Carl-Richard

I remember the only time I saw a female drug dealer (out on the job), people flocked around her like she was a celebrity. I mean that also happened with other dealers, but seeing it was so funny.

2-3 months if nocturnal emissions count as a streak ender (although I might be misremembering). I felt like everything was 50% too loud. Muscle tension, sleep issues. Like being on a microdose though.

People protect people they are fond of. Who would've guessed?

@Yimpa Do you use it often?

My cameo only lasted a fraction of a second

What do you mean "start"?

Consider that you would consider a doomsday cult a cult even if they weren't taking any of your money or using "mind control" techniques (which is what exactly?) or the members are "completely free" to leave.

Instead of taking criticism from a retarded bot seriously, take it from the humans in question: I think if you seriously believe Leo when he says he is the #1 authority on epistemology and consciousness, you might be idolizing him a bit too much. "But I'm just open to the possibility". Sure, I'm too (there are many things that are technically possible), but do you believe it to actually be the case by any reasonable probability?

A computer is a rock: silicon and metal.

Think about walking through a crowded PvP zone with high defense/HP vs a relatively vacant PvP zone with low defense/HP. What feels the scariest?

I will throw a rock- I mean a doorstop at you right now through the screen and you will catch it with your left arm, yes? Let's go. My screen is black. Sorry, I've been watching "not allowed to laugh in the cabin", a horrible Norwegian game show that destroys your sense of what is funny.

@Natasha Tori Maru I can't watch AI videos. And is the claim "5-MeO -> death" now? I thought it was "weird beliefs -> death". The video must be using ChatGPT-4o or something, it seems low intellect and hallucinatory.

What happens when you scale a rock?

When you're in the statistical worldview, - you are acutely aware that many things can influence one thing, and their relationship is statistical (quantitative). Some things can have a strong influence, other things less of a strong influence, and some things only a weak influence (e.g. the butterfly effect). In reality, there is a huge web of influences, where each influence is a particular node or string on the web, and each node is weighted with a certain strength of influence or statistical value. For example, ADHD can be influenced by beliefs, experiences, genetics, etc. Even if you think one of these things have a stronger influence, it doesn't mean it can only be reduced to that thing, and talking as if it can be reduced to that thing can lead to problems with accurately talking about and perceiving reality. Words like "partially", "mostly", "some of", "many", are often used. - you often say things are "probably so", "most likely", "less likely", "probably not". It does not preclude you from making firm and exclusive analytical statements (e.g. "given x and y, z is true or false, coherent or inconsistent"). But you are very acutely aware when something is statistical and probabilistic so you don't overstep or overgeneralize or oversimplify. - you realize a thing can be many things at the same time. There is often not just one way to do things, or one thing you can do at any one time. "Should I meditate every day or should I do retreats where I meditate more deeply?" Why not both? "That's the placebo effect". Why can't it be a real effect and placebo at the same time? "Trans is social contagion". Why can't some of it be real trans and some of it be social contagion (both within and across individuals)? "Yes — both" is very often realized to be the answer. The statistical worldview is a way to conceptualize nuance and holism, as opposed to black-and-white thinking and naive reductionism. It's also related to the modern scientific framework of putting numbers and quantities to these relationships. Modern science, especially human-oriented science (e.g. medicine, psychology), primes this kind of statistical thinking where everything is viewed through statistical associations (mediation, moderation, correlation) and ways of quantifying them (effect sizes, correlation coefficients, measures of statistical significance). If you do enough scientific thinking, in the right fields of science, you will eventually end up viewing a large chunk of the world this way.

Even a blueberry-banana smoothie makes me feel wonky (but eating the banana and blueberries in their normal form seems OK). When you break down the fibers, it's like knocking off the 4-HO-group of psilocin and it becomes DMT. I need that steady release or the physiology gets out of whack.

I've found if I deviate too much from a certain ratio of carbs, protein and fats (and fibers and anti-inflammatories), my mind becomes foggier and slower. The same with eating too often or too much. The goal when eating I've found is to pack a lot of energy into your body (of course "the right type" of energy and the right amount), cut off the initial glucose response by walking or working out, and then ride the steady blood glucose without eating anything else until you're hungry again. Eating an in-between meal or just a fruit at the wrong time messes with that cycle, it kick-starts digestion again, blood glucose rises again, and if you don't lower it adequately, you end up with symptoms of restlessness, inflammation, brain fog (and of course you become desensitized to insulin so you want to eat more and after less time).

The concept of a male escort, especially a high-rated one, is really fascinating. Notice the personality type. Notice the social status, the philosophy and values, the type of interactions that women want out of it. They (the good ones) seem like highly caring, sensitive heroes.

I think the reason I reacted so strongly (to "why not simply listen to this institution that landed on a highly generalized consensus for various reasons and with various caveats instead of learning about things yourself?") is that I felt it was an invalidation of all other methods of epistemology (which at least for me I don't think is true and was probably not intended either, although maybe partially), and even if I were right in all my observations, I don't think he would ultimately care, unless it was supremely pragmatic to do so.

"I just follow the dietary recommendations from the national institute of public health; they have 1000s of scientists that have done more research and better research than I could ever do".

It's so strong. When I started ordering supplements from abroad, my mother (doctor) was like super skeptical meanwhile she is buying Nycoplus (the main generic brand our pharmacies sell) which do not have any non-state or independent third-party certifications, do not provide publically available contaminant reports and are generally subpar (e.g. use non-chelated minerals, the shitty non-phosphatized B vitamins). At least she doesn't go full stepdad "I read two sentences on government website about dietary advice and that is all I need for living healthily" (which depending on your standards, fair enough).

I knew I thought that 🤭

There is something I've coined the "Scandi delusion" that probably most people who live in Scandinavia (including myself in the past) are under, that everything in Scandinavian countries is so safe, no worries, institutions are rock-solid and provide all the best all the time, they have created a perfect safety net that us as privileged citizens can exist under. It is a delusion, as demonstrated above. It's also related to a feeling that Scandinavian countries are somehow exempt from military threats and that a military invading is like "illegal" or impossible or against the laws of the universe. Meanwhile, we're next-door neighbors to Russia (literally bordering it) and some of the most militarily strategic NATO countries with respect to Russia. Nazi Germany invaded Denmark and Norway only a few decades ago.

Based on what? Here are some funny statistics from this article (https://tidsskriftet.no/2020/06/debatt/kan-miljogifter-true-oss-som-art): According to "Nordisk ministerråd", exposure to PFAS is responsible for 750-1250 deaths a year in the Nordic countries. Furthermore, they estimate these countries use 21-35 billion Danish krones per year to counteract the negative health effects and excess mortality caused by PFAS. A multi-center study of three regions in Norway found that 100% of blood donors had PFAS blood levels above suggested cut-off values.

You think Scandi water ain't contaminated? :>

AI is helping me re-code this human slopware (software slop) I'm using to finally get image reconstruction of my brain data. Sloppidy doppidy. EDIT: Bro: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slopsquatting That's so fucking funny, and smart, (like my man).