super+e, clicking the explorer button? I think you're being purposefully difficult here.
I cannot list any of the bugs I have had with Windows off the top of my head, but I can with linux. Driver issues, Pulse audio randomly playing static, updates breaking my system, fractional scaling not working, I could go on.
Certainly some of the behavior I am complaining about is the intended behavior (ads in menus etc), but yes explorer takes several seconds to initialize for me, after the window appears. Not an exaggeration.
At the end of the day, I think the categories are very broad and better respect people's privacy compared to what we had before. Some people in the privacy community seem to think advertising and tracking in any form should not exist and will always make a stink about whatever incarnation they take.
These proposals were made directly because of legislation like GDPR. It's not as if Google got up one day and said "Let's make our job harder."
> Some people in the privacy community seem to think advertising and tracking in any form should not exist and will always make a stink about whatever incarnation they take.
I don't think I'm in the "privacy community". It's my opinion that advertising will always exist, but tracking is complete horseshit and should be abolished ASAP. I don't think this is a very unpopular opinion either. There seems to be an attempt to Stockholm us all into thinking tracking is a necessary evil we must accept.
I'm not apologizing for google, but think many people who are against all forms of this aren't really thinking the problem through. The same way newspapers said "stop linking headlines to us" and then once some popular service did and all their traffic disappeared they came back and said "oh, wait, no, you can link to us"
For the ads, a large portion of the internet that people want (maybe not you in particular but lots of people in general), run on ads. Arstechnica runs on ads, theverge runs on ads, slashdot runs on ads, the register runs on ads, kotaku runs on ads, tech crunch run on ads. To name a few sites that might be popular here
If those sites can't support themselves they'll more than likely disappear. If all those sites disappeared I feel like plenty of people (maybe not you but more people than not) would realize that they thought they wanted (zero disclose) lead to outcomes they didn't want
I feel like Google is genuinely trying to do something positive here. Provide a way of those sites to still target ads, still check if an ad was effective, still try to check for bad actors making fake clicks, but also be practically un-attributable to a single user.
Going through the actual specs, they really are trying to make it so you can't track and individual but sites can still function based on ads.
Is it in Google own interest? Yes. But it's also in the interest of sites people want which means it's also in the interest of the people who want those sites.
Apple on the other hand, would prefer you be tracked directly by having you download an app for each site where that app can track you way more than a browser with these features can track you.
> If those sites can't support themselves they'll more than likely disappear.
Newspapers and television (pre-digital) managed to survive just fine on advertising before tracking was feasible. There are also subscription services. Content is not going to simply disappear if tracking goes away. Sites that depend on tracking for their survival will adapt or die, but that's fine, businesses fail every day, and I'm certainly not sympathetic to businesses who depend on what I would call unethical practices.
The problem is when regulators ignore an industry for years upon years (capture). Entire industries can grow out of practices that would otherwise have been restricted. The longer it takes, the harder it becomes to implement sane regulation. Instead we just get used to what's most likely a shittier society (the political impact of tracking and nudging).
> For the ads, a large portion of the internet that people want (maybe not you in particular but lots of people in general), run on ads.
The internet I want is one with sites run by individuals doing it because they are passionate about certain topics, NOT because it can be profitable when you slap ads on it. Today, the former has a hard time gaining visibility because the latter has much more incentive to make sure you land on their content farm before other sites. Many people don't even know that the former exist. But that doesn't mean that we need the latter. The internet does NOT depend on ads.
> Arstechnica runs on ads, theverge runs on ads, slashdot runs on ads, the register runs on ads, kotaku runs on ads, tech crunch run on ads. To name a few sites that might be popular here
And Somalia runs on piracy so we need to make sure piracy remains possible? Fuck no. Those sites run on ads because that's currently the path of least resistance. They have alternatives.
> If those sites can't support themselves they'll more than likely disappear.
And for a lot of sites, that's OK. There will be replacements.
> If all those sites disappeared
They won't (at least not without replacement) as long as people have a use for the content they provide.
> I feel like Google is genuinely trying to do something positive here.
Are you perhaps interested in buying a bridge?
> Going through the actual specs, they really are trying to make it so you can't track and individual but sites can still function based on ads.
Anything that supports ads is decidedly bad. Slightly less bad is still bad.
> means it's also in the interest of the people who want those sites.
Nope.
> Apple on the other hand
is irrelevant. I can avoid apple devices but there is only one Internet.
