Can we collectively move on from single character variable names?
The code examples are full of variables like "q" "a" and "v" -- it slows down everything as we must grok the surrounding statements like some kind of Rosetta Stone to interpret what "a" could possibly be in this context.
That's actually an interesting business idea. Pretty risky though, if you sold to both sides you'll always also sell to the losing side. The eventual winning side might not be happy about that. Also, depending on the anti air capabilities on the battlefield and the price of a drone, the losses might not make up for the profits.
> depending on the anti air capabilities on the battlefield
Yes. The use of drones by western forces has coincided with operations in which the west has had total air supremacy. The larger weaponised drones (Predator, etc) have never been flown in a hostile air environment, against a peer force that has serious anti-air. I would be reluctant to fly my drones in such an environment. Smaller throw-away drones are a different issue.
Smaller drones could deliver small payloads anti-personnel/incendiaries on eg. London or just as ransomware - a dozen expendable drones could occupy the airspace over Heathrow until some anoncoin was paid. Sky's the limit literally! Exciting times!
I'm sure both sides will stop fighting long enough for that company to send some consultants in to establish an independent airfield and command and control then sell their services. Drones still need human support.
Many years ago, we grew ours on white rice. Eaten fresh, they were quite tasty. Also OK after freeze drying. But commercial Psilocybe do have an unpleasant taste, even fresh. Maybe they grow them on manure.
Well you effectively have 3 common ways of consuming them: fresh, dried and truffles. In my opinion dried is very easy to consume, they don't have most of their taste (nor mass); truffles come second because they don't taste too bad (kinda like nuts but tartier) and finally the worst to consume because of volume and taste is regular fresh caps and stalks but even then they don't taste that bad.
Eating them in something like a ham sandwich makes it OK in my opinion.
I've only ever ordered them from legal producers so I don't know how much extra work they put into making them not taste bad versus illegal growers.
Yeah, this is the best way to consume the shroom. Mix with a little loose leaf green tea and it actually tastes pretty good, with a tingly after-feeling on your tongue.
For anyone that's interested, basically just roughly dice 1/8 oz. of dried mushrooms and add a scoop of your favorite tea. Put the mix in a large teaball (or multiple small ones). Boil 2-3 cups of water. Let the water cool for 20-30 seconds on a cold burner before pouring into your teapot. Steep and drink!
I'm on a break but I used to take them for the general enhancing effect and going deeper into meditation. Sometimes during day even in public places, which was a big mistake in the generally nervous/anxious place I was in life. Perhaps I got too arrogant.
edit: then again a capsule or two and a remote cabin could be just what I need to reset from the upheaval in my mind..
It is possible I'm more sensitive to its effects for various reasons but ime one capsule starts working in 30-45 minutes and I get a noticeable effect affecting mood and bodily sensations. 1 capsule certainly gets me more in touch with the internal world when meditating.
I don't know how much one should talk about this stuff on open forums but it certainly can be a shortcut to achieving or visiting some powerful states of experience, which may not be always be or seem positive at least during, so Ymmv and be safe.
I've microdosed mushrooms maybe a dozen times and generally the last thing I want to do is work. Would not recommend to anyone looking for a productivity boost.
Blue Honey, my friend... blue honey.
Many years ago I was gifted a mason jar of it, made from fresh whole mushrooms, blue as can be, beautiful and very tasty.
Started the day with one thin spread on a piece of buttered toast, then breeze through the day until after work, when a nice cup of blue honey tea got me through the night. Yeah, I miss that.
this discovery will likely have little impact on the taste of what's being consumed, or the subjective quality of the trip.
the bad taste is the result of either a) the flesh of the mushrooms, or b) (in the case of isolated psilocybin) the alkaloid being a bitter "chemical" tasting chemical. in either case, the problem can be mitigated without understanding the mushroom's psilocybin synthesis pathway.
the bad trip has to do with the alkaloid itself, and a the reaction of particular brain that's been dosed with it at a particular time. again, understanding the mushroom's synthesis path isn't going to change the end result. it might help chemists discover new and worthwhile paths to synthesizing other tryptamines with a lower potential for bad trips, but it's not like there's a shortage of viable methods for producing novel tryptamines at the moment.
still, really really cool discovery. not trying to downplay that. just saying the parent and GP i'm replying to are talking about things that are pretty much orthogonal to this discovery.
EDIT: ok, i can imagine one situation where this could impact flavor: in a world where psilocybin is legal, one might imagine boutique engineered mushroom strains that have desirable flavor characteristics, and which produce psilocybin. this discovery could help with engineering that sort of thing. i don't actually think that's a worthwhile use of anyone's time (again, there are ways to mitigate the taste issue, and determining the amount of mushrooms you eat by anything other than the desired intensity of the trip seems like a flat out bad idea). but still, i stand partially corrected.
You are right, I'm sure. Just a cheeky response to a cheeky response. (Though, with the hopeful side-effect of luring more learned answers, like yours :))
I dunno. I mean, anecdotally, I get a a different kind of drunk on regular beer, fancy beer, and different kinds of liquors. People seem to swear by the different weed strains. I wouldn't be surprised if the rest of the composition of the mushroom has a noticeable effect on the trip.
To me, this just means it'll be easier to try blending substances together; I can totally imagine designer packs that use time-release and a collection of substances to create particular experiences.
Alcohol is alcohol. The differences you are noticing are probably due to the amount of water you're consuming with your alcohol (two pints of 5% beer contains a lot more water than one pint of 10% beer), how fast you're drinking (some liquors you shot, some you sip for example, sweeter drinks get drunk faster than bitter drinks), and possibly also related to the amount of sugar you consume (as is common in sweeter mixed drinks).
