(yes its me on a different account)
In my experience? Just do it. Push through. Format the excel to look pretty. Taking a long time to do something is better than not managing to do it at all. And it can make the whole process a lot easier and more pleasant, if you commit to maintaining the aesthetic you enjoy for it. And if you keep doing it that way (your way, together with the aesthetic parts), you're going to get better & faster at the whole thing (making it properly typed latex in the first place instead of changing to it later, and so on). Do not fight yourself, because you losing is an inevitable outcome one way or another and both suck. Be weird about it. Take longer. ADHD is a disability. Accomodate yourself and do the thing the way you long to do it.
If you're good and you enjoy it, it's entirely possible you end up doing it faster than your colleagues who don't do the formatting, anyway. AND you will have prettier formatting than them!
Oh whoops, I'd forgotten I'd already commented before under the other account. I think this is the gmail one?
In other words, "high crime" and "low crime" do not have the mathematical relationship of A and ~A. Their probabilities do not sum to 1. There is also a third contrasting option, "normal crime", which is where the "evidence for no mafia" goes.
There is open war, and then there are human rights abuses on the quiet. If one side is fighting against another that wants to impose those abuses upon them, then enforcing a truce and "a rule of law" and "whoever currently holds the territory gets to keep it" can lead to WORSE outcomes than continuing the war, if only because the resources that were previously invested in keeping the hostile army away can now be reinvested into internal repression.
Rather similar to a bullied child fighting to take back their possessions that a bully took away - adults who don't care about that, say it's all "he said she said" and only want to stop the fight, factually cement the transfer of property.
That doesn't follow. It's more like saying "password systems help protect accounts" even though you know those systems are imperfect. Sure, people keep reusing the same passwords and using passwords that are guessable, but that doesn't mean not using passwords at all and taking people at their word for who they are is superior (in most systems that need accounts)
The minimal standard is "using this system / heuristic is better than not using it", not "this system / heuristic is flawless and solves all problems ever".