Experiences produced by particular strain can vary wildly even for the same user, so it boils down to experimenting with different strains in different settings and finding out what works for you. Some users report that mixing strains of "haze" family tends to produce strong closed-eye visuals and mild open-eye ones.
If your vision is affected by visual snow (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_snow) or you are prone to have noticeable phosphene images with closed eyes, then it may be sufficient to simply focus on them while being high. The drug will greatly amplify your natural "hallucinations", subjectively up to the level of mild dose of psylocibin or LSD. Of course, taking those classic psychedelics is a more reliable way to produce visuals, but they come with headspace which is quite different (and for some less desirable and comfortable) from weed-induced one.
The same focusing technique can work for monotonic sounds - it's quite amusing to observe how fridge's buzz turns into full-blown symphony :).
Your Pavlovially conditioned denigration of quite believable assumption that some entities have huge amount of influence on the economy is even more impressive. Never tired of employing good old "it's a conspiracy theory" conversation stopper, do you?
You have to cut the young ones some slack on this. They're just modeling what they see from "those in the know", and the conventional wisdom narrative has been really heavy on conspiracy-shaming over the last few years. When they're older they'll see that there are other ways to discuss current events.
"It might sound like a story from a parallel universe – but it’s true. The Bullet Cluster isn’t the incontrovertible evidence for particle dark matter that you have been told it is. It’s possible to explain the Bullet Cluster with models of modified gravity. And it’s difficult to explain it with particle dark matter"
"As soon as you start adding extra fields that couple to the gravitational field, you're no longer modifying gravity. You're doing something that is much closer to what dark matter is doing, with the only difference being that you're invoking an additional particle-free field rather than a field that does have particles. Which is frankly just weird because any field should be quantizable and thus any field should have something that looks like a particle, in principle. Your proposal would basically be to throw quantum mechanics out in order to explain the bullet cluster, which is frankly a lot more problematic than simply adding an extra field to the already existing ones."
If I understand the gist of that, the whole argument for modified gravity being somehow simpler seems to go out the window. The author responded:
"That's how it's called. Don't blame me for the terminology. Sure, the field should have particles if you quantize it, but at low energies the classical mean-field approximation should be good."
It sounds like the Occam's Razor argument about modified gravity being better because it's just a revision of universal laws was conceded somewhere along the line, so why even bother?
Edit:
From my lay perspective, I imagine it like this: we see dinosaur footprints appearing for no apparent reason. Dark matter theorists say it's invisible dinosaurs. Modified gravity theorists say (I thought) that the laws of gravity can be adjusted to explain it as a "natural" phenomenon. But now it sounds like they are saying there is a continuous field that happens to have significant amplitudes in the places that we would otherwise appear to have quantized invisible dinosaurs. But how does that explain at all the reason for the field having an amplitude here and not there? Why is it more pleasing or likely than distinct individual dinosaurs? It all seems like a bait and switch so ridiculous I feel like I must be misunderstanding grossly.
"Modified gravity cannot successfully predict the large-scale structure of the Universe the way that a Universe full of dark matter can. Period. And until it can, it’s not worth paying any mind to as a serious competitor. You cannot ignore physical cosmology in your attempts to decipher the cosmos, and the predictions of large-scale structure, the microwave background, the light elements, and the bending of starlight are some of the most basic and important predictions that come out of physical cosmology. "
Mr Siegel asserts that dark matter hypothesis is better than any kind of MOND (and, may I add, his opinion is expressed in over-confident and even dogmatic way) because it can "explain" structure of the Universe. However, people in comments doubt that LCDM is particularly good in this area:
"The problem is that dark matter can’t predict the structure of the universe all that well either. Making those dark matter simulations work requires introducing all sorts of epicycles, kludgy mechanisms to make the calculations work out properly. I’m not a big MOND fan, but MOND seems to solve certain problems fairly well, and the galaxy rotation problem is one of them."
I don’t see any valid new argument in the qouted comment, yes, the only strength of MOND are galaxy rotations, as mentioned by Ethan, no, no epycycles are actually present in lambda CDM.
"The goal of Buddhism is not to create an alliance to eventually rule the world and compete with evil Western forces, but to develop a way of life through personal enlightenment that allows a better world to emerge."
