forloop

As you said yourself,

"You're taking additional sleep hormone by taking it orally. So sleep is melatonin."

Sleep, and sleep with additional sleep hormone aren't the same thing by definition.

> So sleep is melatonin.

By taking melatonin orally you can get levels which aren't possible endogenously. So melatonin supplements != "vanilla" sleep.

Melatonin is also a mitochondrial anti-oxidant, so may benefit people with "brain fog". Such people may well have to take a supplement to get the maximum benefit. A benefit which can't be reached with natural (what is natural?) sleep.

In older individuals, the endogenous production of melatonin is reduced (happens when people get older). They may also benefit for supplementation. A benefit they couldn't get without it! No matter if they wear blue light blocking glasses, or have f.lux on all their machines.

Sometimes people have to do things at night. Where there's light. It's modern life. They can't go back in time and not be exposed to that light. They may also benefit from supplementation.

One could describe it as enhanced sleep.

I heard that sirtuins are beneficial for a healthy organism, and could be detrimental to someone with cancer. The same goes for something like glutathione (since they make cells more robust, and you don't want robust cancers cells!).

I've read anti-agingfirewalls.com with great interest. Here's one of the articles:

"PART 3: Slaying Two Dragons with the Sound of Silence: – How to Keep Your Repetitive DNA Turned Off with “3 Songs”: Sirtuins, Polycomb Proteins, and DNMT3. And a Master List of Drugs and Natural Compounds for Cancer Chemoprevention"[0]

Anti-ageingfirewalls.com is a tour de force. And it's at least worth reading the earlier articles (some of the recent articles on NAD require significant knowledge).

As far as I can tell, Peat contradicts the consensus. I've tried his methods, and had terrible results. He also goes against the information I'm exposed to. He may be correct, but I assign a tiny probability to that. I wouldn't recommend anyone start with Ray Peat.

[0] http://www.anti-agingfirewalls.com/2013/05/20/part-3-slaying...

I agree. People should make up their own minds.

When I see studies like the following (grabbed from Dr. Rhonda Patrick's Twitter feed) it makes me question his position on fish oil.

I also found fish oil beneficial to my recovery process, after I got cognitive problems following MB.

Studies:

* Study links omega-3s to reduced mortality[0]

* Consumption of omega-3s linked to lower risk of fatal heart disease[1]

* Lower risk of bowel cancer death linked to high omega 3 intake after diagnosis[2]

* Omega-3, omega-6 supplement improves reading for children[3]

* Stroke-like brain damage is reduced in mice injected with omega-3s

[0] https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-06/g-slo062216.... [1] https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-06/tuhs-dco0623... [2] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160719214830.h... [3] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160914085808.h... [4] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160822140534.h...

> The best nootropic is getting a good nights sleep.

The above is a direct quote from OP. Where's the metaphor? You're grossly mistaken!

> but that it is something that performs the same function

Can sleep gives one supranormal cognition? No.

Does sleep perform the same function as modafinil (a drug which gives you more time to work since you need less sleep)? They're nearly opposites.

Does sleep perform the same function as melatonin? A hormone that allows greater sleep "efficiency" than normal sleep. No.

You're grossly incorrect again.

> And I don't think it's derailing the topic to talk about relevant alternatives.

It's a category error.

The sleep conversation is above everything else. It takes focus from the subject at hand.

It happens a lot with noobs. They don't know anything about noots, but know something about sleep/exercise/whatever and decide that's a good topic to talk about.

It's like a conversation about Tesla, and then someone talking about walking—because it's an alternative. OK, the subject may be interesting per se, but it is of little relevance.

You sound like a follower of Ray Peat. He recommends MB, holds that position on fish oil, recommends K2 as a quinone, recommends aspirin, and recommends nicotinamide* (for the NAD+)

From what I can tell—and having experience with MB & his diet)—he's full of shit.

* You should look into that. Nicotinamide inhibits the sirtuins. You'd probably be better off with nicotinic acid or nicotinamide riboside (NR).

Sleep isn't a nootropic. This happens quite a lot with noobs. They conflate nootropics with sleep/food/water/exercise. It wouldn't be that bad, but it derails the actual subject: I.e. nootropics.

Here's a concise definition[0]:

"(of a drug) used to enhance memory or other cognitive functions"

There are other definitions. All the ones I've seen have exogenous substances as a common denominator, however.

[0] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/nootropic

Different people have different risk:reward ratios.

You've seen what gwern has written. He makes clear the monetary trade off. He also explains how some of the drugs are well studied, and most probably safe.

These people aren't crazy. You just don't understand...

Quick, let's ban everything except alcohol & cigerettes! They only kill a combined ~7.5 million people per year. Nice and sane.

> GDS is wasting taxpayer money, spending way too much attention on minute details like apostrophes, CSS and stuff.

You're getting downvoted because everyone already knows governments waste taxpayers' money—thus your comment is redundant.

anarcho-capitalists are trump supporters?

Politics is the art of mendacity.