I work (partly) in SEO. One of the main issues that affects search and will get even worse in the future is the post-scarcity environment of the web when it comes to information. Say you had five websites for that each have identical cookie recipes. If you optimize search rankings by click-through rating, eventually all the sites will have similar copy, titles, and page descriptions. If you optimize for bounce rate, you knock out sites that get to the point but also knock out sites that crappy and have bad ui/ux. What about core web vitals? Well again, everyone will catch up eventually. Anything that can be gamified will eventually be gamed.
Now instead of 5 sites with identical recipes, what about 500? 5,000? 5,000,000? How can you even rank them in a meaningful way and does it matter to the end user?
There will be too much of a supply of information, especially when ai ramps up, that no one website will have unique value outside of local significance or if it was made by your mom or someone you like. I think it will be crazy to see what the web looks like 10 years from now. It could be vastly different.
You could stop working in SEO and just design shit to be responsive to typical boolean search like Tim intended. But dear God, people might be able to find things then, and where would you fork in the distracting cruft?
The problem never was or will be Search. The problem is advertisers hijacking the verb of "Search" to weight it for those willing to pay.
Librarians and archivists have had search solved for the last century. The only people who have a problem with that implementation are the ones who want to convince you the answer you're looking for is them.
This expectation that everything can be automatically done by algoryths is the core if the problem. its like a form of insanity, it doesn't work but we keep trying.
Why are top 10 results for 'apply for visa to Moldova' a scam? Is it really impossible to give government officials an ability to provide input for official business, like applying for a passport?
Could you not hire like 2 people in each makor country to keep track of websites for important government services?
Could you not take community input like reddit does, or wikipedia?
seriously sometimes i think the people making the smartest algorythms are tge ones with biggest tonnel vision, and are incapable of examining alternative solutions.
...It isn't the algorithm that's the problem. It's people invested in becoming a value extracting diversion for an answer that'll be around.
Lets take your problem. Applying for a visa for Moldova. Let's say that there's a site hosted at visa.moldova.gov with a form to apply.
Eventually, someone is going to integrate a bunch of data broker services to auto-fill that form, then data broker to other tourism related businesses trying to compete to plan your stay.
It is very much in their interest to ensure that no one sees visa.moldova.gov, but instead sees one of their onboarding funnels.
Thus the well around a well known onboarding point to a critical government service is poisoned.
Because humans never experience anything in and of itself, but only the output of the interaction between sensory data and a brain, literally everything is purely the result of human mental activity.
I would agree that everything we experience is a model of the world that we construct from sense data, interpreted by our sensory systems and cognitive faculties. Donald Hoffman is good on this and worth looking up, although I disagree with some of his conclusions.
That doesn't mean the external physical world doesn't exist, the information we use to construct that model must come from somewhere, and we can deduce that the source is a persistent and consistent one.
The philosopher Husserl said: “The tree plain and simple, the thing of nature, is as different as it can be from this perceived tree as such, which as perceptual meaning belongs to the perception, and that inseparably.”
He came up with the idea of the noema which is our experience of something, and noesis which is our conscious act of perception. For me, that's our act of interpretation of our sensory perceptions. Sometimes this all goes wrong and we construct a flawed model that does not correspond perfectly to actual external reality, such as when we are deceived by optical illusions, stage magic or just hallucinate. Fortunately we can test and correct our perceptions through action in the physical world.
I'm an out-and-out physicalist but I think he is quite correct, we must distinguish between our internal perception of things and how things actually are. Fortunately science is extremely powerful in this regard. It has allowed us to decouple our model of the world from the limitations of our perceptual system, and come up with rigorous models of reality such as Relativity and Quantum Mechanics that are not tied to direct interpretation by our perceptive systems.
I think there is a hard limit to what we know and what we can assume to know based of this point and in logic by the Münchhausen trilemma. It's interesting to think of the source of sense data as persistent or consistent when it could just be that our sense organs reduce varied data into persistent experience.
When we look at a tree, it could very well be that the source of the tree is very much like the tree we experience, but it could also be wildly different. When we see a tree in a video game, we know there is no real source tree just like it, just ones and zeroes. I disagree that science fixes this problem. Tools are still just measuring the physical world. For example, if you used a tool to measure some aspect of the tree, you are still measuring the representation of the tree in this world. If I use the video game analogy again, my point is that you wouldn't be able to see true underlying 'source code' of the game tree by looking at it in the game.
