destinations](https://www.ryanair.com/gb/en/cheap-flight-destinations)

<comment><USER19> However, people on social welfare in Spain hardly can afford a cheap... (ok not sun) holidays in UK and Ireland.

Not to mention Latvia or Bulgaria.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is great, now I can ditch my UK Three SIM that I've had for years simply because they implemented a "feel at home" kind of policy long ago, where roaming within the EU is free. There was always a data limit, and you can't tether your phone to your laptop which was annoying, but it's been great for me who's been travelling in the EU frequently. Now I can drop that extra £30/month cost and don't have to carry extra SIMs. I love it.

<comment><USER21> As far as I know, the data limit is whatever your tariff normally gives you - no more, no less. I wouldn't be surprised if the other carriers have a no- tethering-while-roaming rule too.

<comment><USER22> EE are good with tethering and roaming speeds.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Result around here: roaming disappeared from all mobile plans except for the most expensive ones, which got nudged a few euros up.

The frequent travellers (presumably wealthier) get subsidized by the infrequent travellers (presumably less wealthier).

<comment><USER24> Infrequent travelers will also profit. If you're from Northern Europe going to Spain for vacation you now don't have to change money, don't have any border checks and can use your phone like at home. Using Facebook, Instagram & Co on holiday is important to many and will make people feel more "at home" in another EU country.

This was never supposed to save money, it was to bring the EU closer together and make borders disappear further.

Business travelers had fees paid by their employer anyway, not that much changed for them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> this is all nice and dandy but it's still only half job, since this doesn't mean there are no charges for international calls

so yes receiving calls or using internet will be same as home, you still have to watch what number you are calling, if it's from country of your carrier or different

please correct me if I am wrong

EDIT: so I was right, now it's even more insane than before:

For example: If you have a Belgian card and you travel to France and call either a hotel in France, back home to Belgium, or to any other country in the EU and the EEA, you are roaming (refer to legal text on the regulation on roaming) , and you will pay Belgian internal domestic prices (refer to legal text).

However, if a Belgian SIM card holder calls from Belgium to Spain, she/he will pay the international tariff. Calls from home to another EU country are not roaming and are not regulated.

source: [https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single- market/en/faq/frequently...](https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single- market/en/faq/frequently-asked-questions-roam-home)

TLDR: there are no fees for international calls while you are in roaming, but when you return back home enjoy fees for international calls, using your SIM in foreign network is cheaper than using it in your own network at home

</comment><comment><USER26> It was about time; it will also help a lot with short-term mobility around the EU.

</comment><comment><USER27> Cool, just as Brexit looks to be falling apart under its own incompetence.

<comment><USER28> Whether this gets reversed after Brexit remains to be seem. Given mobile phones behaviour it seems likely.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I am wondering how much extra cost the operators for a roaming call, in both case A where both phones are on same operator and in second case where second person is on a second operator.

<comment><USER24> I'd guess that there's no extra cost for an operator like Vodafone if they have a roaming client using data. Mobile data will not go back to the home country and peering costs are similar throughout Europe. Phone calls have to be routed to the home country but that's not a significant cost item.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> well that's nice. at least i can call from belgium now when i will be there on saturaday. however if it is true that all the phone bills go up now then it is just a policy that lets poor workers subsidize rich travellers. that is an ethical problem. however we need to move on with european integration. the current system allows far too many loopholes for rich tax avoiders (who mostly move their money where tax is low) so any integration is a good one.

</comment><comment> k-mcgrady From reading this thread it seems that telecoms companies and the EU need to make it much more clear what is actually happening. Half the people commenting here have one experience and the other half have the complete opposite. It's probably difficult to know how this will all shake out for a couple of years considering most of us are locked into multi-year contracts.

</comment><comment><USER31> Prepaid wireless plans in America are marketed as being cheaper than long term contracts. San Francisco tacks on a 23 percent fee to prepaid wireless plans.

[http://www.prepaidphonenews.com/2016/03/california-boe- relea...](http://www.prepaidphonenews.com/2016/03/california-boe-releases-new- prepaid.html)

<comment><USER24> You should move to a more densely populated country ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> What is the correct European SIM to buy for data/voice/etc. (prepaid)? Presumably best to get one from a country you don't actually visit much, so you're always roaming, and thus don't pay the home to foreign number charges?

<comment><USER33> Uk three. Uk is the only sane (at least on this topic) country left in the EU in which you could buy a sim card without photo id.

<comment><USER34> This seems incorrect. I've traveled around in EU and haven't seen a single ID check for SIMs yet. Where is this happening? In my home country of Estonia we even have SIMs being given away for free on the streets as advertisement.

<comment><USER32> Germany (O2) had an obnoxious check. The dude bitched at me because I had a copy of my passport "saved in the cloud" (it was in 1Password local on my phone; given that the US, RU, CN, JP, UA, MY etc governments all have copies of my passport already, it's a whole lot less sensitive than anything else I have in a local-only encrypted database on my phone. It took about 30m to go through the process.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I wonder if prepay will work with same rates while roaming. I'm in Italy now with 20GB of data from TIM... I'd like to continue using it in Slovenia, but somehow I'm doubting this will work.

</comment><comment><USER36> The article lists the 28 EU countries, but note that this is true for the countries of the European Economic Area too: Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.

</comment><comment><USER37> Does anybody know what this might mean for Phi users?

