mtlmtlmtlmtl

I've tried almost every class of hallucinogen there is. Psychedelics, dissociatives, cannabinoids. Never did get my hands on salvia, but these days I don't think I'm very interested in trying it either. I have the most experience with psychedelics and cannabinoids in terms of having tried many different members of the class. And I've messed around with some strange ones that don't quite fit into any of the classes, like zopiclone(the sleeping med). I've also experienced stimulant/sleep deprivation psychosis

Psychedelics for me usually involve complex geometric patterns, colours, and objects "breathing" and morphing. More distortions and extreme pareidolia than actual hallucination(defined as perception in the absence of stimuli). They also involve what feels like "enhanced" hearing, where you're able to focus on everything you're hearing with exactly equal attention(I honestly don't know if that description makes any sense), which makes music sound very different, especially music that's tailored for listening while on psychedelics, like Shpongle.

The cognitive effects are also hard to describe, but there's a a tendency towards tangential thinking while retaining the ability to navigate the complex tree of tangents, a feeling of profoundness attached to even the simplest deduction, and a perceived ease of handling highly abstract ideas. There's also a sort of tearing down of deeply ingrained biases and rationalisations which in my view is how psychedelics are potentially very powerful accelerants of psychotherapy and personal change.

I never liked dissociatives very much. Their effects on memory make it hard for me to even remember the experiences, and mostly what I remember from doing ketamine and MXE is that everything looks strange. Angles are weird. Headspace is more confused than profound and certainly less productive. I might just have an atypical reaction to dissociatives, idk.

Cannabinoids are very unique drugs in that they provoke some combination of stimulant, sedative, psychedelic, dissociative and deliriant effects. Many people report that after combining cannabis with psychedelics multiple times, their experience with cannabis becomes more psychedelic. This certainly happened to me. I used to frequently combine 2C-B with hash several years ago. Ever since then if I smoke some hash with no tolerance essentially have a psychedelic trip for 3 hours. I quite like it. I get to take a short trip into a psychedelic mindspace without the usual hassle, longer duration, bodily side effects and sleep disturbances of taking a conventional psychedelics. Right now I'm doing it once every 4 weeks, since I'm trying to cure my addiction to hash by teaching myself moderation, and it's been working fine. Although part of me misses just the simple feeling of being stoned, giggling at children's cartoons and eating peanut butter with a spoon. I suppose I might never get that back.

Synthetic cannabinoids are horrible drugs I wouldn't recommend to anyone. Their sheer potency leads to a domination of dissociative and deliriant effects. Psychosis is a likely outcome. Complete dissociation like forgetting who you are, anterograde amnesia, severe anxiety and paranoia. They're also quite hard on the body. Stay away.

Zopiclone is a strange one. It's primary mode of action is the same as benzos, but it also has some interesting interactions with nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, which I suspect is what causes the hallucination. It's the only drug that's given me tactile hallucinations, which is a strange sensation. If I had to classify it, I'd put it in the deliriant class, but it has some dissociative properties too. It's strongly synergises with cannabinoids but also with psychedelics. For me, the recommended dose of 7.5mg usually caused some very mild hallucination, but 15 was the dose I usually took. I don't recommend zopiclone though, as it can cause strange episodes of anterograde amnesia the day after. Even when used as a hypnotic. The Z-drugs were originally touted as being like benzos without the addiction potential. It's since been learned that they're exactly like benzos, addiction and all, just with more side effects. Boggles the mind that they're still prescribed at all.

I have some serious doubts about these rumours. TSMC wants to buy Intel's fab why, exactly? Even assuming it isn't shut down for antitrust reasons, what are they gaining? A fab that is struggling to compete with the ones they already have? Lithography equipment they can just buy from ASML or whomever?

Not to mention the fact that the rumours themselves caused a rally in INTC price that makes acquisition far less attractive.

That's the one where he sacs the rook on h1 just to be able to push his pawn to g2, right? I'd have to agree then, truly a marvelous game.