Suttas of Pali canon, the most ancient collection of Buddhist texts, are not dedicated to building a better world, though they contain advise on how to achieve happier and more peaceful existence. The goal of Buddha's teaching is an escape, a release from the endless cycle of rebirths, that is achieved through renunciation and non-clinging to the world and the concept of "self".
What's evil about me wanting to live with people with whom I share cultural heritage, language, ethics and peculiarities of perception of life? What's wrong with having an independent sovereign government, with having laws and rules tailored specifically to this large tribe I belong to?
I have no desire for my nation to invade other countries or to impose our rules and ways of life on other people. That said, I also will not tolerate foreign interference in my nation's affairs, come it from a single country or international gang, such as UN.
Nations and nationalism are not evil, they are manifestations of different, unique ways of human development, manifestations of the very diversity Western leftists crave for.
The main issues with strong nationalism is: i) it encourages rhetoric blaming the other, which encourages escalating conflict and, historically war, and ii) it does not map to realities on the ground. Europe has been a continuosly shifting map of principalities, empires, kingdoms, nations, cultures, languages and ethnicities for thousands of years, and trying to draw a hard border to create an indivisible homogenous ethnic state does not end well, for the latest from a long list of examples, see Yugoslavia. Similarly in reality Russia is not this kind of nation, but the core of an empire, with many ethnic and cultural groups within its borders, and substantial minorities in neighbouring states. America is a country of immigration which has never had a homogenous ethnicity or culture. In none of these places can this kind of ethnic-cultural-nationalist state be created.
> State is the name of the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it lies; and this lie slips from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche
Of course, Nietzsche wrote this before companies with "no I in team" and whatnot :P
> What's wrong with having an independent sovereign government
Nothing, but "nationalism" to me implies some sort identification with a symbol, rather than interacting with reality. Sufficiently developed individuals don't "belong to" groups, it's the other way around. Tribalism is a great method to stop that development dead in its tracks.
> The emotional urges which are inescapable, and are perhaps even necessary to political action, should be able to exist side by side with an acceptance of reality.
In so far that is the case for what you would consider nationalism, carry on. To me, a sense of responsibility towards the place where you live and towards the people that live there is just that,
while nationalism adds more and only bad things to it. I generally see it used as crutch or excuse.
Sorry about your downvotes. People will see you're right eventually, but by then it will be too late.
EDIT: Oh my that was a fast downvote, < 10 seconds. I wonder if a clever HN member has set a "thought police" style bot upon me. Sorry, I shall try harder to stick to the narrative.
It is not always true. Imagine the system, where the government is a primary source of grants. There is a possibility that government will prefer funding the scientists whose work supports government's political agenda.
How is consensus settled, when there are renowned scientists out there who object the CAGW hypothesis? Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry, Freeman Dyson - are they all bought and paid for by oil industry?
Roy Spencer is a satellite observation expert, who has reversed his opinion of satellite measurements, and now believes that warming is about as described by the traditional thermometer datasets.
Judith Curry doesn't disagree with AGW, she disagrees with the scale predicted. That would mean less immediate, strict action, but action nevertheless.
Freeman Dyson isn't a climatologist, he also says himself "[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have." He also believes in AGW.
It's good to have sceptics, and in particular being sceptical about the scale of AGW is very reasonable. The IPCC predictions actually have a wide variance for these reasons. These scientists don't really speak against the moderate action currently proposed, they aren't backing for Trump's position.
I don't mind AGW at all (it's obvious that human activity influences the climate, and probably the effects of deforestation are as severe as effects from CO2 emissions), but I find CO2-CAGW (i.e. anthropogenic warming caused by CO2 emissions and leading to catastrophic consequences) unconvincing, to a lesser degree due to personal knowledge (uncertainty in clouds feedback, under appreciation of positive effects of higher CO2 concentration etc), and to a higher degree, due to views of Lindzen, Curry, Spencer Dyson, and other scientists.
Yes, Dyson's rhetoric on climate moved a bit towards "alarmist" side, but he still doesn't believe in catastrophic consequences:
"The good news is that the main effect of carbon dioxide … is to make the planet greener, [by] feeding the growth of green plants of all kinds [and] increasing the fertility of farms and fields and forests."
