370nm

@DrSuneelDhand Compare that with "recreational" fentanyl use

What is the evidence that psychedelics can be dangerous ? Well firstly, I absolutely refuse to debate psychedelics/mushrooms with anyone who has used them recreationally for a “high” (which is a whole LOT of people who you are seeing online right now, disappointingly some of these people are in the wellness space as well). They are biased, and immediately excluded from the debate. Of course, I would never use these drugs myself and can look at evidence properly. There are lots of case reports and stories of people who have not responded well to psychedelics. It is absolutely guaranteed that once these products get rolled out to people in their thousands or millions, we are going to hear more stories of adverse events and side effects. Like with any Big Pharma strong drug. Here is just one study of many, which shows a link to psychiatric illness/schizophrenia Study: Adverse psychiatric effects of psychedelic drugs: a systematic review of case reports B Yildirim et al. Psychol Med. 2024 Nov.

Even from a pharmacology standpoint, most psychedelics are not addictive. If you, as an MD don't understand this, it explains why many people lost all trust in your profession. It's not even opinionated like cholestorol or vaccines, but indeniably proven. (Unless you see "like to do" as an addiction, then every hobby can be called addictive)

Wow, these comments are exactly how addicts speak. Absolutely nothing good will come out out of millions of people replacing one drug with another. This is the most atrocious part of US culture— nobody who isn’t in an addict or dependent on a drug, gets so angry. Bad!

I am 100% convinced that nearly all of the pro-psychedelic nonsense we are seeing— is from people in the wellness space who use it recreationally. It’s not from people with addiction issues. And they think we are too stupid to see that. Stay away from recreational drugs folks!

@sweatystartup Useless without study design details. Why? Almost all children eat breakfast, while very few of them die from cancer or cardiovascular disease.

Friendly reminder: Skipping breakfast is associated with a 27% increased risk of all-cause mortality. 28% increased risk of cardiovascular death. 34% increased risk of cancer. Intermittent fasting is bullshit! Stop doing it!

@DrSuneelDhand The fact that you use the same word for substances like heroin and psychedelics, show you have really no clue what you are talking about.

You don’t solve a drug addiction problem by getting people on more drugs. I don’t understand why this is such a difficult concept to grasp. Too many Americans are addicted to their drugs. Awful cultural decline of a once great country!

Disagree with this. The absolute last thing America needs is more people on mind-altering drugs. 14 million people— is that 5% of the country?? I had to double check this isn’t April 1

@FilipLardon Sigarettenpartikeks zijn groter dan coronavirus. Filters zijn denser dan mondkapjes. Wie liegt er?

🚬 Sigarettenfilters geven rokers een vals gevoel van veiligheid, want ze verminderen de schadelijke gevolgen van #roken niet. Wat ze wel doen is een immens milieuprobleem creëren. De gifstoffen en microplastics komen straks in onze eigen maag terecht. 2/4 demorgen.be/nieuws/hoge-ge…

Ons advies vanuit de Hoge Gezondheidsraad België om sigarettenfilters te bannen werd eerder opgepikt in de VS, vandaag ook in het kabinet in NL 🇳🇱 Sigarettenfilters doen voor de gezondheid meer kwaad dan goed. Ze creëren ook een immens milieuprobleem. 1/4 telegraaf.nl/politiek/kabin…

@Chatain_French @ctoLarsson For the owner in question it is the same, except that he gets more time. So the chance that happens is smaller than when his wallet gets frozen unconditionally. Unless the wallet has a fortune, the chances of being hacked is very small

@serpent_rope @ctoLarsson what if you didn't updated your wallet for so long that it became unsafe and someone steals your fund all at once when you come back? do you seriously think this is a better situation?

BIP-361 to freeze quantum vulnerable wallets: Yes. The alternative is price dipping to near 0. That would be bad for Bitcoin’s reputation. If not freezing: - Say you know that half a million BTC will be market dumped tomorrow. - What will you do today? You will sell today, to re-buy tomorrow at a fraction of the price. - So will everyone else. - Will anyone buy today? No. - So there is little or no floor. - Price will wick down to “impossible” levels. - Then repeat it again a few days later, for a total of 2 million btc. - Oh price will hit near zero. The argument to not freeze, is to completely f over Wall Street, Saylor, treasuries, and everyone else and start again from basically zero.