Yep, all very good points. Neuropsychopharmacology is extremely and recursively complicated. It's turtles all the way down. Just take one component in all this, the receptor. One might want to think of a receptor as just a switch triggered by a chemical. But autoreceptors are a thing, as you mention. Receptors do different things in different areas of the brain. Receptors form complexes with eachother(e.g 5-HT-2a and D2), and we have essentially no idea why? Receptors have all sorts of different modes of interaction both with ligands and cell internals. Agonism, partial agonism, antagonism, inverse agonist, positive/negative allosteric modulation. The GABA-A receptor is not really one receptor, it's more like a family of receptors made up of a varying constellation of subunit proteins. Different constellations appear in different parts of the brain, and have different allosteric binding sites, which is why benzos vary widely in qualitative effects despite all being "GABA-A PAMs". NMDA receptors don't just bind to glutamate, but also glycine, and magnesium needs to be around? And NMDA triggers an intracellular cascade that regulates membrane expression of AMPA receptors. This is thought to be involved in memory. Cannabinoid receptors are expressed presynaptically carry signals in reverse, so that's weird. And there are 5 identified cannabinoid receptors. We only sort of understand what 2 of them even do. The other 3 are still quite mysterious(last time I checked). Most of the well studied neurotransmitters have not one, but many different receptors they interact with. 5-6 dopamine receptors, I can't even remember all the serotonin receptors, etc. Many of them are still poorly understood.

And of course, neurotransmitter systems talk to eachother. Serotonin so much so that it's also been called a neuromodulator. Because it very often regulates release of other neurotransmitters(including itself).

It's a field that, the more I dig into it, the more confused I get, honestly.

So when I see someone say herp derp, serotonin hypothesis is false, therefore SSRIs are ineffective, the only conclusion I can make is they haven't even tried to dig into it.

I've noticed that most submissions involving anything that might invite the slightest criticism of Musk routinely get flagged. My conclusion has been that there's an army(or just a handful of people with too much time on their hands) of Elon fanboys patrolling the site, flagging stuff that causes them cognitive dissonance.

Doesn't even have to be political. I've seen it over and over with submissions about cybertruck recalls, twitter related stuff, etc.

I find the idea of Trump playing "3D/4D/5D/6D chess" frankly hilarious. Hell, the man probably can't even play 2D chess. I honestly doubt he even has the patience to learn the rules. He's the kind of person who would get checkmated in 4 moves, flip the opponent's king over, claim victory, and walk away bragging about his genius victory.

It's certainly true that simply explaining it in terms of "neurotransmitter levels" is an oversimplification. ADHD is a neurodevelopmental disorder which is predominantly genetic in origin. In other words, ADHD is not just a matter of the brain's state at the time of diagnosis, but the development of the brain from the very beginning. Brain structure is heavily involved here. It's been shown that prefrontal cortex is significantly smaller in ADHD, along with certain other brain regions, like the hippocampus.

But the implication of neurotransmitters in causing ADHD is not merely hypothetical. ADHD is polygenic, i.e involving many sifferent genes. But in genetic studies, many of the genes found to he most correlated with ADHD were directly involved in monoamine neurotransmission, and many of those relate to dopamine. These include the genes for the D4 and D5 receptors, the dopamine transporter(DAT), which is responsible for dopamine reuptake(and also one of the targets for ritalin), TAAR1, which regulates synaptic monoamine release(this is targeted by amphetamine), and various enzymes involved in monoamine metabolism or synthesis(MAO-A, COMT, DBH).

There's also some involvement of serotonin and noradrenaline related genes like SERT, the serotonin 1b receptor(which, big surprise, is involved in mediating dopamine in PFC), the adrenergic alpha 2a receptor(which is targeted by the adhd meds clonidine and guanfacine), and some more enzymes.

So the genetic evidence for the involvement of dopamine is quite strong. There's also some evidence from brain imaging studies, showing that long-term treatment with central stimulants(which primarily act on dopamine and noradrenaline) leads to reduced abnormalities in brain structure. In addition there's mountains of evidence for the effectiveness of stimulants in managing the symptoms of ADHD.

In conclusion, the role of dopamine ADHD is backed up by a lot of empirical data. Doesn't make it the only factor involved, but it's certainly an important one, and not merely hypothetical.

