No not just like it, because the only difference with methampathemines is that the added meth group makes it able to cross the blood barrier much quicker, hence why I said its equivalent to a lose dose of meth. The chemical/biological response on the body and brain are very similar, the difference is in potency
But onset of action is a very important distinction in medicine/pharmacology, as is dose.
Most abusers of methamphetamine are not taking it orally (slow route of administration) and are generally using much higher relative dosing than ADHD patients are using amphetamines. Potential for addiction and other physical harms are greatly affected by both of those things, so the comparison has some truth, but is obviously sensationalized.
No, the difference between amphetamine and methamphetamine is that they are literal different chemicals.
If one could 'add meth'(??) to chemicals to make them more potent, without changing the chemical, it would be the difference between (for example) citric acid and really strong citric acid, or codeine 2.5mg and codeine 5mg.
You'll note that neither of these involves changing the name of the chemical, because that is not how chemical names work.
As someone else has pointed out, the difference between 'hydrogen monoxide' and 'dihydrogen monoxide' isn't 'it's like hydrogen monoxide with added di', because that is ridiculous.
Please stop saying anything beginning with 'meth' is just meth with added bits.
It's a really odd misinterpretation of the terrible dangers of: methane, Methodists, methanol, Methaemoglobin, methicillin, etc.
> who wouldn't want to witness and be a part of a new world?
Me?
This view is grounded in the assumption that the future will be better than today. There is no guarantee of that. This is, in my opinion, the same flaw in the thought process of wanting to live forever. The assumption being that, this "new world" is a better place than where you are now. That it is compatible with you as you are. That you will never grow tired of existing.
I know for a fact that I will grow tired of existence. Why would I want to continue it? The bar is very high for me to want to continue to exist in a "new world". I would need guarantees that the world will be a better place where I can thrive in ways I can not in this one. That I will be accepted in this "new world".
You are free to choose non existence but others are equally free to be brave enough to wake up in a worse world.
They may even feel responsible enough to try and fix it rather than requiring a "guarantee".
> The assumption being that, this "new world" is a better place than where you are now.
No one is assuming that. At least, I am not assuming that. Even if the world gets worse, I think it is rational to want to live longer and try and fix that.
Even if it is provably 100% unfixable and worse, any existence is better than non existence (certain forms of Hindu/Buddhist meditation teach you how to get into a state where that is obvious).
> This view is grounded in the assumption that the future will be better than today. There is no guarantee of that.
It could be better, it could be flawed in the same ways, it could be flawed but in different ways, or it could be worse altogether. Compare our current lives with someone a century ago. Two centuries. A millenia. Plus hey if you wake up and the oceans have boiled off, there's solutions to your continued existence then.
> I know for a fact that I will grow tired of existence.
I think that's the main part - ceasing to exist should be a choice. It wasn't one to be brought into this world, but inhabiting it and going out of it should be done on one's own terms and when having lived as good of a long life as one might want to. For some people that will be close to a century. For others that might be a thousand years. Who knows, for some it might be a million years.
If this is all thought experiments, why not? At that point, why even care about waking up in a capitalist dystopian hellhole? Might take a few centuries to overthrow them but it's not like that sort of life is the end point of humanity. And if it is, at least you'd know that for sure. Or maybe it's nuclear winter. Or something closer to a utopia, or at least something where everyone's basic needs are more or less met. Asking for guarantees doesn't work either way.
I can recommend the comic “Transmetropolitan” by Warren Ellis, which deals with this and many other questions.
You have to imagine what it would be like for someone who lived in 1826 too wake up today, in a world where nothing they know is relevant, they have no connections, no idea what to do with any of it. Historians might want to interview you, or the first couple of people like you, but then what?
You will be an audience member to a show you don’t understand, until you die.
Retraining people once they're alive again not only requires logisitics and hiring N-centuries from now, but also requires that anyone really cares. You could imagine a world where 100s of people are being reanimated at once, but I don't think the economics would ever let that event happen.
