I love this community. I have been on here years and it became one of the very few forums where I decided to finally stop lurking and make an account. It is extremely well moderatet, the discussion are on an amazing level. Topics are fantastic.
To all of you: thank you so much and a very merry christmas! I hope you are doing fine.
On top of all you mention, what I like is vast broad perspective on practically any topic. History, politics, warfare, ultra deep sciences, geeky computer stuff, law, surveillance, travelling... name it, and discussion will get deep pretty quickly. Even disagreements are done in a very mature way (I still think Dang is some prototype AI, I cant imagine what will happen if he goes for 2 weeks off).
I must admit, I come here much more for community discussions rather than articles linked.
Many people will go through this rite of passage. I fondly remember the times when I did read all the articles. Perhaps not coincidentally, those are also the times when I was a broke college student.
Another long-time lurker here and I agree, it's amazing that there seem to be experts on any topic here taking the time to write thoughtful posts. And it's not just about technical discussions. Even when it comes to personal topics there always is a helpful and positive atmosphere.
Merry Christmas HN!
From my short 1 month experiene working in a clinical ward: if young people got brought in due to a psychosis, in the case that it was drug induced, at least 50% were long term cannabis users (followed by alcohol abuse, then some psychoactive drugs, and heroin/crack).
Cannabis definitely is not the vanilla drug so many people make it out to be.
Excellent anecdata. If the effect is so striking, I wonder why it has so stubbornly eluded all the scientific studies seeking to find a causation? Could it be the case that the correlation you describe is caused by one or more "hidden variables"?
Yeah, but by being on a ward you’re inherently suffering from selection bias - you’re only seeing the people who have a problem of one variety of another. From what I understand cannabis is fairly effective at triggering latent psychosis, rather than being the causative agent itself.
I smoke weed like others smoke cigarettes, and while I may find it trickier to do QM in my head while I’m high, and often lose my train, I still can. Some tasks, like coding, become easier - I gain a myopic focus, as it closes out past and future and makes me present.
On the other hand, I’ll also sign off client phone calls with “love you!” and will screw up trivial tasks like pouring a cup of coffee.
The current trend of THC only and cutting out the CBD can't help.
CBD is a natural antipsychotic [1], and I can say the one time I had a really bad prolonged psychosis episode with weed, it was when I thought the CBD was interfering with a medication I was on for Crohn's and decided to cut it out but still use high dose THC for potential immune suppressant effects [2] daily during my flare.
Bad idea. Definitely lost my grip on reality.
Ever since I never drop below a 2:1 CBD:THC ratio and over the years I haven't had anything coming even close to what happened before.
It's astonishing that the current trend is THC without CBD with so little demand for combined product. For everyone touting it as a "natural drug" they sure don't have any issue messing around with the natural balance to create some scary strains.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the current 'conspiracy' trend is in part due to increased THC usage. When I had used it nightly at high doses for only two weeks there was no way I could effectively discern what was plausible or implausible on the Internet. And it took a fair while after stopping to get back to a place of normalcy with that aspect too.
anecdotally, I feel like I know many more regular smokers than regular drinkers.
That said, this could also be selection bias.
I am currently living clean, but have had multiple periods of being stoned basically 24/7 beforehand, whilst always having a very healthy relationship to alcohol (a few drinks socially, once per week or less). It's possible that the people I attract into my life tend to be similar to me.
Disclaimer: worked for the Austrian cartel prosecutor:
Such (as in: requiring regulatory approval in general, as I cannot legally speak to this deal specifically) takeover deals are structured with a suspensive condition, pending regulatory approval. Until that condition is met, it remains pending and without effect.
That is my understanding from german cartel law (very similar)as well. However how do you structure a deal to take retroactive actions by regulators into account. I don’t know if there is a set of established best practices there, but I‘m no M&A Attorney so this could well be a solved problem.
As much as the Law can bore me at times there frequently are questions such as this that pique my interest again.
Saw your recent (6mo ago) ask HN. Did you end up changing careers or stick with the law ? I‘m in a similar situation.
As far as my experience goes, you cannot really take retroactive actions into account. It's extremely bothersome for the parties involved, and they usually choose to fight it out over all instances, since untangling a business by force, as you can guess, is detrimental to everything you are doing. Usually the parties know about such risks and price it in (two ways: you register the acquisition and risk it being denied, or you skip the registration and hope that the authorities won't start an action by themselves).
I stuck with law right now, talked to a lot of people. I do work that leaves me enough free time so as to satisfy my other interests, learn more about it, and if after like maybe 1 year I feel confident enough to switch, I'll do it. Right now I'm content with that situation. How about you?
If you read the article you'll see that Tesla didn't announce anything. The writer of the article found some plain docs Tesla filed with Chinese authorities and decided to editorialise and call it "super long range".
I agree with you. Yet I am not romanticizing a profession. The areas in which I have expertise in simply do not make me happy. I am happy, though, when I do something with maths or biology. So studying and working with it probably makes me happier than I am now. For me it's more about what I like/love doing, not a certain profession itself.
But thanks for pointing that out! And also for your advice.
Luckily enough I do not have any debt and school/university here is almost free.
I wouldn't say they are generally incompetent, it's a complex structure with many different interests being balanced out, and more often times than not it's unfair. Sometimes LE gets crippled by certain inefficiencies, intentionally and unintentionally. But in essence, law is not a creative or very productive space, it's more about safeguarding and balancing out interests.
To all of you: thank you so much and a very merry christmas! I hope you are doing fine.