relax88
Joined 8 years ago
Joined 8 years ago
I don't understand why they insist on a proprietary cable, it caused us tons of problems in a commercial environment (Industrial, remote locations).
It’s a better recreational drug by pretty much every metric.
It only takes a few tens of milligrams of THC to get the desired effect vs 50+ grams of ethanol in an evening (that gets metabolized into carcinogenic acetaldehyde).
While we don’t fully know the safety profile of cannabis it’s obviously far safer than booze, especially when consumed with a dry herb vaporizer.
No hangover. I can wake up at 6am 7 days a week and work out.
A small amount allows me to instantly shed all work related stress at the end of a busy day/week and get in touch with my body, a process that without cannabis usually takes a few hours.
It makes sex better and boosts libido, unlike alcohol which can easily ruin a sexy evening if you have too much.
I can grow my own, providing a fun hobby.
It doesn’t cause any gastrointestinal issues, but in fact calms your gut. The opposite of alcohol.
It’s just better (for me) in every possible way. It enhances my life greatly.
Not sure why you're assuming this has anything to do with climate change. What could be the link there?
It’s not all a negative trade off.
The only things Bitcoin and Monero really excel at is avoiding sanctions, buying drugs on the dark web, ransomware, and as an alternative if your entire country goes to shit (e.g Venezuela).
I think for this reason crypto will always be around in some form, but I doubt it will ever be mainstream.
Central Bank Issued crypto currencies will almost certainly be a thing though.
I always thought that Bitcoin is an interesting and novel technology, and risky speculative asset.
I’ve also always thought that most of the crypto ecosystem is fraudulent schemes designed to separate people from their dollars, and that this unforgiving nature and lack of institutional and state control will likely preclude mass adoption as an actual currency.
So no, not much has changed, though the second point has gotten much, much worse.
Interestingly enough the US has been retrofitting their nuclear arsenal with better targeting systems, making it much more effective. The Russians don't like this, which is why you hear talk of hypersonic missiles, autonomous submersibles carrying nuclear warheads, etc.
Perhaps some kind of neutron-based weapon could be developed to counteract large numbers of incoming ICBMs in the upper atmosphere, or to destroy an enemy nuclear arsenal in place. There we concepts like this, and the US even built some for defense against ICBMs (The W66 warhead).
As with most organizational dysfunction, middle management fiefdoms are to blame.
It always helps when the executive can see through this bullshit and ask the right questions, but often by the time this happens millions of dollars have been wasted.