</comment><comment><USER38> Unfortunately, there is still one important limitation: we will keep the fees for the traffic from our home countries.

<comment><USER39> No, calling foreign numbers costs the same in both your country and abroad. And it's usually more expensive on mobile networks, but that doesn't have anything to do with roaming.

<comment><USER38> I misunderstood, I read things again and you are right.

<comment><USER40> This isn't correct - these regulations only apply when roaming. In your home network the operator can charge what it likes for intra-EU calls.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> for people like me who don't understand how the fees work

[http://prepaid-data-sim-card.wikia.com/wiki/European_Union](http://prepaid- data-sim-card.wikia.com/wiki/European_Union)

</comment><comment> throwaway-1209 As a TMobile customer in the US, tongue in cheek question: what's a "roaming fee"? It's kinda cool when your phone just works worldwide. That's the way it ought to be, imo.

</comment><comment><USER41> Ah! Central regulations brought us inefficient telco monopolies and cartels.

Surely some more central regulations will remedy the situation! "To each according to his needs." What could possibly go wrong?

<comment><USER42> Well, the reason why there is so much telco competition in Europe, and the prices are so low, is that the EU set common standards for mobile phone protocols from the start. Each company cannot keep its customers from going to the competition, I have been able to buy one phone which works with every company everywhere in the continent for decades. Everyone I know buys a phone (often second hand) then moves from one company to another to get the best deal. The problem with the US is not regulation, it is bad regulation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Yeah, the telcos have already found a way out. They simply remove EU roaming from their standard subscriptions and it now becomes an add-on.

So if you want to use your phone in a different country during the holidays, you'll need an EU roaming subscription.

The politicians once again failed to be sufficient precise in formulating a law that would produce the decided result. They should have added a clause that state that all subscriptions are to cover the entire EU.

<comment><USER44> You are probably way too negative. Yeah, some telcos are looking for ways around it, and some plans will become a bit more expensive, temporarily. However, there is healthy competetion in most European telecoms markets. So it is very likely that over the mid term, competition will push prices down.

Why is it so damn hard to be happy about a giant step forward, just because it doesn't happen in the most perfect way? (what does?!).

<comment><USER43> Competition in the Danish market isn't actually health. It's good for the consumers, but the providers are running on extremely low margins compared to pretty much anywhere else.

It's basically the world's toughest market for mobile telephony.

<comment><USER45> This sounds exactly what the free market is always sold on: lowest prices for consumers, only the most effective businesses stay afloat...

<comment><USER43> True, but the same free market allowed the phone companies to charge exorbitant prices for EU roaming.

Telenor and Telia wanted to merge in Denmark last year, but wasn't allowed to, because it would hurt customers, so the free market isn't really in play anymore.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> I never saw why this interference in the free market was needed when it was making progress, and in some circumstances already provided solutions to the problem

on Three I've had free roaming for years, at no additional cost, across the EU and a good chunk of the rest of the world

[http://www.three.co.uk/feel-at-home](http://www.three.co.uk/feel-at-home)

<comment><USER47> iirc 3 introduced this service when it was announced that these regulations were underway.

<comment><USER48> Correct. It's difficult to see if that was causation though, as Three had already had "Feel at home" in 2013 when discussions started in the EU about this legislation.

<comment><USER49> The first steps towards this happened in 2005, with the first regulations passed in 2007. 2013 is just the last tightening after the providers once again dragged their feet enough to finally get the Commission to accept they wouldn't do it voluntarily.

<comment><USER48> Ah, my bad! I was under the wrong impression then. Thanks for informing. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> So the cost incurred will be passed on to everyone in higher fees.

eg people who never "roam" are going to be subsidising those people that do.

A negative move spun as a positive... clever EU, clever.

<comment><USER51> Roaming costs are price gouging, the associated costs of providing roaming are nowhere near.

<comment><USER19> However, now EU regulates the price to consumers to be lower than the wholesale price of roaming charges between operators. That is a failure. They should regulate the wholesale price.

In practice: I pay 20 € per month for unlimited mobile data. If I go to Italy and use my subscription there, I still pay 20 € per month for unlimited mobile data, but my operator has to pay 7 € per gigabyte to the Italian roaming partner.

Because there are more people traveling from north EU to south EU than vice versa, and competition of mobile operators works much better in northern EU, this is practically a monetary transfer to support the economies of southern Europe. And then there's the possibility that an Italian person acquires a SIM from my operator, because local Italian ones don't sell subscriptions with unlimited mobile data...

My operator has to counter this by a price hike and/or disabling of roaming.

<comment><USER39> You should check if your unlimited plan applies to roaming. I have a unlimited data plan in Croatia, but in roaming it's limited to 10 GB.

<comment><USER19> EU was planning to explicitly regulate against such caps. If you provide unlimited data in your local operator's network, having caps when roaming would be in breach of this regulation.

Has that changed?

<comment><USER52> Yes, the rule is based on how much you pay for your unlimited plan compared to wholesale regulated rates.

(tho they plan to lower the regulated rates over time)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Building My Dream Computer – Part 2 [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg-6Cjzzg8s <comment><USER2> I really like where he's going with this. I had hoped there would have been a more vibrant discussion here, but I can understand that a 45 minute video was too much of an investment for the casual user.

I think this one sets itself apart from other amateur projects in the area of credibility. I think he and his team are going to be able to pull this off. But the real question is where it goes from there and if it can catch fire with the right audience(s).</comment>