bikeshack
Joined 13 years ago
Karma
874
Submissions
164
Member since
Nov 25
Recent submissions
Comment · 11 years ago
So it's back to the concept of a recipe where the ingredients change, but the recipe sort of stays intact. Change too many ingredients and we have an entirely different dish. I like this analogy because it's less formal and more forgiving. Just make sure to stick to it in an informal manner and not abuse the leniency provided, and you shall be fine. Technically every substance is mood altering (sugar for example), but there are some that have a marked increase on judgement and mood that it is safe to treat them as suspect. When I refer to "recipe" I mean a loose guide to run with in times of crisis.
Comment · 11 years ago
Seconded. There is a lot of noise on what diet is superior and which one works best. Intuitively a person knows when they've over indulged just as when we pull back when putting our hand in a flame. We just don't do it anymore, and design our lives around not ever having it happen again.
My only problem with this is the victim-hood that happens when this high carb crap clamours for our attention in ADs and the media. Invariably you will get victim-hood and people gorging and gulping their way to negate such imagery. I know I don't look at a McBigMac the same way when I've had one.
Comment · 11 years ago
The problem with itemizing specific things to avoid or cut down, is they are too specific and end up becoming habits. Instead it is more suitable to form an over-arching doctrine. So instead of "Drink less beer", it should become "Avoid mood changing substances".
The reason for a more general approach is because the moment things are calcified like this, they are very difficult to uproot and change. Think of this as a recipe where the ingredients can be swapped out. The recipe doesn't change, but the ingredients do, and not so drastically that the recipe is destroyed.
Comment · 11 years ago
Just ran Paul's article through Anonymouth https://github.com/psal/anonymouth Considerably changed and mangled beyond all recognition. It even sounds less persuasive in tone.
Comment · 11 years ago
I solve this with the Cynefin Framework:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7oz366X0-8
What I love about Dave's work is that it's very Zen and self similar to nature. The more I observe complex systems, the more I realize they are just like self-organized nature. Complexity begets complexity. Novelty begets novelty. These ideas are not new.
Comment · 11 years ago
Reminds me of this talk from Defcon 2008: https://www.defcon.org/images/defcon-16/dc16-presentations/d...
Tool called Whitespace used to encrypt messages
Comment · 11 years ago
So I should talk in Legal English all day? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_English which is the reverse of writing as one talks, because the Rule of Law surrounds us always, except for the criminals who flout it repeatedly throughout their day.
When I write, I self censor all the time, and it is no different when I talk. We forgive and forget. We silo only certain words to certain areas of the world. "What happens in Vegas" etc. Language only becomes a problem when it is committed permanently to the footnotes of the web. You can't overlook the law aspect. You also can't so easily withdraw a statement said online.
Comment · 11 years ago
Did this article overlook the recent findings that Alcohol is similar in effects to low doses of Oxytocin and thus influences a 'trust decision'?
Comment · 11 years ago
Some of the work of Distributed.net ( http://www.distributed.net/Main_Page ) is wonderful. Does anyone know if this idea could be more than it is currently, where computers (more than ever) are sitting idly and not contributing their cycles in any meaningful way? Even 5 minutes of raw CPU 100% usage per device could do some serious computation. Theoretically superseding modern supercomputers.