Once this passes through a few generations of people responsible for tending to the needs of rich people's frozen brains, the empathy and money will be gone. Imagine inheriting a business funded from people wanting to skip over the entirety of your lifetime because they assume your time is too boring for them. Plus, your impact on that business will be null. There is nothing you can do except keep it going and get more rich people's brains in there. The only "innovation" that's going to drive business is bringing someone back to life... which for a large span of brain custodians, will only be possible AFTER their death. Maybe you need to model it after a religion; humanity has kept stuff going for long spans of time under that framing... but are you still just a servant to these ancient people who you have not met, and will actually NEVER meet since you'll die first... having spent precious time in your life taking care of them? Seems like an uninspiring religion.
Or... you do some fraud, which is much easier. They're already functionally dead, and you presumably have access to a lot of their money. Money that is worth more in your lifetime, than in their future.
People have historically cared very little about the personal feelings of the pharoah as they dust off his bones and take his nice things. Doesn't even need that long. Guess what, T+200 years, the brains are getting dumped in a river.
We dont retrain people who get left behind in sector wide redundancies and such now. I admire the optimism, but I'm here for a good time not a long time, and I'm not betting on the future being better than right now.
> You will be an audience member to a show you don’t understand, until you die.
I mean - I barely understand what I’m seeing in the world now. Maybe I can look back on now and understand it with the benefit of unclassified files and whatnot?
Fall, Or Dodge in Hell (Neil Stephenson) and The Waves (Ken Liu) are two other good stories about brain scanning and transhumanism. The first one is a ridiculously long novel about a future where the cloud is increasingly used for uploading souls of scanned brains, and the second one is a short story where people on a spaceship eventually evolve into noncorporal beings.
The "muse vs. writer" framing is a good start, but the real issue is the source of inspiration. An AI prompted on a blank slate will only ever generate a sophisticated average of its training data. The workflow is broken. A better system doesn't start with "What should I write?" but with "What have I learned?" Using AI to synthesize your unique takeaways from high-signal content you've already consumed—a podcast, a talk—is how you scale authenticity, not just words.
I'm the founder of Castifai.com, which is built for this. It systematizes the "muse" by creating a workflow that starts with content you consume (talks, podcasts) and turns your insights into authentic drafts, solving the input problem.
This isn't a content problem; it's a systems problem. The pressure to create without a pipeline for genuine insights leads to these templates. Authentic thought leadership should be a byproduct of a consumption and synthesis workflow, not a forced, separate task.
I've been working on solving this - first for myself and then for others - by building a tool for this called Castifai. It's a consumption-first workflow that helps turn insights from content you already consume into authentic posts, so you're sharing what you know, not just filling a quota. (I'm the founder). You can try it at castifai.com
Singapore is a dictatorship wearing a democracy's outfit.
One party has been ruling continuously since its formation and you can't go against its ideas.
There is no real competition for ideas like we have in the US.
So, yeah, the "discussion/debates" will be high quality when it is one sided. Just like North Korea is free from low quality debates, Singapore too is free from that.
> In June, university students and alumni delivered letters opposing a new racial harmony bill to the Ministry of Home Affairs, arguing that it provided the government with further powers to clampdown on dissent. The authors were later investigated by the police. In the same month, police charged three activists – Annamalai Kokila Parvathi, Siti Amirah Mohamed Asrori and Mossammad Sobikun Nahar – with organizing a procession in a prohibited area under the Public Order Act. These charges came after they led a march to the Presidential Palace to deliver a letter of concern about the Gaza conflict. If found guilty, they could be fined up to SDG 10,000 (USD 7,360) or face six months’ imprisonment.
Have you not been observing what is happening in the US right now? Any dissension is labeled as "domestic terrorism" - this is coming from the highest levels in US government.
So is the facade of democracy much different from a dictatorship?
