sevenfive

Your statement is equally hyperbolic and unthinking.

For one, "they managed the entirety of Australia" implies uniformity and political unity which did not exist. Australia is huge. Some unlucky groups in the interior had to dig ten feet deep to get water, and travel between wells frequently while waiting for them to refill. And keep their locations a closely-guarded secret, because their lives depended on it. I wouldn't call that "easily-obtained subsistence."

In general, the notion that hunter gatherers have an easier time procuring food than completely sedentary farmers is very much up for debate.

Your assertion that Americans are "philosophically naive" compared to indigenous australians is also... unscientific, to say the least.

We should absolutely reject colonialist value judgements like those found in the grandparent, however, let's not substitute them for an equally simplistic noble savage narrative.

> They managed the entirely of Australia a single 'estate', providing ample, easily-obtained subsistence from a massive variety of sources, using a variety of agricultural and hunter-gathering techniques. For 60,000 years.

So an entire continent was just a big happy picnic for 60,000 years, with no famine or war? Uh huh.

Yeah, I balked when they made the first cut with such a criterion, that doesn't make sense and probably isn't what Amazon intended.

Focal lengths slimming the face / tilting the scales towards heavier women (pun intended) is an interesting theory.

But natural T increase? This sets off my quack-o-meter.

Yeah, the author was not quite as bureaucracy-savvy as you, it's clear. You do realize that the whole study was nothing but matching the results of a questionnaire that was already being used against interviews that were already being done?. Literally, all he's doing is observing. And maybe asking a few extra people to complete the questionnaire, the wording isn't clear.

I dunno about you but I think myoviruses look creepy as shit. https://i.pinimg.com/236x/cb/e0/59/cbe0591ea18e0afa4686bd3f4...

Wait, how do the fraud VCs make money?

Wut? Pretty sure phosphorus never goes atmospheric

University of Phoenix is a complete scam, FYI, not a good example here.

Got unscrollable, unclickable AMP pages on my device :/

Well, he said a lot of graphics cards. I plugged in 20 at 1kwh each. Trying to charitably interpret OP's tone of outrage, which seemed misplaced to me.

Back of envelope suggests he was stealing $20k per year in power, probably not more than that. Considering this was 2011, the return on that $20k could have been gigantic. Reimbursing them would have been a drop in the bucket, if he could do it without outing himself...

Nah, go for gold. Learn math and physics!

The threshold at 45 probably corresponds to endgames where the kings have to walk around the board to take care of pawns.

Undergrad here.

Plenty of people believe this.

This is what you said:

> There are a few compounds (like fentanyl or LSD) where the dosages are so small and the compound so potent that 10-25% makes a difference but for the majority, precision isn't that critical.

As in, typical dosages for fent or LSD are on the order of micrograms, so we expect them to be sensitive to a 25% change, for other drugs where a typical dose is measured in mg or grams, 25% is less likely to be a big deal, etc. This is the only way to interpret what you wrote, and it doesn't make sense. No such trend exists. None of the "basic facts" which you "explained" above (which I already knew) go anywhere near supporting this assertion.

Put another way, if you know the [A]50 you know one point on the dose-response curve, but in general that tells you nothing about the slope or shape of the curve near that point.

Judging from your comment history, you are not an actual doctor or biomed researcher, just a programmer in that industry. Which makes your teeth-gnashing about what an authority you are a tad less persuasive.

No, I mean they had a chart in the article that says Log(10) = 1. Looks like it's been removed.

Their example uses log_10 instead of ln

This is just throwing around a lot of irrelevant details to obscure the fact that your original statement violates the dimensional analysis smell test -- I could make a shitty prodrug of LSD where the threshold dose is 1g instead of 50ug, but you wouldn't expect the 1g version to be less sensitive to a 25% change because it's "less potent." If you wanted to give examples of a drug where a 25% change is a big concern then warfarin or synthroid are much better examples than LSD. As it turns out, you know your shit, but it is still a sloppy statement.

IME bad trips are mostly determined by how neurotic the tripper is. If you can accurately say that a 25% increase causes a 10% increase in bad trips, you must have quite a lot of experience. I at least know that if some people take one tab and others take two at the same time, the ones who took two don't go flying off the walls.

Saying that a 25% change is more significant for more potent drugs is illogical on the face of it, because a % is a dimensionless quantity. If there is some subtle reason why this trend exists I'd love to hear it.

But what you said was still totally wrong, regardless of whether you're talking about toxicity or anything else. LSD is not so finicky that a 25% change in the dose makes a noticeable difference -- most people would be hard pressed to tell the difference between a 100 ug tab and a 125 ug one.

It also does not follow that because a drug is active in small amounts, i.e. micrograms instead of milligrams, that a small percent change in the dosage will be more important. Full stop illogical, and also not true in practice.

So yes, I'm not a doctor and I don't know the jargon. And when I read your comment I forgot the article was about expiration dates, i.e. percent decrease. And yet you were still wrong on that particular point.

Excuse me, index. A dimensionless quantity. Nothing to do with potency. And you could hardly pick worse drugs to spread misinformation about.

> There are a few compounds (like fentanyl or LSD) where the dosages are so small and the compound so potent that 10-25% makes a difference but for the majority, precision isn't that critical.

Wrong. Therapeutic ratio, not dosage.

I think molly is stupid, and would never try it. BUT molly-induced brain damage is usually hyponatremia, or a subtler form of damage to the serotonin system. not stroke.

Do you know what a stroke is?

> mold, some of which can definitely be neurotoxic.

Nope. Bad for you in general. But no evidence of bathroom mold that's particularly neurotoxic. If you google it, you find mostly court cases (not a good sign).

> Most American homes share a leaky wall with their garage. A garage with shelves of highly toxic substances that offgas through the wall when the weather gets hotter.

I don't buy this... what substances exactly, and wouldn't this imply that spending any time in one's garage is extremely dangerous, given that the concentration must still be orders of magnitude higher inside than out.

Also, why is bathroom ventilation important? Nothing neurotoxic there, just gross.

> I've become increasingly risk-averse after realizing how devastating a 2^-1 decline really is. Independent of asset class, you will need a 2^1 gain to get back to where you were.

> Al fit into one category: Al.

I interpreted this sentence as declining to discuss it, but yeah, it's pretty obvious.

Why do people love linking to this page in lieu of an actual argument?