Even by the late '90s there were renowned medical scientists who disagreed with the consensus around the "HIV causes AIDS" hypothesis, despite ample evidence.
You asked how there could be "consensus" on the existence of ACC when some scientists dispute its existence.
The parent post gave an example of a case where some credentialed scientists continued to dispute the HIV-AIDS link well after the balance of evidence was against them.
Many people would say there was a "consensus" on the HIV-AIDS link despite the continued skepticism of some scientists, and that this scenario has parallels with climate science.
Can you offer a counter example, where a holdout group of scientists who disagreed with consensus in their field were proved right?
Climate changes anyway, so why do anything about it? People die anyway, so who cares what causes AIDS?
Call it "climate science denialism" if you prefer. It's no different from AIDS denialism.
Thabo Mbeki, President of South Africa in 1999-2008, listened to the denialists' views about the AIDS outbreak. He had an AIDS advisory panel staffed with consensus critics -- just like Trump and Pruitt are doing. The estimated number of premature deaths due to Mbeki's counterproductive actions is around 300,000.
The article is about paradigm shifts in science. Obviously those happen, but not every minority opinion is such a shift. They are notable because they are so very rare.
What do you see as the paradigm shift that turns climate science on its head and proves the consensus wrong?
Suppose that new discovery in natural climate variability provides IPCC with better models, and these models show that CO2 has only minor influence on global warming and climate overall. "Paradigm shift" would be a good description for this development.
This 'consensus' approach is biased from the start, because it automatically gives a benefit to the so-called "scientists" as if they are somehow more wise or knowledgable about anything any more than a soothsayer or even pulling a few stones out of the ground and interpreting the residual dirt in their cracks while intoxicated on some brewed concoction of plants.
Nope. The IPCC consensus has been reached through a lot of hard, unpaid or very poorly paid, work by people passionate about helping others, that all the time know they could easily get bought to spread falsehoods and reap large rewards.
consensus as in general agreement, as in a majority. Pointing out that some minority group exists is hardly a refutation. Would you not say there is a consensus the Earth is round?
Why should one trust majority, and not minority, if "minority" people are also qualified and respected (Spencer, Curry)? There were episodes in the history of science, when the majority turned out to be wrong.
I won't object to the fact that majorities can be wrong. There are many examples, ancient and recent. But that is a different argument from your other comment.
I trust majority in science because it is rarely wrong. I'd need a bit more than "majorities have been wrong before!" to switch sides.
Which part of the science do you find unconvincing? We have great ice core data going back 1000's of years, the greenhouse effect itself is universally agreed upon and understood, we have a measurable rise in global average temperature over the last 2 centuries, and we see that people are spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Solar cycles, volcanoes, and other non-human sources have been refuted and disproved time and time again. only scientists paid to lobby on behalf of the source of warming disagree with the cause. What's missing that could ever convince you?
The CAGW builds upon following argument: increased concentration of CO2 reduces the EM radiation's emission in frequencies that CO2 absorbs, ergo the surface temperature should rise in order to keep Earth's thermodynamic balance.
Increased temperature clearly affects the formation of clouds which have both positive and negative effects: they deflect incoming solar radiation, but also deflect surface radiation. The net effect is unclear, unfortunately.
I'm also quite puzzled by apparent lag between CO2 and temperatures in Vostok ice core data. Contrary to CAGW, temperature rises first, and CO2 follows.
My layman understanding is quite limited, of course, that's why eventually I go to the scientists for their expertise. I don't believe that all opponents of CAGW theory are shills; some of them are very respected people: Lindzen, Spencer, etc. My only conclusion is that science is not settled and CAGW is still an unconfirmed hypothesis.
ACC doesn't build upon the hypothesis that CO2 reduces the energy emission. The underpinning is the greenhouse effect whereby gasses, particularly CO2 prevent heat absorbed by the Earth's surface from radiating back out into space. Only about 26% of the Sun's energy is reflected by clouds or the atmosphere. CO2 concentration increases heat retention but not cloud albedo(reflectiveness) nor atmospheric reflectiveness.
Cloud formation is not related to CO2. CO2 is the primary factor driving the greenhouse effect. In fact research is beginning to show that a warmer planet may have lower cloud cover [1][2]. There is no cloud controversy, you are literally making that up.