Only at concentrations seen when the model has phenylketonuria. It's a rare disorder[0].

Steve Jobs was know for eating fruit high in phenyalanine (well tyrosine)[1]. It may have contributed to his high performance.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenylketonuria#Genetics [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrosine

> I look forward to someone trying to get things like that tested in court. Tough it'd be tricky, given that the Crown Prosecution Service would presumably not want to push a case like that and end up looking like idiots, and while the UK allows for private prosecutions I'm not sure if there'd be a viable avenue to use this act for that (trying to find a way of giving you standing to e.g. sue a florist sounds like inviting contempt of court).

Of course, he's pointing out the absurdity of the law.

> This is a big problem - the law is so broad that it'll be incredibly easy to abuse if government wants to charge someone, or add additional charges.

This highlights a more sinister side to government—rather than incompetence. One could deny this until it happens. I'm sure state apologists will (& continue once it does happen).

Land of the free.

Whatever the US can do, the UK can do better! We've got a the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016[0].

The act is so broad it can be applied to many things. And it's so broad it's functionally unenforceable.

A quote from Wikipedia:

'The law has been criticised as an infringement on civil liberties. Barrister Matthew Scott described the act as an attempt to "ban pleasure", saying it could drastically overreach by banning areca nuts, additives used in vapourisers and electronic cigarettes, hop pillows, and the sale of toads and salamanders that naturally produce psychoactive substances. Scott went further and suggested it may also ban flowers and perfumes as the scents can produce an emotional response'[1].

You know...

* Think of the children.

* It's good for society.

* The social contract.

* And all the other BS people like to come up with to trample on individuals.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoactive_Substances_Act_20... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoactive_Substances_Act_20...

Would this have happened if I had written yes? (To the question of whether the post is worth reading).

No.

Yeah sure. A free market success. Why not.

> HN.

I can't speak to that. My quote was about Quora.

> By bubble, I mean the memetic assumptions that any culture takes for granted.

Oh, I see. Like slavery, religion, or when people talk about morality without knowing there are different moralities, or the unquestioning love of the state. AKA mass ignorance. Or more benignly: tradition/mores. And on the positive side: protocols.

Are you talking about HN or Quora?

What's "the bubble"?

> This would jive with his above narrative, but many other stories could explain as well.

Are you saying you don't assign a high probability to your story being correct?

> No one seems to even notice the glaring example that the highest ranked woman here is desperately poor and homeless while the highest ranked men are all quite comfortable and I am reasonably confident that at least two of them are self-made millionaires.

Getting upvotes from sheeple isn't a good proxy for economically valuable skills IMO.

The fact you spend so long adding free content to a network owned by a company is indicative of poor resource management. Something that self-made millionaires excel at (from my experience).

Alternative view on what you said: It seems like there's a plausible motive behind the YC move (via-a-vis Quora) then.

So you're not rebutting the quote?

Presumably, if Quora offered him money to come back they found his contribution valuable.

> You'll find instead that it will turn any community into an echo chamber.

What's the probability they don't know this?

They're corralling the sheeple:

Get typing your sanitised comments. Engagement up.

Weasel Words are kind words.

Correct isn't politically correct.

Motives are always good. There're no bad people in utopia.

There is no marketing. Interviews aren't marketing. HN isn't marketing.

I just did a little research. It would seem the high THC/low CBD is caused by the farming technique:

"However, modern growing techniques have also affected these chemical levels. For example, illegal growers have turned to indoor marijuana farms to avoid detection. Growing cannabis locally in such farms also circumvents the need to import the drug, and guarantees a more reliable harvest. However, the 24-hour lighting used in these farms inadvertently reduces CBD levels in the plant."[0]

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2014/jan/17/cannabi...

Please delete. I can't rebut the reply—due to the legal status of cannabis.

They said it was civil. The subject shouldn't be talked about because it could offend someone, not that it wasn't legitimate.

> How are you measuring success?

Being a marketing platform, I would imagine something like the maximum number of people within their target audience engaging.

And two: not having facts/discussions which tarnish their company's image on the platform.

Are you a bot?

Literally not.

We were arguing about the following statement:

"The rest of my points stand quite well on their own and have nothing to do with Milo except as an example."

Why do you keep telling me what to do? I find it odd.

Inept. Yes. Makes two of us—apparently.

> Length by percentage in this case has nothing to do with semantic or rhetorical value.

In logic, the strength of an inductive argument is based on the premises. So I would say that the premises have great rhetorical value.

With that in mind, length seems like a reasonable proxy.

> It seems to me that it's easier for you to insult me than to engage with what I'm saying.

I just wrote a massive comment. When you say things like this, it brings out the gadfly in me. It's absurd to say I don't engage with what you're saying. I wrote a reply to nearly everything you said.

> If you just prefer to assume bad faith when someone makes a mistake, rather than give people the benefit of the doubt at no cost to yourself, okay.

I explained why. With the mistake, you're referring to the your first comment again. To repeat: it has nothing to do with that!