Been running Linux on the A770 for about 2 years now. Very happy with the driver situation. Was a bit rough very early on, but it's nice and stable now. Recommend at least Linux 6.4, but preferably newer. I use a rolling release distro(Artix) to get up to date kernels.

ML stuff can be a pain sometimes because support in pytorch and various other libraries is not as prioritised as CUDA. But I've been able to get llama.cpp working via ollama, which has experimental intel gpu support. Worked fine when I tested it, though I haven't actually used it very much, so don't quote me on it.

For image gen, your best bet is to use sdnext(https://github.com/vladmandic/sdnext), which supports Intel on linux officially, and will automagically install the right pytorch version, and do a bunch of trickery to get libraries that insist on CUDA to work in many of the cases. Though some things are still unsupported due to various libraries still not supporting intel on Linux. Some types of quantization are unavailable for instance. But at least if you have the A770, quantisation for image gen is not as important due to plentyful VRAM, unless you're trying to use the flux models.

Treating a human trafficker and someone who downloaded some files from a server the same is not in the job description of a prosecutor. What an absurd statement. It's very much the job of a prosecutor to make judgements about the severity of the crime and how to respond. And in this case, the prosecutor showed incredibly poor judgement. There wasn't even a particular reason why the case should go federal in the first place. The state prosecutor saw things very differently.

Swartz wasn't the kind of person to accept a plea bargain from an overzealous prosecutor who was indicting him on 13 felony charges with a possible sentence up to 35 years along with a $1 million fine. I assume he wanted a trial because he wanted to continue his fight for open access. And maybe he thought he might lose, but wouldn't lose on all counts, and would make the prosecution look unreasonable in the public eye. Was that decision rational from a self-interest point of view? Maybe not.

And then you might ask, if he wanted a trial, why did he kill himself? Obviously no one knows what was going through his head when he did it. He left no note. But the prospect of being locked in a cell until he was an old man probably had something to do with it.

You can certainly argue it was his own fault for not pleading down, but even if that's your view, that doesn't absolve the prosecutor. Ortiz has a lot of blame in this too, and the fact she still hasn't acknowledged it over a decade later speaks volumes to the kind of person she is.

This argument is too dismissive for me to bother spending time on it except to say this: try to think about other factors than just availability, because it's not the only thing that matters.

Here's an exercise for you to do just that. Alcohol is legal and extremely available in the west. It has an even stronger addiction potential than opioids do. And the majority of people in the west drink at varying rates. But the rate of addiction is generally under 5%(in the west). Why do you think that is?

That's very true. The drug issue is a very complex problem, and I was only addressing a very narrow aspect of it, namely the root cause for the proliferation of hyperpotent opioids in black/grey markets.

The legal side of it is just that; one side. It's important, yes, but just legalising opium won't automagically solve the opioid crisis on its own. We also need to address societal causes of opioid addiction. At least in the US, overprescription from doctors corrupted by big pharma(especially purdue), is one major contributing factor that's been thoroughly exposed in recent years. Obviously the role of money in medicine needs to be changed.

The deeper issue though is that more people are becoming vulnerable to developing addiction. Speaking as an addict myself, one of the root causes of addiction at an individual level can be untreated mentall illness. Drugs can often provide a temporary reprieve from mental illness, and unfortunately is often more easily available than good treatment options. In many western countries, funding for mental health treatment programs has been reduced. This is contributing to a rise in unmanaged mental health issues.

I think spending a ton more on mental health, especially in youth, is essential to reducing the prevalence of addiction.

Other issues include poverty, unemployment, housing. The thread through all of this is that more people lead miserable lives, and that makes drugs more tempting.

But let me circle back to the legalisation issue and why it's so important. The main health risks with opioids are overdose in the short term, infections(hepatitis, HIV, endocarditis) from dirty needles and organ damage from dirty drugs in the longer term. Legalisation can address all of these things. Any addict will tell you the main reason overdoses are so common is there's no consistency to the potency of their drugs. Even when it was still heroin, the constant battle with LE meant the purity would fluctuate wildly. Add to that synergistic adulterants, and now these hyperpotent drugs, and you get addicts dying like flies. Legalising the drugs would allow regulating them and providing consistent dosages, eliminating harmful adulterants, and mandating that doses be sold alongside clean user equipment. This would greatly limit the health impact of these drugs on its users. It's obvious that recovering from addiction would be a lot easier if your body hadn't been destroyed by it before you even enter a treatment programme.

