I've always found strange all the talk about using cannabis to manage pain.
I've smoked alot of weed, well before all those talks promoting THC for this.
It was my experience, and common knowledge in my circles at the time that THC made pain way, way worse, at least in resin form.
Probably simply because you'll tend to isolate things and focus on them very strongly when under the influence, it makes you notice pain more. I remember toking some days after a knee surgery and regretting badly having done it. So much pain I hadn't noticed...
> Probably simply because you'll tend to isolate things and focus on them very strongly when under the influence, it makes you notice pain more.
This is a very strong contender for why it increases my pain I think, and possibly why it induces some other side effects. I'm ok with my injury and how its changed my life for the most part, but when using THC i'd laser focus in on the pain, then from the pain to the cause and from there to "how unfair it is etc."
Its hard to explain, but the work i've done to be ok with this disability is undone when I go near THC for some reason, and is when I tend to break down and lose my ability to be "stoic" about it for lack of a better word I suppose.
Just love lazygit, makes me happy every time I use it, which is every like every 5 minutes. Love how extensible it is with custom actions. Love the recent integration of update-refs. Thank you, happy new job and congrats !
The earnestest researcher can't go survey every parrot in every home all around the world, but parrot owners can casually expose what their own parrots do.
Reminds me of the Twitter thread where a mite researcher discovers a new species in a photo posted by an amateur photographer.
Only until enough parrot owners find out about this, at which point parrots overtake the human population of Youtube and the metrics start catering to them.
I've switched from tmux to zellij about 2 monthes, ago, it may have less features than tmux for now but it certainly does all i need, in most case better than tmux. It is much more user friendly and usable imo.
Frankly i've spent too much time in the past fiddling with complex confs and tools which expect the user to spent days figuring out a conf which work for them. Then if you don't use the tool for 1 month, or simply don't edit the conf for a big while you've forgotten half of it.
Zellij has a conf file, it took me a bit of time to tweak it at first, but i know I can understand it in a pinch. Same thing for actually using it, it's mostly discoverable.
And most importantly, it is very clear that simplicity and predictability are big priorities. It shows everywhere in the project, I totally vouch this approach and tend to do the same thing on my work projects. I know from experience than understanding your user's needs and getting out of your way to make their life easy by not having to think about how the implementation is done is really much harder that just making a tool configurable and extensible...
I've never quite understood why TUIs on *nix systems seem so downright unfriendly compared to TUIs on ye olde MS-DOS systems. Some of them are excusable, sure. vi predates consumer TUIs, and vim clones it. Emacs at least has a menu bar, even if there's no on-screen indication that F10 activates it.
But tmux was created in 2007. I can think of no reason for it to have such an obtuse UI other than "they're just like that on *nix". Would at be so much to ask to at least by default have a "press C-b ? for help" on screen?
It has the look but not the feel. Norton Commander was extremely fast on a 4.77mhz 8088 (basically an 8 bit processor pretending to be 16 bit. It took two clock cycles to move 16 bits across the bus). It's no comparison between those old DOS apps written in ASM that really optimized every instruction for a specific architecture. They felt 100x faster and more immediate than modern computers.
tmux is not entirely dissimilar to GNU Screen which uses `C-a` rather than `C-b` as its prefix key. That conceptual lineage may explain some of the UI choices.
I think in 1993 you could easily still spend $6k by buying the top end 486/pentium CPU from intel, 8mb ram, CD-ROM, large (for the time) HDD, 17" monitor, etc. It wouldn't have a GPU but the latest tech always cost a big premium (it might be just 50% faster than a good but non-top-end system but cost 2-3x as much).
EDIT - looking at some ads in the December '93 issue of Computerworld [0] there's a Compaq ad saying "the Deskpro with Pentium starts at just $3,199" (both the "starts at" and the "just" make me think you could make it cost a lot more than $3,199, altho you could surely also play Doom on a cheaper computer).
This doesn’t contradict anything I wrote above. It was possible to get much better bang for buck than the absolute most expensive option but I can believe the above story that you could spend someone else’s $6k to splurge on the most expensive PC you could find.
I don't tried to bring a lengthy discussion, it was a play with memories: remembering assembling your own PC and travelling the city choosing the specific components carefully based on price.
I didn't mean to take it in a negative direction either! And I agree with you anyway, my computer at around that time was also much cheaper than the example given (I think an IBM Aptiva on sale from a shop that was trying to get rid of inventory) and played games just fine (at least for the first couple years of its life)!
It was very high - but this was a business purchase. It was EASY to spend $6k for a high-end PC in 1993. Also consider that $6000 is $12000 in 2023 dollars.
Never used a BBC but 8bit computers of this era often used cassettes to load and save data.
The tape would contain bleeps and blurps which would be decoded into bytes by the computer. EG this is the sound produced by an Amstrad cpc464 loading a game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvChkOHgDIo
This meant that to copy software you didn't even need a computer, just a double cassette deck.
And that by recording the credits of this BBC show to tape and playing that back into the computer you'd load some program. That's actually a brilliant idea, I wonder what kind of software they broadcasted.
Imo the belief in rebirth is not needed to practice metta, you just need to realize that every being wants to be happy, just like you.
Yet all of them are mired in delusion and most of the time do things which go the opposite way of generating real happiness, we all do.
Everyone is mired in delusion and most of the time react to feelings of anger and craving (vedana), which are generated based on their history, social norms and whatnot. They are just being manipulated by those all the time, unless they're very mindful of what's happening in their mind temporarily. Realizing this you can't really hate anybody, and in fact you realize they are 100% like you.
> the belief in rebirth is not needed to practice metta
That's not what I was saying; I was commenting on that suggested technique for developing metta, in particular, which is dependent on belief in rebirth.
It was my experience, and common knowledge in my circles at the time that THC made pain way, way worse, at least in resin form.
Probably simply because you'll tend to isolate things and focus on them very strongly when under the influence, it makes you notice pain more. I remember toking some days after a knee surgery and regretting badly having done it. So much pain I hadn't noticed...