I agree certain knowledge may be unattainable, but I don’t care. Useful effective knowledge that helps me achieve my goals in life will do just fine. As long as my mental model of the tree is accurate and useful enough for me to chop it down and make a table out of it, I’m good.
I don’t expect any description to accord perfectly with the reality of the object it refers to. It’s just a description, which may be more or less accurate or useful. Science, and investigation in general, is a way to test and improve such descriptions.
This is the transcendental idealism of Kant. He makes a distinction between the noumena (things in themselves beyond human cognition) and phenomena (things as they appear to us through our senses). Our mind constructs "transcendental objects" which are merely abstract ideas based on the appearances.
I do not agree, humans experience some interactions with Turing machines "in and of itself", because sensory data becomes irrelevant. A bit is always a bit.
This gives an argument about intuitionism: If you say that math is a byproduct of our wetware and nothing else, how come we can successfully teach it to turing machines, and have that process fill us on some holes we had in our understanding of maths, but not terribly large holes?
I've been thinking about this recently, and realised that your framing here casts humans as separate from the rest of reality. Your sense organs and your brain are part of things-in-and-and-of-themselves.
I don't think it does. Humans are agents within reality and have perceptions of reality. Your brain having a representation in this reality that might be different from 'true reality' doesn't change the argument at all.
I don't see how your perceptions can be anything other than a direct experience of reality interacting with itself unless you imagine that your mind is separated from reality somehow
Yeah, this was the big step from Kant to Hegel, the realisation that the object is actually totally inside the subject and vice versa. Unfortunately, when the subject and object get totally mixed up in that way, the philosophy seems to become much more difficult and complicated. Kant's Transcendental Idealism is really useful and easy to understand, but if you want to go a step further into what you describe then it's like moving from Newtonian gravity to General Relativity. Literally everything becomes way more difficult.
Presumably the mental activity is itself explained by independent external reality. Intuitionists say there is no such independent reality for mathematics.
> unless you believe that your eyes can change the size of a measure tape depending on the subject
Well, of course, they kind of can. There are drugs that make the world look like it's squashed, such as ketamine. The way that we perceive reality really is totally dependent on the properties of the observer. Of course we all, with our sober minds, assert that we are perceiving the ruler the "right way", but all this means it that we perceive the ruler in a way that most humans agree with. Jumping from that to "this is the way that the ruler looks for all possible subjects" is a leap of faith.
Now you can just not have an account or any first party data given to a customer, or with tools like anonaddy and fake people generator, you can spoof first party data that won't be matched when hashed and compared across different platforms.
I'm curious, would you purchase a membership to youtube if it included absolutely no tracking, sharing of first-party data, or advertising at all?
I firmly believe that once ai is in a position to replace programmers and other white collar workers, it's more of "we're all fucked" moment. Society would have to so radically change once we reach even that infantile level of post-scarcity, when a large portion of society that loses their jobs, that we have to have serious discussions about what life is supposed to be about and what our places in society are.
when there is no more desire to be quenched, when there are no jobs to do, when we have solved all disease, what do we do? Man has been defined so much by his suffering and toil, that when we take it away we are in an environment that we are not prepared for in any kind of sense.
More importantly, how do we keep everybody alive and cared for when all our systems are built around needing a job to survive when we then don't even have jobs to do for more than a quarter of our population?
Sadly nobody seems to be giving a fk. That until we find ourselves in crisis that leads to a lot of violence and a societal collapse. Hope I’m dead wrong, really do
I hear you man. Initially I was excited about this tech, and the more I game out what the actual effects might be, I just think it gets dark and the cognitive dissonance that kicks in prevents people from thinking about it too deeply, so they don't.
I don't agree with you. Human knowledge itself is not bound only to the previous knowledge before it, so why wouldn't AI be any different? This is more of where AGI will shine, but I still think LLMs can produce novel innovation.
There's also a difference between having access to and being able to 'comprehend' all previous works in a given genre for generating music, that a human simply won't have the ability to process and recall when creating their own music and the AI could surpass. Humans simply having access to information is different than using information.
When I was 23, I misdosed myself and took 110mg of 4-AcO-DMT. The experience was EXTREMELY traumatic and I believed I was dying. At one point I was so overstimulated I just lay on my kitchen floor convulsing uncontrollably.
The next few days I didn't know what to do. My body would just shake, I couldn't sleep and I stayed up until I passed out for an hour, and then my shaking would wake up myself up again. I was overwhelmed with dread and thought I had completely fucked my brain forever and all my potential was gone.