I'm not here saying that Singapore is doing everything right. I'm just noting that public political presentations from Singapore seem vastly better than watching Trump, Leavitt, Noem, Bondi, Patel, or virtually any other "leaders" speak. The quality of communication - message aside - is utter garbage. It's a very sad state of affairs. What we see here is dumbed down language that caters to the least educated, most easily misled masses. And this illustrates where democracy fails: democracy assumes a reasonable level of education and comprehension. We don't have there here, especially when psyops tactics have been employed by some news networks for two decades now.
It really doesn't matter what I say or what evidence I present to you.
There is ample... overwhelming numbers of on the ground video of non-violent protestors being assaulted by armed, masked men who are jacked up on false authority. They harm people, they even shoot people, and they lie about it.
The upper administration responds to these events within minutes, naming the harmed citizens as "domestic terrorists". Later, when bodycam and bystander videos are released, this is disproven. Time and time again.
To be very, very clear: anyone not physically attacking an authority figure but who may be protesting, making videos, or yelling, is not a terrorist. That is an observer or a protester.
How does that make advertising a bullshit job? The only way advertising won't exist or won't be needed is when humanity becomes a hive mind and removes all competition.
Countries can just ban advertising, and hopefully we will slowly move towards this. There are already quite a few specific bans - tobacco advertising is banned, gambling and sex product advertising is only allowed in certain specific situations, billboards and other forms of advertising on public spaces are often banned in large European cities, and so on.
No. They can ban particular modes. They can’t stop people from using power and money to spread ideas.
In the US hedge funds are banned from advertising and all they did is change their forms of presentation to things like presenting at conferences or on podcasts.
If there was a socialist fantasy of a government review board for which all products were submitted before being listed in a government catalog. Then advertising would be lobbying and jockeying that review board to view your product in a particular way. Or merely to go through the process and ensure correct information was kept.
The parts that are only done to maintain status quo with a competitor aren’t productive, and that’s quite a bit of it. Two (or more) sides spend money, nothing changes. No good is produced. The whole exercise is basically an accident.
Like when a competing country builds their tenth battleship, so you commission another one to match them. The world would have been better if neither had been build. Money changed hands (one supposes) but the aim of the whole exercise had no effect. It was similar to paying people to dig holes a fill them back in again, to the tune of serious money. This was so utterly stupid and wasteful that there was a whole treaty about it, to try to prevent so many bullshit jobs from being created again.
Or when Pepsi increases their ad spending in Brazil, so Coca Cola counters, and much of the money ends up accomplishing little except keeping things just how they were. That component or quality of the ad industry, the book claims, is bullshit, on account of not doing any good.
The book treats of several ways in which a job might be bullshit, and just kinda mentions this one as an aside: the zero-sum activity. It mostly covers other sorts, but this is the closest I can recall it coming to declaring sales “bullshit” (the book rarely, bordering on never, paints even most of an entire industry or field as bullshit, and advertising isn’t sales, but it’s as close as it got, as I recall)
I think you’ve misunderstood what I’ve written here. Graeber’s book might make it clearer for you, he probably did a better job of explaining it than I do. It’s about spendy Red Queen’s races, not just trying to make something better or trying to compete in general. The application of the idea to military spending is pretty much standard and uncontroversial stuff (hell, it was 100-plus years ago) while his observation of a similar effect in some notable component of ad spending is novel (at least, I’d not seen that connection made before).
I agree that advertising has some of the worst symptoms of an arms race. I think regulations can reduce the most annoying modes of ads (I live in an area with no billboards). I don’t think advertising is a bullshit job - it’s essential, and I don’t think there exists a society without it.
See what I mean? What you see as a bullshit job is just completely misunderstanding how human beings work.
- Which products get included in the candidate list? Every product in existence which claims use?
- how many results can it return? And in what order?
- which attributes or description of the product is provided to the llm? Who provides it?
- how are the claims in those descriptions verified?
- what if my business believes the claims or description of our product is false?
- how will the llm change its relative valuations based on demand?
> The only way advertising won't exist or won't be needed is when humanity becomes a hive mind and removes all competition.
I don't need advertisement to pick the best product for myself. I have a list of requirements that I need fulfilled – why do I need advertisement for it?
reply