Parent comment is right. I’ve used Lorazepam to treat tinnitus. It’s not worth it. In the long run it raises your base anxiety level. Currently I’m experimenting with Tizanidine.
It might not be worth it to you, it might be worth it to someone else.
I would still like to hear about this substitute that is both effective and can be used "all the time".
Tizanidine causes "dependence", too, by the way.
Funny you mention Tizanidine, because that is what I want to try as well for my MS-related muscle spasticity.
Alprazolam works, but I have been using it for years and it would be great to finally get off of them. It does not last long either, and longer acting benzos don't work for me for some reason. I tried diazepam, which was supposed to be just perfect, but it did not work at all. :(
In any case, hoping tizanidine will work for me, we will see.
Let me know if tizanidine works for your tinnitus though, my mom has been "suffering" from it for a long time now.
Rationally, you're correct. But emotionally, there's a lot of people who don't understand why someone would provide a free service without an ulterior motive. Gates talks about this a bit on the Trevor Noah podcast.
Anecdotally, this strongly mirrors my personal experience with long covid symptoms. I’m relatively young (32) but have noticed I don’t recover well in result to neurological injuries: loud noises which didn’t damage my hearing but left me with tinnitus, and a very mild concussion which has now taken the greater part of a year to stop feeling dizzy from.
What's neat is that this is a differential equation. If you kill 5% of instances each hour, the reduction in bad instances is proportional to the current number of instances.
Love it! I wonder if the team knew this explicitly or intuitively when they deployed the strategy.
> We created a rule in our central monitoring and alerting system to randomly kill a few instances every 15 minutes. Every killed instance would be replaced with a healthy, fresh one.
It doesn't look like they worked out the numbers ahead of the time.
With Bitcoin I feel like it’s different, since the hashing algorithm would only ever change during a fork. This is rare in that it only ever happens every few years.
With AI, we’re constantly training different models, which can’t be trained using asics. If we ever get to the point where we no longer need to train new models, then yeah, it will go the way of bitcoin.
> With Bitcoin I feel like it’s different, since the hashing algorithm would only ever change during a fork. This is rare in that it only ever happens every few years.
Wait what!? Did the Bitcoin hashing algorithm ever change?
Could you recommend some psychopharmacological treatments? I’m dealing with some flavor of this which is making my life difficult. I’m working with a neurologist, but I’m interested in your thoughts.
Diet is probably number one, sugar cravings caused by dopamine dysregulation and can also induce dopamine dysregulation causing a rather vicious cycle. Those most addicted to sugar are the most harmed by it.
Low Dose Naltrexone (LDN) is probably the most used and widely accepted med within the patient communities and due to having a rather mild side effect profile is a great place to start. Such side effects include really crazy dreams, insomnia, and nausea. The stronger the side effects the more likely it'll work and the negative side effects will go away in time.
I predominately use amitriptyline and modafinil but I don't have the gut comorbidities that would preclude the use of modafinil. I'm not familiar with alternatives to modafinil but a friend who previously had success with modafinil, until the gut issues became too much for him, switched to levosulpiride and he says that worked great. This appears to be counterintuitive for me but psychopharmacological meds are a tough one because they almost always have more than one receptor binding affinity and there is the interplay between ligands of different types and strengths as well as how the brain and body reacts with it. In general I prefer the weaker ligands than the stronger ones and don't try to over-optimize such that every day is good, I target 80% of them.
I basically looked up what books are used in that field and read a bunch of those; Stahl's Essential Psychopharmacology being one of the better ones. There are also books on dysautonomia but I don't know if there is a particular one I would recommend - the whole dysautonomia space is rather nebulous. My big takeaway from that is that is dysautonomia is super complex and hardly anyone understands it.
Sure, but saying two people are the same magnitude is very different from saying they have the same level of touch sensitivity
Two complex numbers can have the same magnitude & be very far apart. Assuming we stick to the positive/positive quadrant it's not so bad. This metaphor (which, the spectrum itself is a metaphor, making this a metaphor of a metaphor) is to a 2d space tho, complex numbers are much more comparable based on magnitude as a result
> Two complex numbers can have the same magnitude & be very far apart.
Only if their magnitude is large; the maximum possible distance between two complex numbers of equal magnitude is double that magnitude.