I could go on listing other substances in alcoholic drinks, but ethanol is far from the only substance in alcoholic beverages with biological and psycholical impact.
Cannabis has multiple psychoactive compounds, mainly THC and CBD. That's the reason different strains can have very different effects.
On the other hand, there seems to be a lot of arguing about different experiences with the same compound, not just with alcohol, but also with other drugs like LSD, MDMA, etc., if you look at forums... I'm skeptical and think most underrate the effect of previous mood and dosage in the effects of drugs.
Pro-tip: blend your mushrooms into a drink with milk and a little sugar. You can pound this drink easily, and the onset is faster and more predictable.
> Archaeology has now revealed that the wheel wasn’t invented until the 4th millennium BC – which puts it thousands of years after the first cities were built and after the invention of metallurgy, and its importance in determining the intelligence of a race is no longer rational.
Boats solve a more basic problem. No-one needs wheels - there are other means of transportation available.
Also, the above article points out that Mesoamericans seem to have independently invented the wheel, and even made wheeled toys.
You could say something similar about the Polynesians, although they came later
Rollers for moving heavy items, pulleys for ...er ... moving heavy items; or are they not classed as wheels? Wheels are good for farming too, laying furrows, say. And making clay pots. And grinding corn. And crushing fruit.
Ah, this might turn in to a "What has the wheel ever done for us" sketch after the style of Monty Python.
I suppose it hinges on what is the simplest and most useful thing a wheel could be used for in a primitive society? Building a wheel with an axle and framework is not a trivial undertaking, and someone would need an immediate use for it to justify the effort.
(Try making a decent sized wheel out of a plank - it'll shatter along the grain. Getting a snug 90 degree hole for the axle isn't trivial, either, and without that the wheel will wobble so badly it'll be largely useless.)
They're talking about coastal migration over centuries. Also there's excavations of boats that are dated earlier than estimates for the wheel so I'm not sure what your point is.
"Circumstantial evidence, such as the early settlement of Australia over 40,000 years ago, findings in Crete dated 130,000 years ago,[4] and findings in Flores dated to 900,000 years ago,[5] suggest that boats have been used since prehistoric times. ... The oldest recovered boat in the world is the Pesse canoe, a dugout made from the hollowed tree trunk of a Pinus sylvestris and constructed somewhere between 8200 and 7600 BC" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boat
"The invention of the wheel falls into the late Neolithic, ... 4500–3300 BCE: Chalcolithic, invention of the potter's wheel; earliest wooden wheels (disks with a hole for the axle); earliest wheeled vehicles, domestication of the horse" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel
Well, just like the wheeled toys (i.e. wheel "invented" but not used for transportation/vehicles) the dugout from a trunk is a sign that sort of canoes existed.
Inventing a canoe or a raft is of course much easier than inventing the wheel, you just go on the shore of a river or at the seaside and you will find trunks or wooden pieces floating.
From that to have a boat capable of crossing an ocean there is a long way.
Also, the numbers would be important.
I would presume that leaving from a shore in search of another one (and knowing nothing on where that could be) would have been an extremely dangerous attempt, most probably taken by a handful of young males (hunters/gatherers, etc.) in the hypothesis that society was a male dominated one, possibly in very small/basic boats.
Then they would need to go back home, and then return bringing with them their spouses and presumably children.
Think of a future archaelogist in - say - 5,000 years time (after humanity and civilization collapsed) finding ONLY a hut with a few (perfectly conserved) surf tables and windsurfs.
From that finding to believe that windsurfs could be used for cross-sea or cross-ocean migrations there is somehow a large gap.
My comment was to support the parent comment asking why the grandparent comment expressed surprised that a boat was invented before the wheel.
I don't understand what the point of your comment is.
The first humans in the Americas didn't need to cross an ocean. They needed to follow the shoreline. Even now the Bering Straight is only 90 km across. As the article points out, during the Ice Age, when the sea was lower, it was all land, known as Beringia. There was no "cross-sea or cross-ocean migration".
We know humans 60,000+ years ago could cross the Weber Line, which was also at least some 90 km wide, to get from Sunda to Sahul (which includes modern Australia). This migration to the Americas would have been easier than that.
>I don't understand what the point of your comment is.
I was actually supporting the idea that inventing the boat is (should be) easier than inventing the wheel BUT that between inventing the boat and actually being able of building big enough boats AND boats being able to cross large stretches of water AND actually using them to "migrate" a population there are some leaps.
The grandparent comment was not about "boats", was about "boats that can travel across the ocean" and the article was
about the hypothesis of a migration by boat.
One of the indigenous boats of the region, the umiak, can be 30 feet long or so and can carry 20 people (or a fair amount of cargo).
They're easily big enough to cross the Bering Strait (in fact, before the Cold War, they did it routinely) and can be constructed completely from local materials (sea mammal hide covering, whale bones and driftwood for ribs -- modern umiaks often use metal fasteners, but traditional ones didn't).
Alaska Natives still prefer them for some tasks (e.g., whale hunting).
While what you say is true, to quote the second-level comment: "They're talking about coastal migration over centuries"
That requires neither a big boat nor one which can cross large stretches of water. That's why I didn't understand where your comment fit into the topic.
We don't need to resort to archaeology. The indigenous people of the Bering Strait region could, and did, routinely cross it in boats made from local materials (animal hides, mostly) for centuries, and were still doing so at the time of European contact.
Maybe they put people on a raft and sent them out to sea as a form of punishment or sacrifice, and some of them made it across. If it was a common enough practice, it wouldn't take long for survivors to start meeting and multiplying.
> I would presume that leaving from a shore in search of another one (and knowing nothing on where that could be) would have been an extremely dangerous attempt
Yet it was how the Polynesians settled the Pacific.
