Minimum I've seen was 1.5g. Usually between 2 and 3.5.
The issue with psychedelics is not that their ingestion might kill you, but rather what you will do to yourself or others while on them. No amount of reading and Youtube videos can prepare you for a strong psychedelic experience. Once in it, you have to go through it, and accidents do happen.
I've found that people who do psychedelics in repetition usually _think_ they are some sort of key to their problems, they'll help them fix themselves, yada yada yada. One trip is enough for people for whom that is true. If you have to do them repeatedly, the issue is elsewhere. I am against full-on prohibition, but also skeptical about the "pro-psychedelic" sentiment in vogue.
1. Write _anything_ that works. Dependencies, code quality don't matter. Code is idiosyncratic but can be understood by a reviewer.
2. Apply abstractions _everywhere_. Re-implement data structures and algorithms (maybe unknowingly). Code is now very hard to understand.
3. Figure out one is completely unable to update or even maintain code written 6 months ago. Rewritten code suddenly becomes clearer, one begins to think about programming as an craft and not just hacking things on a keyboard until you get the desired result. Dependencies, judicious comments, code quality and a sane terseness become important. The journey starts here.
Personally, step 1 was very short as I learned to program on the job. I was responsible for code, and so I needed to get it together quick. A language like Python makes 2 very easy, and 3 came very quickly too since, as I mentioned, I was responsible for the code (one man team).
I have met people who work at large institutions who are stuck at 1. Others with degrees in CS who are stuck at 2. Some just "get it" and go straight to 3. But typically, the real journey starts when you need to go on with work but your prior self is preventing you from being efficient. You need to get rid of that prior self's work to move on.
Try the Canadian Multilingual French layout on a standard QWERTY keyboard.
à is \
è is '
é is /
ç is ]
accent grave is right-alt+[+letter
and
"specials" are right-alt+num (±@£¢¤¬{}[]) but for any glyph used in programming, I usually switch back to US keyboard using alt+caps-lock. Ça fonctionne très bien pour moi!
I see this is a WIP without support for the Scheme numerical tower, tail calls, continuations, etc. If you're looking for such features, Gambit Scheme can compile to JS with those features working and comes at ~600kb gzipped (for the _whole_ system). You can see it in action at https://try.gambitscheme.org but I don't know if it's the latest version.
There is a vast amount of unpublished research, not because of malicious intentions, but because it's either still ongoing, or abandoned, or postponed, or waiting for other results, or for review, or qualified specialists to help, whatever.
The VF article specifically mentions that the closest known virus was 96% similar (vs 90% for SARS-CoV-1), and had actually been renamed by the scientists studying it and that fact hadn't been put forward to the community.
It can still be shown that this has a completely natural (i.e. no human error involved) origin, but the burden of proof gets higher every day. It's much more probable that human error is involved, which is something that happens every day.
Are you expecting a number? The joint probability of low-probability events is itself very low.
I'm not saying you should calculate it like P(10 000 tails coin flip) * P(1 000 000 tails coin flip). That can be done numerically. I'm saying that based on everything I've read, the highest probability hypothesis according to my own evaluation is the unintentional lab leak. To me, that's as uncontroversial as it gets. Human error happens _all the time_. Arguing against the lab leak, knowing what we know about China's refusal to allow an actual thorough scientific investigation into it, seems quite a bit more controversial to me.
Labs burn down, medical errors happen, bridges collapse, whatever. That's just reality.
We know enough to calculate a joint probability. Just update your estimate with new information. This should be pretty non-controversial. Everybody does this every day especially in the face of uncertainty.
Let me make this clear: I don't know for certain what happened. But after updating my priors, I believe it's highly probable that the outbreak came from human error.
Also, I never once mentioned engineering. There's a lab 280m away from the market that has one of the largest bat virus samples in the world.
I would have no problem revising my priors, but for the moment I still consider the lab leak human error hypothesis still the most reasonable explanation.
p(Epidemic started in Wuhan) * p(origin in market right next to lab) * p(lab is one of 3 in the world to conduct gain-of-function research on conronaviruses) * p(lab scientists were notably sick prior to outbreak) * p(no accident ever happening in a lab) * p(et cetera) = very small number.
That's not evidence per se, but it does show you how probable a human error is.
You're taking this the wrong way. You have to update your priors and calculate a joint probability knowing everything we know about the origins of this particular virus.
The calculation is simple and could have been made in early 2020. What's the joint probability of occurrence given everything you know about the origins of SARS-CoV-2?
There is _very_ high probability that this is just a human error.
Anybody who has ever worked in a wet lab, or a lab of any sort, knows that accidents happen. All the time. Things catch fire, things are dropped, labeling issues happen, anything you can think of.
I worked for many years in a lab, the accidental leak hypothesis was and still is what I consider the most probable. Calculate the joint probability of everything we know about the origin of SARS-CoV-2 happening and it should be obvious that the "lab leak" should be _thoroughly_ investigated before dismissing it.