And this limit is independent of the number of dimensions in the space you're working in; no two equal-magnitude vectors are ever farther apart than opposite vectors are.
If you stick to the first quadrant / octant / whatever n-dimensional division of space where all coordinates are positive... I don't think the number of dimensions makes any difference there either? Any two vectors define a plane (or a line, or, if they're both zero, a point), so two vectors in a 500-dimensional space can't be farther apart from each other than is possible for two vectors in a 2-dimensional space. Those 500-dimensional vectors are already embedded in a 2-dimensional space.
"very far" is of course relative: if we have tree vectors, two of length R and one of length 0.99*R, it's not outlandish to call the distance 2R between the two vectors of equal magnitude "very large" compared to the distance 0.01R between two vectors of dissimilar magnitude.
Your last comment is completely incorrect, for a point at (1,1,1,....) each extra dimension adds a constant 1 to the euclidean distance, so that in 500 dimensions a point at (1,1,1,....) is around 22.4 units away from the origin, while in two dimensions it is only 1.4 units away from the origin.
> for a point at (1,1,1,....) each extra dimension adds a constant 1 to the euclidean distance, so that in 500 dimensions a point at (1,1,1,....) is around 22.4 units away from the origin, while in two dimensions it is only 1.4 units away from the origin.
You're comparing vectors of different magnitudes. You could equally object that (200, 0) is much farther away from the origin than (2, 0) is. That's true, but so what? You're still in a two-dimensional space.
Are you under the impression that the "magnitude" of a vector and its "distance from the origin" are separate concepts? They aren't.
Consider simple two-dimensional space. A point at (1,0) is 1 unit away from the origin, as is a point at (0,1). But a point at (1,1) is approximately 1.4 away from the origin, i.e. sqrt(1^2 + 1^2). See Pythagorean theorem.
You keep referring to the magnitude of the vector itself rather than the magnitude of its components.
> Vectors with larger magnitudes have larger magnitudes than vectors with smaller magnitudes do?
Vectors with more dimensions have larger magnitudes than vectors with fewer components, for the same average magnitude of the components. The distance between the origin and (1,1) is less than the distance between the origin and (1,1,1) even though the components in both cases all have magnitude 1.
> Vectors with more dimensions have larger magnitudes than vectors with fewer components, for the same average magnitude of the components.
Is this related to something that's been said so far?
>> [sidethread] The next step is them doing a black knight and pretending they didn't put in the requirement by hand.
Obviously, I didn't. It was already there before I made my first comment. Look up:
>>> Two complex numbers can have the same magnitude & be very far apart.
The only thing we've ever been discussing is what can happen between vectors of the same magnitude. But if you want to discuss what can happen between vectors of different magnitudes... everything I said is still true! It's easy to construct low-dimensional vectors with high magnitudes, and in fact the construction that I already gave, of interpreting large vectors within a space defined partially by themselves, will do the job.
You rate someone on each factor using the same scale, e.g. a real number from 0 to 1, or a scale of 1 to 10. The scale is arbitrary but consistent.
Then someone whose "average" rating is 0.5 on a scale of 0 to 1 can be farther away from someone else whose "average" rating is 0.5 when there are more factors. On a linear scale two people both at 0.5 have distance zero. On a two dimensional scale, you could have one at (0, 1) and one at (1, 0) and then each of their averages is still 0.5 but their distance is ~1.4.
I think their point boils down to the fact that you can require that all vectors have the same magnitude, irrespective of the dimensionality of the space, which is of course true.
The next step is them doing a black knight and pretending they didn't put in the requirement by hand.
> Your last comment is completely incorrect, [random gibberish]
Here's what you were referring to:
>> If you stick to the first quadrant / octant / whatever n-dimensional division of space where all coordinates are positive... I don't think the number of dimensions makes any difference there either? Any two vectors define a plane (or a line, or, if they're both zero, a point), so two vectors in a 500-dimensional space can't be farther apart from each other than is possible for two vectors in a 2-dimensional space. Those 500-dimensional vectors are already embedded in a 2-dimensional space.
All of those statements are, obviously, true. What did you think was incorrect?
The question is whether each dimension is equally clinically significant, or equally impactful to quality of life. Talking about magnitude is definitely taking the analogy too far, as temping as it is.
https://github.com/wmarshall484/Keeper