But I went to therapy, got better, and my life is completely normal now. I have HPPD and see visual snow, but that's about it.
This blog doesn't want to give platitudes like "it gets better" and I can see how they're not really helpful when you're in crisis mode. The one piece of advice that has helped me is the thinking that "I'm not the first one to ever go through this, and I won't be the last." No matter if you're fucked in the head, going bankrupt, getting divorced - whatever - you aren't alone and you can either find a solution or find acceptance.
A long time ago, I read an account online of someone who was looking for a new recreational drug experience and they got some risperidone, which is a popular antipsychotic.
They took a much larger dose than the normally prescribed amount, and it resulted in a vividly recounted seemingly interminable and utterly hellish experience.
I found it interesting and kind of funny, because we all live in a world familiar with crazy people, casually saying that someone troublesome "should get some help" or if more "empathetic" plaintively ask why nobody is doing anything about the poor untreated and downtrodden wandering the streets.
And yet, it's a shock to a normal (more or less) person to find out that such medications, which are cheap and sometimes effective, are not fun.
For some reason, the idea that "crazy pills" range from unpleasant to unbearable torture depending on dosage doesn't suggest itself as an obvious hypothesis to explain why people who obviously need them won't take them. And it never drives the development of better options.
Even if someone does try it for themselves, their take-away is that it was hell for them because they aren't crazy.
I’m bipolar II and thus “need” medicine. All medicines are a trade off: do the benefits outweighs the side effects. As someone who’s allergic to basically all chemicals they use for these (ADHD, anti depression and anti-psychotic) I would say that I sympathize with individuals who just don’t want to take them because they make you feel like “not you.”
I’ve also went years without them, instead using meditation and therapy to try and prevent any of my low moods or deal with them as they appear. It was during this time I went from depressed working construction (despite being more than qualified for a junior position) to running a YC-backed startup as my first programming job.
I am convinced that “religion” is the cure for most of these illnesses. Learning to be mindful and how to cope combined with open discussion about them goes a long way. But alas there is now an industrial complex around medication being the solution for this stuff.
You point out low mood. Does it help for hypomania?
In my small experience, it seems like people with bp2 are more aware of their condition than those with bp1 tend to be. What you describe sounds pretty scary when i think about it for someone i know with bp1. But it's totally something they might say when manic to avoid treatment.
Yes it does help with hypomania. A big part of mania in general is the ego and tons of philosophies (especially the mindful ones) help you to control and curate a more healthy ego. Buddhism in particular stresses letting go and thinking rationally about how our suffering is caused by clinging to things (and meditation helps to see these things as they come and go.) This has helped me to beat my once serious anger issues I would experience during hypomania
I can. By religion I just mean traditional theories of mind. For instance Buddhism has a lot of techniques to help you gain a clear mind and control it and most eastern philosophies use this to treat bad thoughts and triggers as “demons” which mindfulness can help to ignore or control. I say this as someone who a year or so ago was anti religious and the type to think it was all just dumb superstition.
Obviously there are extremes, but most people don’t suffer from these extremes. Now days we give pills to people immediately when I really think they should be a last resort. Instead it seems most people only resort to mindful coping skills once they get burned out on side effects.
I don't think that much higher dose then prescribed combined with a person that would not be prescribed the drug at all is a good example for your point. Dosage matters for the experience. And, whether your body has issue the drug is supposed to fix matters too. The reasons why people don't take drugs are more complex then that and for so.e of the issues there are simply no know drugs to fix it.
I took a heroic shroom dose and had a life alteringly bad experience. It left me a shell of my former self dealing with crippling anxiety and worse for years.
It got better with time, therapy, and focusing on health and wellness.
Professional help can really be a major catalyst for healing.
I have now fully recovered, feel better than ever and have a great life.
People must realize there is always light at the end of the tunnel.
Exactly same experience here when I was about 14, from a single time taking mushrooms.
Like the OP, I was convinced at the time I had some irreparable damage, as I was so seeing after-images and static on walls and felt extremely disassociated/anxious, but it was probably more garden variety anxiety than I admitted at the time. Constantly fixating on your thoughts because you think you're losing it is enough to make life pretty stressful. I got therapy and slowly forgot about it.
I still have some HPPD symptoms, but interestingly those (and the anxiety) only started after I began looking for them after reading about them online a week or two after the incident, so I've always been curious if anyone can turn off their brain's filter enough to notice them if they tried.
