* A person had a magnificent, positive life altering experience on LSD. The LSD changed their life for the better
* A person wound up developing psychosis and schizophrenia after taking LSD. It wasn't the LSD's fault; they must have been pre disposed. Family medical history, man.
My take as an outsider is that if you believe LSD helps some people, then it follows that it hurts others, and that it's difficult to predict such outcomes.
It's a mind altering substance, and I'm glad I stayed away from it.
This was addressed in my previous comment. I've known folks who took the stuff and had a horrible reaction, without family history as such.
Also, consuming street drugs of unknown quality in uncontrolled settings with uncontrolled dosages is quite different than controlled medical experiments.
> overblown
I never wanted to try the stuff after personally observing people change after having a "bad trip". If it permanently alters perceptions in unpredictable ways, then ingesting it likely catalyzes alternate life trajectories, also in unpredictable ways.
Seems like a double edged sword. Many report the positive benefits but the supporters seem to downplay risks or point to other factors without supporting evidence.
It's unclear how to determine safety with prospective victims/winners whose family history doesn't include mental illness. Again, I suspect dosage is a critical factor to trip outcome; this being common pharmacological wisdom.
Great, thanks for the objective response. My inquiry was substantially downvoted.
How can one determine if they are at risk of psychosis prior to consuming LSD? I've heard many stories of people who were "never the same" (in a bad life-outcome sense) after having bad LSD trips. It wasn't clear from family history or medical history that they were at-risk for such a reaction.
At least based on these outcomes, it might be a bit inaccurate to claim LSD is safe. I suspect it was outlawed in part due to observed risks decades ago, but am still curious about political motivations. (e.g. "they want to deny us access to knowledge, man." or racial reasons, etc)
Perhaps there will be technology advancements in support of ascertaining propensity for adverse reactions to psychedelics. I suspect there's a strong component related to dosage. Maybe this is related to the microdosing movement?
Maybe the idea of an OS with processes running on a single interconnected silicon is part of the issue, too. Just brainstorming based on your response.
Without considering resources or practicality, if we were to re-design computers and servers from security-first principles, what would features like management of secrets look like? Secure enclaves are wonderful but the secret still has to be propagated or used. A ground up computer design might greatly embellish on the idea of a secure enclave.
There is far more to be gained via silent espionage on the internet at large. It's worth far more than all cryptocurrency.
Whoever is hoarding pcap's encrypted with ECC will have a field day. This is the reason for the urgent push by NIST/NSA to roll out qc resistant crypto.
Cryptocurrency is a sensational sideshow in comparison.
Counterpoint to the article's interviewee claiming that the cryptopocalyse will occur with forewarning: Nation states may seek to keep QC advances secret.
Also, QC breakthroughs can happen overnight.
Combine those two realities and we could have an institution or govt wielding a Shor's-enabled QC in private without notice nor fanfare.
Some existential reflections having been bullied at various jobs.
* You're there to do a job firstly, which is easy to forget in a social workplace. Focus as much of your energy on this as possible.
* Don't try to make friends at work. In fact, avoid making friends at work altogether outside of the expected degree of social participation.
* Don't brag about work/salary, especially if you're a high performer. Otherwise, you'll be a target.
* Lay low, do your work, and document all incidents with evidence. Raise the issue in private to your superior, then HR -- in writing. If it's serious enough, you may wish to speak to an attorney. (I'd reserve contacting an attorney for egregious, ongoing bullying/harassment if unaddressed by your company internally). Do bear in mind HR is in support of the company -- you're a human resource to be managed in the interest of the company. Consider this when engaging HR. Be unemotional, factual, and sympathetic to the needs of the job first. Avoid any form of direct confrontation with the bully(s), don't react, don't discuss it with co-workers, and remain unemotional at least externally.
* How you react and handle the bullying is what others will perceive, including management. It's the same as childhood playground bullying. The bully intends to elicit a reaction, then point the finger to support the negative arguments being made behind your back. Keep this in mind, stay quiet, document, prepare, and take calculated responsive action.
Good luck, and I hope you learn from my mistakes. Being an empath is a gift but is a double edged sword.
How many of you have built very robust and secure restful api's, and had no traction? Makes you wonder if craftsmanship even matters for many startups.
Safety in terms of physical overdose isn't the only metric.