cj

I can also eliminate the illusion by covering up the blue circles and only looking at the orange circles.

Maybe that's what the DMT is doing? ... perhaps it gives you tunnel vision (or tunnels your attention) such that you only "see" (or are paying attention to) the orange and blocking out the blue from your mind.

I know a lot of people who survive (almost) exclusively off take out and delivery. Especially in cities like NYC.

That's their legacy product.

2nd gen is 256 Kbps

> just genuinely curious at what made you think this.

It feels like the first 2 paragraphs are doing a lot of work to downplay the seriousness of the illness:

- highlighting the "undetectable = untransmittable" PR campaign.

- reassurance that you can live a normal life with HIV, "die with virus, not of virus"

- reassurance that there's zero transmission risk with long term treatment

- reassurance that HIV is a "manageable chronic health condition"

After the first 2 paragraphs of the HIV article, I'm left thinking "okay, this isn't as bad as I thought" -- but maybe that's okay since historically there has been a lot of misinformation around HIV.

> what sort of possible conspiracy would benefit from Wikipedia readers from not being more afraid of HIV/AIDS.

De-stigmatization of HIV is the agenda. (An agenda I support)

I'm normally against conspiracy theories and BS like this, but...

There's a pretty stark difference between the first few paragraphs of the HIV/AIDS page and the first few paragraphs of the Type 2 Diabetes page.

Both are "factual", but when I read the HIV/AIDS page, I feel like someone is trying to convince me "HIV is not a bad disease".

"Yes, but who cares" is the sentiment.

That thumb looks incredibly photoshopped (or AI edited).

(Controversial take) The way I look at it, let's say 20% of users are addicts and who will jump through any hoop they need to in order to gamble. Very difficult to help this group. Banning won't stop them from betting.

The other 80% probably aren't addicts. They're people who like placing a fun $20 now and then. Which is fine. But let's not accidentally turn them into addicts by gamifying every aspect of betting. It shouldn't be so easy. And it shouldn't feel like I'm playing a video game.

And we really don't need push notifications from Kalshi reminding us to place bets every single day. (Not an exaggeration, I'm currently getting daily push notifications)

I don't agree with banning it.

But I do agree with increasing the friction involved in signing up and depositing money.

It should not be possible to 1) sign up for kalshi, 2) complete identity verification, AND 3) deposit and place a $2000 real money bet --- within 5 minutes of downloading the app.

It's just way too damn easy. Let's at least make people wait 24 hours before placing their first bet... or something.

And stop allowing deposits with credit cards. This is most important.

I also can't have more than 10 tabs. More than that and I automatically go into clean up mode.

> I feel that my cognitive ability to deal with that is not there.

I dunno, I've always thought of 100+ tab people similarly to people who don't like to clean up their bedroom. Just a different preference for tidiness/organization, rather than a greater cognitive ability.

Your goal post for acceptable profit taking for utilities is… the S&P 500?

That makes very little sense.

And stock price is not a measure of profit.

Here you go: XEL, AEP, SO, EIX, CPK, AQN, NGG, NEE

14 months. (Usually) not every day, maybe 3-4 times a week. And 8 months to taper off. How long it takes to taper depends on the level of discomfort you’re willing to tolerate.

Diazepam half life is so long that dependence can develop even when not taking it every day.

Edit: and I totally believe there are people who can take the same amount as me and not become dependent as easily as I did. Everyone is different

> a few times a year, never more than 1-2 days in a row

It takes at least a few weeks to a few months of daily use to develop dependence.