Exact same experience here. When I was in my early 20s. It derailed my life completely at the time but everything got back on track in a couple of years.
> The one piece of advice that has helped me is the thinking that "I'm not the first one to ever go through this, and I won't be the last." No matter if you're fucked in the head, going bankrupt, getting divorced - whatever - you aren't alone and you can either find a solution or find acceptance.
That's good advice, but unfortunately it also applies to situations like "being put to death."
Maybe my response seems flippant, but it's the core reason I was never able to internalize platitudes. There doesn't seem to be any nuanced or precise advice.
He probably didn't mean it as philosophical advice, but when I read it, I burst out laughing and never really stopped. When things get tough, I just shrug and try to embrace it. After all, things can always get worse.
If you take an attitude of "I wonder how bad things can get?" then you tend to discover that there's an upper bound on most forms of badness, which did make me feel better.
E.g. it's hard to imagine a shot at the dentist getting much worse than the worst pain you've ever experienced in your life. So if you've already felt something worse, you can calibrate your temporary expectations and snap yourself out of fear loops.
A shot at the dentist isn't so bad, but mental loops can be. So if you're in an anxiety spiral, compare it to the worst emotional distress you've ever felt, and see if it's worse. If it's worse, switch to physical pain. I'm able to stay in a good mood when I'm nauseous thanks to having had one of the worst illnesses I've ever had, a few months ago. Headaches and queasiness feels small in comparison.
> That's good advice, but unfortunately it also applies to situations like "being put to death."
This may come as a surprise, but we should be able to face death calmly as well, knowing full well it affects everyone in due time.
It is more reliable than any other situation such as divorce, psychotic breakdown, sickness, loss of loved one....
I can't imagine being calm facing death, but I don't see is as a contradiction to say we can face divorce and death calmly and with equanimity knowing others have and will go through it.
Unfortunately, if one allows oneself to believe that too much, it's mental permission to commit suicide. After all, committing suicide is just as much a valid task as anything else, like writing a book or making a chair. It's an extremely hard one, too. But since others have and will go through it, as you say, it becomes that much easier. Especially when you're resolved to face it calmly and equanimously.
I suppose "memento mori" can be argued in the worst sense as leading to nihilism. However, it'd be impossible to say anything of substance if we were constantly trying to avoid any worst-case interpretations. Most reasonable people can surely understand there's a difference between the colloquial usage of death versus suicide.
It’s not a worst case interpretation. It’s a relief to go.
I think it’s not possible to understand unless you know the feeling. You’re right that most people don’t. But many do: Robin Williams, David Foster Wallace, Aaron Swartz.
I don’t claim to speak for them, but if any of them used it as an escape — which seems somewhat likely - then they’re examples that the logic can be turned against someone strong, using their strength against them by encouraging them to accept the inevitability with composure.
You’ll have to take my word that there are many more of us than those famous examples, though.
It's risky to presume that most people are unfamiliar with the feeling.
About 3.8% of the world population, or about 300 million people are affected by depression (WHO 2021). It seems safe to assume that (1) the true figure is under-reported and (2) those affected are connected to others who can also deeply relate in some way.
Personally, I know all too what what that feeling is like. The solution for me was finding people who could speak truth with love, and just time. Knowing that we're all in the same boat gives me more -- not less -- reason to make the ride count.
Nobody would say that someone who is weathering the death of a loved one would have in fact been OK killing that person, or even secretly wished for their death.
It's no different with self. You can want to live, and still accept the finitude of life.
It's supposed to make life sweeter when you accept completely that it may end at any moment.
There are a lot of other benefits to the attitude of: "I'm not the first one to ever go through this, and I won't be the last."
It's a great way to put things into perspective. It also helps relieve some psychological presure. It also doesn't require buying into any supernatural belief systems. This is a big plus if you're not inclined towards supernatural explanations.
I think that the biggest benefit is that this attitude helps make people more compassionate towards others. And it naturally becomes more general if you work at it a bit... If you're not to only one to go through whatever difficult situation in particular, maybe others have gone through the same thing. Maybe other people have gone through similar stuff, too. After a while it becomes easier to extend that out to seeing that people suffer in ways that I can't quite understand right now. And it starts from the understanding that I'm not alone going through this, whatever it is. I becomes easier to see that people deserve understanding, or compassion, or even some actual help.
Helping others in need can become a deeply rewarding aspect of your life. It might not fix things, it won't cure a serious depression or whetever. But it can make thing a lot better for you and others.