In addition, remember what I said about funding for mental health declining? How much money is spent futilely fighting the war on drugs? I haven't done the tedious task of adding up federal, state and police budgets for the US, but the budget for the DEA alone is in the billions, so it's safe to assume once you do the math it'll be in the tens of billions for LE alone. And that's without accounting for the courts, prisons, and all the money being funneled away from the legitimate economy by criminal gangs. This is money that should be spent elsewhere. On mental health and addiction treatment, housing, social programmes. But instead it's essentially being piled up and lit on fire.

So at least for me, that's why I keep saying "let them take drugs".

If you want to stop the flow of hyperpotent opioids like fentanyl and nitazenes, legalise opium and heroin. As drugs, the only advantage of these compounds is that their potency makes them easier and cheaper to smuggle. I've asked a lot of opioid addicts about this and not one of them has described an all-things-equal preference for these drugs. I'm sure some people do exist, but they're likely a very small minority. Most people don't even know what they're using, they just take whatever's available to get a fix.

This is a completely artificial problem, created by the war on drugs. Just like the waves of PMMA deaths in europe caused by safrole seizures. Western nations have no one to blame for this but themselves.

Greenland was probably once green, but we're talking several 100000 years ago, well before any humans(that we know of) appeared there.

The origin of the name is actually that Eric the Red called it that to attract settlers there. Just marketing, really.

Artix Linux does this. Arch sans systemd, and you have a choice between openrc, runit, s6, dinit, or even some combination of the 4. Any daemon type package will have a -runit/s6/dinit/openrc variant that includes the relevant scripts/configs.

So, what is this evidence? I'll believe it when I see it. Right now all we really have is some vague rumours about some API requests. How many requests? How many tokens? Over how long of a time period? Was it one account or multiple, if the latter, how many? How do they know the activity came from deepseek? How do they know the data was actually used to train Deepseek models(could have just been benchmarking against the competition)?

If all they really have is some API requests, even assuming they're real and originated by Deepseek, that's very far from proof that any of it was used as training data. And honestly, short of commiting crimes against Deepseek(hacking), I'm not sure how they even could prove that at this point, from their side alone.

And what's even more certain is that a vague insistence that evidence exists, accompanied by a denial to shed any more light on the specifics, is about as informative as saying nothing at all. It's not like OpenAI and Microsoft have a habit of transparency and honesty in their communication with the public, as proven by an endless laundry list of dishonest and subversive behaviour.

In conclusion, I don't see why I should give this any more credence than I would a random anon on 4chan claiming a pizza place in Washington DC is the centre of a child sex trafficking ring.

P.S: And to be clear, I really don't care if it is true. If anything, I hope it is; it would be karmic justice at its finest.

Well yes, because prioritising personal health is expensive.

High quality, healthy food is much more expensive per calorie than hyperprocessed, high calorie/low micronutrient, carcinogenic food. Gym memberships are pretty expensive, even without any of the personal coach and flex location fluff. And for someone with a lower paying job, time is more scarce as well, in addition to the job itself likely being more harmful to health. And of course, health care is expensive, and even if you live somewhere with socialised medicine, access to specialists is a lot easier and more expedient if you can afford to pay extra.

It's not like poor people don't care about their health, they just have fewer options and less time to spend on it. I support anything that can bring more options to more people.

I mean, I've certainly had issues with X before, back when you had to configure it. But they were usually initial issues while figuring out the right configuration. And if you had a GPU where the choice was between shitty proprietary blob drivers and woefully incomplete open ones, you might have a bad experience regardless of what you put in the config. But that's not really Xorg's fault. It can't magically make shitty drivers good. With decent drivers, once configured, it was rock solid, and has been for as long as I've been using Linux. And for a long time the configuration has been addressed; it now figures that stuff out on its own the vast majority of the time, unless you have really specific needs, in which case I bet Wayland compositors don't fare any better.

