* not every artist has a donation link.
* I don't get the album for free otherwise
So I think it's totally ok for the service to give 10% to bandcamp (or whatever camp it will be in the future).
But I would be really happy when something like Faircamp takes off, and is easy for artists to use (or labels etc.), so they would be having more control, while providing a clean interface (unlike e.g. Qobuz)
Yeah liquid dosing, pretty sure I did it right, got accurate dosed acid as well (which is rare AFAIK). But even if it wouldn't super accurate, it's much more likely to be less acid than more.
But I'm quite hypersensitive to substances in general I think, so my experience may not be representative.
Recreationally dosing in all kinds of settings and doses (e.g. microdosing in almost any setting on very different doses etc.). I have accurately tested LSD, so I know the exact dose I'm taking. Also I've done a bit of research of various scientific articles.
It's unfortunately not really legal though where I'm living.
AFAIK there are a few psychiatrists/researchers around the world where it's approved for clinical studies, where you could try it in a clinical setting. But unfortunately you're often still on your own with trying it. I tried microdosing it for treating ADHD, but I'm not really sure if it really helped there, and I'm back on the usual medications, YMMV though, as LSD has mild stimulant properties as well.
I may try a combination/mix of LSD and other ADHD medications in the near future though.
It being a neuroplasticity enhancer doesn't necessarily mean that it's enhancing in a good/healthy way. I noticed that my thoughts/imagination have gone a bit more "visual" (not sure if that's really the right term), I'm not sure if it really made me more creative. I think for me it mostly manifested my mind further and I'm a bit more in tune with nature etc. (much more conscious of all the "ecocrimes" humanity is doing).
This may not always be a good thing if e.g. you're prone to conspiracy theories.
It can also mean that it's promoting growth in areas in the brain that shouldn't be connected (e.g. leading to psychosis), it's still a powerful substance which should be handled carefully.
But in general I think it still takes some time until this is a clinically approved substance. I think it will likely be for stuff like depression or PTSD or generally disorders originating mostly in the frontal lobe.
I have certainly noticed the antidepressive properties of it (although I never had a real depression while taking it).
Are you sure you have really taken 100ug? The blotters these days are very often quite a bit less, although marketed as 100ug.
100ug should be enough for most for a good trip.
Even 15/20ug is quite a bit, which I would sometimes consider a minidose (depending on the setting).
I detect even down to 5-7ug LSD that I'm dosed (though I'm quite experienced with all kinds of dosages).
75ug is definitely tripping-level. No way someone couldn't detect that they are dosed, just the contrast/visual-enhancing qualities alone should be enough to detect that, maybe even some LSD-typical distortions can occur at that dose...
Where I'd consider a (good) CTO should be somehow responsible for the high-level architectural decisions. Accumulate enough expertise and know-how (via "architects" or rather very senior engineers) and then discuss the pros/cons and at the end weigh each argument and decide what may work best.
Huh? They never said that, just warned that the THC/CBD ratio is important to avoid schizophrenia or other psychiatric conditions (which is scientifically backed btw.)
Why C++ though, when there's Rust? I understand that rewriting/refactoring projects from C++ to Rust may not be a good idea (in most cases at least). But starting a new project (or porting from a different language) in C++ doesn't make sense to me nowadays (unless pretty much any potential dependency of that project is written in difficult-to-wrap-in-Rust C++)
Especially if you're coming from Swift anyways (which is more closer to Rust than C++).
Not possible, due to the way how git works:
It's a merkle tree of commits, where each of these commits point to a file tree (content-addressed by the hash) and the previous commit
> Completely different approach but same result in the end.
Well if you lock everything down with hashes, maybe in some sense, but other than declaring your configuration in a text file and deploying software with it, it's pretty much different (imperative approach with side effects everywhere, vs functional declarative approach).
* Nix being a real programming language (and thus allows far better composition, and abstraction)
* You can run any configuration you want, and easily jump between configurations (e.g. rollback), advantage of being stateless (well obviously to a degree, as a lot of software itself creates state, but normally you're not jumping between multiple major versions of the same software anyway).
* Great caching as every built derivation is cached in `nix/store`, thus only things get rebuild, that are actually changed
With Ansible you may achieve something similar, but afaik require way more setup and discipline to keep it clean, and the "programming" in Ansible feels rather painful, if you're used to a real (functional) programming language.
You can achieve this without Proof of Work, but unfortunately Bitcoin will probably stay forever with this Consensus algorithm (considering the circumstances).
Bitcoins energy consumption is disproportionate to the value for the societey it has.
As usual when this tired counter-argument is made, you aren't considering alternative solutions (cryptocurrencies) that are already working with Consensus algorithms like (variants of) Proof of Stake...
Forget Bitcoin, Lightning Network was announced years ago and it's still far from being used in production. Also this doesn't solve the Proof of Work problem Bitcoin has, the higher its value the more energy is used, a second layer solution isn't going to fix this issue, it's only increasing throughput.
Since developers of Bitcoin are extremely conservative and censoring, I doubt Bitcoin is going anywhere in the mid to far future. Other projects are just faster and can potentially deliver their promises.
* not every artist has a donation link. * I don't get the album for free otherwise
So I think it's totally ok for the service to give 10% to bandcamp (or whatever camp it will be in the future).
But I would be really happy when something like Faircamp takes off, and is easy for artists to use (or labels etc.), so they would be having more control, while providing a clean interface (unlike e.g. Qobuz)