Also, I thr to keep in mind that no one is in prison, no one has cancer, no one is dead. The situation might have some real negative potential, and is worth addressing, and it's also, in some sense, workable. There are real problems that can be addressed, and fixed in real life. Start small and work towards a solution, for youself and others.
In case anyone else here isn't a druggie and wanted some context: According to Dr. Search Engine, MD, 2-5 milligrams is a "micro" dose, and 10-20 is a normal dose
> How did you end up overdosing like that? What's the story, there?
As someone who have over/under-dosed a couple of times when I was younger: dealer says they give you 100mg, so in order to take 25mg without having a scale, you divide it into two piles and then those two piles, take one of them.
Problem occurs when dealer fucked up somehow and actually gave you 200mg, so now you end up taking 50mg, double the intended dosage.
Other ways of fucking up is believing you got 2CB when actually you got 2CP, or something similar like that, so the dose you thought was light/moderate, ended up being a heavy one, or vice-versa. Hence you should always start smaller than you think and wait for some hours :)
I don't think I've ever overdosed at the scale that parent did, but it is possible to fuck up, especially without having accurate scales.
You should never consume a powerful mind-altering psychedelic without exactly knowing the dose you are taking.
You should never take a large dose without first studying the effects that lower doses have on your mind and body.
The only way this happens is through carelessness and ignorance. Don't blame the guy above you for fucking up when you're fucking up equally bad by not measuring yourself and following established protocol.
> Other ways of fucking up is believing you got 2CB when actually you got 2CP
You should not purchase from sources you don't trust, and with a new dealer / batch you should always test the substance using a full kit, then take a small amount and wait, prior to consuming your intended dose.
This is all drug safety 101. You can explore your mind but you must first care about your body. If someone thinks, "but I don't have time, I want to get high now, then they should not be taking drugs, as they lack the proper maturity to do it safely.
> it is possible to fuck up
Only through carelessness and ignorance. The lack of drug safety in the scene today is absolutely appalling, given the availability of drug testing kits, crowdsourced information hubs, and cheap milligram scales.
> Don't blame the guy above you for fucking up when you're fucking up equally bad
I'm not blaming anyone, not the person above me nor myself. I'm just explaining how it can happen. I don't do much drugs anymore, and back when I did, there wasn't really any way of getting testing kits nor finding "established protocols" unless you knew actual people in the real world. The internet wasn't even a thing first time I tripped. Good luck finding "information hubs" or good scales as a private person back in those days.
There is a lot of assumption and "holier-than-thou" coming from your comment, but you have no idea about the context from what I'm writing. You'd be better off trying to want to understand, instead of preaching.
There's nothing holier-than-thou about my comment. Drug safety protocols (such as testing your product with small doses) have always existed in one form or another. PiHKAL and TiHKAL and the public library have existed before the internet. Making uninformed decisions with strong mind-altering substances which are active in the milligram range is a choice. The user is still responsible for their safety. Information was available to those who sought it then as it is now; and most people now still do not use the resources available to them.
We can definitely be safer than ever today and that might allow more room for experimentation. The fact is that if one had less information back then, they should evaluate whether taking drugs is worth the risk.
Eyeballing RCs is always a bad idea, but if you don't have a scale, a much better way is to dissolve it in a liquid, at a 'known' concentration, and measure that. Alcohol (vodka) usually works well for most stuff at 1mg/ml. That makes it easy to measure with a baby oral syringe or one of the plastic 5ml cups that comes with cough syrup. The vodka also prevents mold/bacteria growth in the solution if it sits for months.
Even with a scale, this is a better method for low mg dosing RCs. Unless you spend thousands on lab grade equipment, Amazon scales can't measure a few mg accurately, even if they claim that.
I’m 29 now and I can’t remember my thought process at the time just that I remember realizing what I measured out wasn’t correct but I also realized this while under the effects of the drug.
The snow is not constant and usually intensifies if I’m under stress. But it’s not very noticeable, it’s like film grain is how I would describe it. It’s gotten less and less over the years but it’s still there. Doesn’t bother me though
I read micro dosing the first time also. Somewhat out of habit when there is cognitive dissonance, I reread it and saw what it actually said. Usually this feature of my mind helps me to read quickly, but it comes with side effects :)
I cannot list any of the bugs I have had with Windows off the top of my head, but I can with linux. Driver issues, Pulse audio randomly playing static, updates breaking my system, fractional scaling not working, I could go on.