I also fundamentally disagree with the idea that X "does too much", which is often cited in favour of Wayland. The fact that X encompasses everything about how I interact with my computer is one of the things I love about it. I might switch WMs and DEs, but my xmodmap, xresources etc remain the same.

On the other hand, I just did a fresh install of Artix Linux. Installed KDE just to have something functional while I get my tiling setup working. Boot into Plasma(Wayland) and it utterly shits itself, turning my main monitor on and off repeatedly until it finally crashes. So I pick Plasma(X11) instead and that just works.

In fact, in almost 2 decades of using Linux every day, I can't remember X doing anything similar. It's always just worked.

Paredit has lots of great ways to do that sort of thing, though, while keeping things balanced. In emacs with paredit, providing a prefix argument to open paren lets you surround n sexps in the new parens. There's also slurp and barf to move sexps in and out of parens.

Editing for lisp mirrors the language as a whole in that there's a learning curve, but once you've climbed it, it's a joy to work with. Because the syntax is so uniform, all you need is a handful of extensions/commands for full blown structural editing.

I get by splendidly in emacs with nothing but paredit and convenient keybindings(not a huge fan of paredit defaults).

Most decent text editors support something like go to definition. Your entire comment seems to be based on the idea that text editors only support basic search, which is simply false.

Personally I'm quite content with both experiences. But it really is just a matter of preference.

Yeah, a 2-ply engine is pretty terrible at chess. Especially with no quiescence search.

I know what you're describing well, I've dabbled quite a bit in chess engine dev myself, and I'm planning to get back into it soon; I've got some interesting new ideas recently I wanna try out(once they're fleshed out enough to actually be implemented, right now they're just fanciful ideas I'm kicking around my head).

Testing is a bitch though, for sure. I know that stockfish is constantly being playtasted against itself, with a new instance spawned for every pull request etc, and then given an elo rating. That way they can tell if a potential change makes it weaker or stronger.

Debugging isn't easy either. Forget about stepping over code in the debugger. You have no idea whether the bug is only triggered after billions of nodes. That's a lot of stack frames to step through. And forget about debug prints too, for the most part, because putting an unconditional debug print in your search() , qsearch() or eval() will quickly lead to gigabytes and gigabytes of output...

Only helpful thing I found was to use asserts. Find invariants, and in your debug version check them every node, die if they don't hold and barf out your stack frame or a core dump. If you're lucky the bug is somewhere near where the assert failed in the call tree. Even that isn't guaranteed though.

This is truly impressive, I'm in complete awe.

I do think there are some bugs based on playing a game against it. It has a tendency to give up its queen and other pieces. and it blundered mate in 1 at the end of the game when it had moves that led to mate in 2 or 3.

Usually even a 2-ply engine should avoid these mistakes unless the evaluation function is completely silly, which may be the case here, I don't know. I tried looking at the code but it didn't make much sense to me, I'm not smart enough to understand this regex "runtime" based code. Could also be a bug of using < instead of > somewhere, or vice versa, making it choose the worst move instead of the best one.

> Yes, the agency does the terrible things you mention, but it also gets some horrific stuff off the streets. (Think fentanyl and meth, not weed. I couldn't care less about that.)

Do they, though? Some of it, sure, but enough to make a positive impact? Probably not. Indeed, efforts to get drug X off the street often lead to a proliferation of more dangerous drug Y. There's plenty of reason to believe the DEA is only making things worse and causing more deaths.

Congrats on your 1.0 release! Building a term from scratch is no small task. And it looks like after 2 years you already have something I'm seriously considering switching to. That's seriously impressive. And though I'm mostly a Linux supremacist, I genuinely appreciate and respect your dedication to providing native applications on all major platforms. I see too many projects do one of two things: only support one platform at first, with some vague promise of doing others in the future left unfulfilled for years. Or going the easy route of using electron or some other cross-platform toolkit, getting cross-platform support at the cost of a significantly worse experience. There is no substitute for doing the extra work, at the end of the day, and you're already well on your way there at such an early point. Again, I'm impressed!