It does build on the fact that increased concentration of CO2 reduces EM waves emission (in the parts of frequency spectrum that can be absorbed by CO2) from Earth to space. Earth is presumed to maintain thermodynamic balance (i.e. energy received should be equal to energy lost). To compensate for reduced emission caused by CO2, Earth's surface warms up and restores the balance. This is global warming 101, I believe.
Have you read your links?
"One of the biggest questions in climate sensitivity has been the role of low-level cloud cover. Low-altitude clouds reflect some of the sun's radiation back into the atmosphere, cooling the earth. It's not yet known whether global warming will dissipate clouds, which would effectively speed up the process of climate change, or increase cloud cover, which would slow it down.
But a new study published in the July 24 issue of Science is clearing the haze. A group of researchers from the University of Miami and the Scripps Institute of Oceanography studied cloud data of the northeast Pacific Ocean — both from satellites and from the human eye — over the past 50 years and combined that with climate models. They found that low-level clouds tend to dissipate as the ocean warms — which means a warmer world could well have less cloud cover. "That would create positive feedback, a reinforcing cycle that continues to warm the climate," says Amy Clement, a climate scientist at the University of Miami and the lead author of the Science study."
That's one study that recorded the cloud data for subset of Earth.
"Point to" is not confident enough. Even skepticalscience, the "alarmist"-side site, admits that "While clouds remain an uncertainty, the evidence is building that clouds will probably cause the planet to warm even further".
"A group of researchers from the University of Miami and the Scripps Institute of Oceanography studied cloud data of the northeast Pacific Ocean"
Study from your first link recorded cloud cover data over subset of Earth's atmosphere. It doesn't say anything about whether clouds feedback is positive, or negative. Local data is not very useful evidence, global data would be preferable.
Here is an explanation of what is cloud feedback: increase of temperature has effects on cloud formation. If feedback from changes in cloud formation is positive, it will lead to even more warming. Negative feedback would mean that changed cloud formation actually reduces warming.
I did read the links, they both point to positive feedback cycles, and you cherry picked that quote to obfuscate that point.
Your first statement is proving my point, CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect, causing warming on average. Human activity is the cause of historically high CO2 levels.
Freeman Dyson is not a climate scientist at all and never has been.
Roy Spencer isn't a "renowned scientist"; he's a paid oil-industry shill.
Lindzen used to be a scientist; now he's retired and gets paid to be a Cato Institute shill.
Judith Curry also used to be a scientist and quit her academic job; presumably being a shill pays WAY better.
So, basically, yes, they are all bought and paid for, or, they simply have no credentials or knowledge of the field in question.
Dyson is a renowned physicist interested in climate science. I believe that his physics/math skills and general intelligence allow him to be quite competent in climate issues.
Lindzen retired only in 2013. I don't see how this makes his opinion about CAGW less valuable, especially given the fact that he was skeptical about CAGW hypothesis for a long time.
"Judith Curry also used to be a scientist and quit her academic job; presumably being a shill pays WAY better." - where's the proof that she is a "shill"?
Roy Spencer is a renowned scientist in my book: "Roy Warren Spencer is a meteorologist, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center."
Again, where is the proof that he is oil industry's shill?
To my knowledge, Freeman Dyson has no peer reviewed research contributions in the climate literature. That should be the price of entry, otherwise there is nothing of substance to critique.
This is exactly what I meant by fallacies. Either their research is legitimate or it is not. And that legitimacy is not a factor of the employer - if their science sucks, it'll manifest in the data, analysis, or conclusions, regardless of who's paying for it.
I know what the word shill means, and your inverse variant of red-baiting isn't very effective. Simply taking money from some group does not mean you are a shill for that group.
There is a lot more. But Tox is hardly "homebrew crypto" from "4chan" hackers.
Though, even the issue you've linked show the thought that the tox team have been putting into their protocol. (A stolen private key is game over, as in most situations. KCI is hard, let's rework.)
The first part is sarcastic. It's a shame that you have to resort to "preventive self-denigrating" when voicing valid concerns about the FRS, which is basically a facade for a bunch of crooks who usurped the control over US money supply.
With mypy (http://mypy-lang.org/), it could be.