@Chatain_French @ctoLarsson No. Freezing is against the whole original idea of bitcoin. This is nanny-state behavior. What if you are in prison, of you're demented and have your will containing the seed phrase, but still live for 10y.

@serpent_rope @ctoLarsson those who want freedom can also be in favor of freezing unsafe funds, and if nodes decide unsafe funds should be frozen (for instance so that no one steal it) then there's nothing much to do. doesn't mean safe funds can or would be frozen at all

@Chatain_French @ctoLarsson But there are 2 camps Those that want financial profit and those that want freedom

@serpent_rope @ctoLarsson well, the fork that has the fund frozen would likely win. anyway in bitcoin the rules can be changed. just that it is extremely hard and likely only happens if it benefits virtually everyone.

@IamTethark @johncrickett Agree on that, was to illustrate that on new tech, other big players arise

@serpent_rope @johncrickett Maybe but still search engine example doesn’t fit. Search engines didn’t create new enterprise suppliers because it isn’t an enterprise technology. Companies don’t pay for it. Entirely different market dynamics

GitHub Copilot will beat Claude Code. Not because it's better. Because Copilot is the new IBM. It checks the enterprise box. Microsoft is already a preferred supplier. And if it under-delivers, well everyone else bought it too. "You won't get fired for buying X" really means "you won't get blamed for buying X." There's a big difference between not getting blamed and making the right call.

@IamTethark @johncrickett Ai will, and my point was that new tech creates new enterprise suppliers. When the new parties can prove themselves, they will enter that market.

@serpent_rope @johncrickett Search engines and AI doesn’t have much in common from an enterprise perspective

@james_xond Yes, as do most europeans

Trying to prove a point: Could you jump into a stick-shift car and drive it without a problem right now?

Yes, because for the most trivial feature you have to check dozens of dependencies for vulnerabilities. No serious. It just depends on your own skills. Many backend devs underestimate frontend because they are less picky about design details. Many frontend devs underestimate the archtectural complexities of backend (and no, server side http is not backend in my opinion)

Unpopular opinion Frontend is harder than backend

@Hitchslap1 Yes, and I mean literally ALL

I have developed a one question IQ test. Should all scientific questions be open for research and discussion?

Short term, big crisis. Long term, free market will catch up. Everything becomes dirt cheap. Economy will be around human contact, human art, ... Example: essential health services will be cheap (robots). This may sound cold and un-human, but a market will be created where human company can be hired for the average person. Robots can prevent the poor to die or suffer. Humans can make the experience better for those who can afford

Everyone says AI will replace most jobs. But if there are no jobs, there’s no income. No income means no spending. So how does the economy even function? What am I missing?

Still needs friction on the ground to be able to move, and we're talking about 60y old tech I don't say it's impossible, just quite on the pshysically possible limits, and the only proof is video, created by people that have quite some incentives to let the world believe they have superior tech. I don't claim the landing was fake, but there are quite some signals without hard evidence. Looking at the video, i see room for a battery, the size of my speedpedelec, which only provide assistance for 80km while having modern (50y newer) lipo tech

@serpent_rope @jewboycaleb @BGatesIsaPyscho "EVs struggled to reach 400km" Okay, now make the EV 6 times lighter and get rid of all the air hitting it.

Imagine being a fully grown adult with a functioning brain & still believing this…

@Dytrich13 @BGatesIsaPyscho I'm talking about battery size

@serpent_rope @BGatesIsaPyscho I do not beleieve they were on the Moon but let be honest - first ever car was electric in the 1830s! Before the gasoline one🤷‍♂️

@jewboycaleb @BGatesIsaPyscho Look at the video. No large batteries there, and they didn't have lipo or li-ion back then. According to nasa it had an acion radius of 65km. 5 years ago, EV's struggled to reach 400km with huge lithium packs

@serpent_rope @BGatesIsaPyscho You realize they had batteries back then right??