Now, the one thing I've coveted for years is a linux term with tmux control mode support, ever since I used iterm2 during my short tenure as a Mac user. I can see from your github issues that this is in the works(https://github.com/ghostty-org/ghostty/issues/1935), which is great. It looks like a lot of the necessary UI elements are already in place, as well as partial support for the control mode protocol. Do you have any idea how far off this is from being completed? I don't wanna make demands or anything, I know this is a passion project with lots of things still to work on. As far as I know(and I look around quite often) control mode support is still something no existing term for linux supports. Being the first could drive a lot of adoption! I'd also like to offer my help in pushing it over the goal line. I haven't touched Zig, but I'm a polyglot with plenty C experience and Im highly motivated to bring this feature to my Linux systems. Some guidance on things I might do to help would be welcome. The final 3 points of the checklist don't have much detail provided.

Again, no pressure, thanks for all your amazing work, and good luck with continued development!

The last one, for sure won't happen. The two with the crazy pawn chains are unlikely, but these extremely locked structures do occasionally occur. And the first one is actually pretty plausible. The situation with the king on f1 and the rook stuck in the corner is fairly thematic in some opening.It's just not well suited for engine analysis and fairly trivial for humans because we can eliminate large swathes of game tree via logic.

I.e. Assuming the black bishop and knight never move, we can see the kingside pawns will never move either. And the king will only ever be able to shuffle between f1 and g1. Therefore we can deduce the rook can never make a useful move. Now the only pieces that can make meaningful moves are the two connected passed pawns on the queenside, and the light-square bishop. Assume there was no bishop. The king can simply shuffle between b6 and c5, and the pawns are contained. Can the white bishop change any of this? No, because those two squares are dark squares, and in fact all of the black pieces are on dark squares. So the white bishop is useless. Ergo, no progress can be made. We've eliminated all the possible continuations based on a very shallow search using constraint based reasoning and basic deduction.

Engines can't do any of this. No one has found a generalised algorithm to do this sort of thing(it's something I spend a silly amount of time trying to think up, and I've gotten nowhere with it). All they can do is explore paths to future possible positions, assign them a heuristic evaluation. And choose the best path they find.

Although, I haven't actually tried to analyse position 1 with stockfish. I feel like on sufficient depth, it should find a forced repetition. Or the 50 move rule. Though it might waste a ton of time looking at meaningless bishop moves. Naïvely, I'd expect it to do 49 pointless bishop moves and king shuffles, then move a pawn, losing it, then another 49 moves, lose the other pawn. Then finally another 50 moves until running into 50 move rule. So back of the envelope, it would need to search to 150ply before concluding it's a draw. Although pruning and might actually mean it gets there significantly faster.

Sometimes by accident. The original serotonergic antidepressants were antibiotics that happened to have MAO inhibition as a side effect. Initially developed to treat tuberculosis, doctors noticed the drugs had a stimulating side effect. A year later, a psychiatrist decided to trial them for depression, and found some success.

It's actually the other way around. They didn't have very serious theories about the etiology of depression back then, the only clue they had was from the pharmacology of these drugs, which led to the situation where for many years the leading theory on depression was that it was caused by low levels of monoamine neurotransmitters(serotonin, norepinephrine and dopamine). The main evidence for this initially was the fact that these drugs seemed to work, and that they increased the levels or effects of monoamines. This theory has since become discredited as we've learned more, although the connection between monoamines and depression is still strong. It's just not the whole picture.

They're not talking about changing the brain. They're talking about remedying the lack of a plausible explanation.

I think this is an unfair characterisation of how Ding played. The issue wasn't lack of ambition, but lack of confidence leading to misevaluation. Judging from the long thinks and how he's played in recent years, it's clear he doesn't fully trust his calculation. But I think he deserves credit for his ambition, actually. If he really wanted to play for draws he wouldn't be playing the French or the English. He'd be aiming for e4 e5 with an early queen trade. He mostly chose interesting openings with a lot of fight in them, often got an advantage, and simply misplayed by underestimating his position. Classic sign of a player with confidence issues.

A few months ago, yeah. Had to set an environment variable(added to the ollama systemd unit file), but otherwise it worked just fine.