For me it would be the small size and CEC capability. A custom built PC can't currently use CEC on HDMI to have a seamless experience the entire home theater like a console can.
That could be down to the fact that homeopathic treatments have largely been legal. The studies have been done and showed that a lot of it doesn't work so it isn't offered in traditional medicine. There were a lot of promising studies into the effects of LSD and Psilocybin before they were made illegal. Now with the loosening of restrictions we are able to get more research into the potential uses of psychedelics and there have been a lot of positive results. The research into MDMA for PTSD is really exciting, as well as Ketamine, LSD, and Psilocybin for different forms of depression for example.
They will never be a solution for every problem like some people evangelize but where they work, they give people with these conditions another avenue to try when other "legal" drugs have failed.
> more research into the potential uses of psychedelics and there have been a lot of positive results
You'd have to agree, the types of people who choose to research psychedelics professionally, are the types of people who want to see, and demonstrate, positive results. These aren't unbiased research outcomes.
I don't use drugs, but the LSD situation is crazy: is well down in any rank of harm (both to user and to others). The alleged harm has been proved fabricated (people getting blind for staring at the sun) or incredibly overstated (suicides while tripping). Is way less dangerous than tobacco or alcohol, and has next to zero addiction. Their users praise the experience, and some studies show potential medical use. Yet is furiously prohibited, deviled and prosecuted.
We were having a debate among friends when a couple of people said they took MDMA once, and some of the most obviously alcoholics (drunk twice a week) went to their yugular calling them junkies and "irresponsible" because drugs fry your brain.
MDMA fries your teeth. Gave in to 1/5th of a dose with people I was partying with, received one year of tooth-grinding. Never again.
Classic dental study: 89% of ecstasy users reported clenching or grinding; 60% had tooth wear into dentine vs 11% of non-users. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10403088/
ChatGPT: “One pill, one year of grinding” – biologically plausible as a trigger, but not a universal rule.
"I think that MDMA, unlike other drugs, is potentially much more neurotoxic and dangerous than any drug that has comparable effects, like hallucinogens for example, for which we haven't shown long-term alterations. MDMA is therefore a special case. It's difficult to give recommendations for use. It's better not to take it regularly, and if someone asks me, in my opinion, I would say it's better to keep your distance from this drug so as not to run any risks."
Are you telling me you've never met an old LSD abuser whose brain was fried like an egg? LSD can also trigger legitimate lifelong psychotic states in some people.
There is a big difference between 'generally not harmful in very small singular doses' and 'all harm is fabricated'.
Ive seen people with fried brains from copious amounts of drug abuse taking everything under the sun that will also sometimes take LSD. Ive never seen someone who only takes psychodelics like LSD and mushrooms, even heroic amounts, have any cognitive problems from it.
> Are you telling me you've never met an old LSD abuser whose brain was fried like an egg?
I’ve known old LSD abusers with fried brains but never seen a LSD abuser go from non-fried to fried brains. Correlation is not causation, but it could be.
> LSD can also trigger legitimate lifelong psychotic states in some people.
These statements should be accompanied by the necessary caveat that just about anything can trigger psychotic states in people prone to psychosis.
The only people I've seen being attacked for their views on Covid are outside the scientific community. People that have no business saying whether it's dangerous or not because they havent done any real research. And of course you have the scientists that are being political. Just like we have scientists that deny climate change for political or monetary reasons.
You can add Dr. Peter McCullough to that list. Youtube removed his video [1] which contained a few slides from one of the most highly cited and extensively authored peer-reviewed publications on treating COVID-19 patients with existing medicines.
The video has since been reinstated, only after the issue was escalated all the way up to the state attorney general.
An interview with Karol Sikora was taken down. [2]
An interview with Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi was taken down. [3]
I found all of those just by searching DDG with the text of each item in the list I gave, along with the word "youtube". Deeper digging would probably have revealed more.
I'm not sure what your point is, I'm simply restating the source you quoted:
"Here's an incomplete list of such "nutjobs" who would fall under YouTube's policy of eliminating all views that the risk of the virus has been vastly overstated and that the mitigation measures are doing far more harm than good:"
Note "would fall under" not "were removed". It's not surprising to me that some were removed from youtube, but the list wasn't based on people who had been censored.
Funnily enough though, looking back all three of those hucksters were demonstrably wrong in many of their claims.
My physics professor uses flash games to demonstrate the things we are learning. He knows nothing about computers, still runs windows 7, and constantly talks about these programs and how they will always be great learning tools. I don't think he realizes that flash isnt a thing anymore and I'm excited to see how class goes when he tries to open one of his examples.
So does that mean if I am hosting a dinner at my home on my own private property and someone starts spewing hate at people I have to let him because it's his free speech? No, I'm kicking that asshole off my property and banning him from returning.
It's the same for these tech companies. They are private companies and if you break their ToS for inciting violence or posting illegal shit then they have the right to ban you. You have freedom of speech, not freedom of consequences.
> So does that mean if I am hosting a dinner at my home on my own private property and someone starts spewing hate at people
Well, if that "private property home" is the only place where people in your surroundings can get something to eat; and if that someone "spew at others" but says something vile quietly to his friends, so that only people actively listening in on the conversation hear it, then - maybe you should not be able to police what that person says.
Again, free speech isn't a legal thing that is a right to an individual in all settings. It is baked into the constitution, but that has zero to do with dinner parties and more to how government can act when dealing with people speaking their minds.
This is a very thorny issue and my own personal views don't matter, but the views of others are indeed interesting. I was listening to an episode of The Taylor Report[0] and he was saying that no corporate platform should block speech based on its moral compass. He noted that while Twitter flagged Trump's tweets regarding the Capitol Hill protest as inciting violence, Twitter didn't flag Trump's tweets threatening nuclear violence against Iran and North Korea as incitements to violence.
Oh I agree that corporations shouldn't be able to block speech but right now constitutionally they can so what we really need is a change to the constitution. Those laws were written hundreds of years and meant to change with the times.
Your home is not infrastructure. Internet service, banking and online payments are infrastructure just like water, gas and electricity and companies shouldn't have the right to cut you off on ideological grounds or because your spew out so called hate speech.
Note I said internet service not a subscription to a social media service. Your internet provider may decline to provide you with email, hell the may even decline you to provide with you with DNS, but they sure as well can't refuse to route your packets or accept incoming connections.
Apple and Google were within their rights to cut off access to the App store, but Amazon were in the wrong because they are an infrastructure company. At the very least they were obliged to allow Parler enough time to transfer to new providers.
> gas and electricity and companies shouldn't have the right to cut you off on ideological grounds or because your spew out so called hate speech
All of us here in the US are entitled and reserve the right to do business with whom we want as long as it doesn't violate discrimination laws, which focus on race, religion and things like that - not opinion about whether there are lizard people ruling the government or that an election was "stolen" because a few people made up some good stories about it but there is no actual proof that can be viewed in person...at all.
Wrong again. Infrastructure for the most part depends on govt licensing and lends it self to monopolies or oligopolies.
When those oligopolies act in concert or along the same ideological lines what options do you have?
E.g. the authorities can seize cash from you as has happened to store owners who went to deposit it at the bank. If every bank refuses to serve you which you claim to be their right, then why do you have laws which to criminalize cash holdings if that forces you to withdraw your cash from them and hold it in the street or at your home?
One cannot criminalize large cash holdings arising from cash payments which is okay with many people while at the same time giving banks the right to deny service.
There is one electric company that serves my apartment. If I get cut off, I don’t get electricity.
On the other hand, there are a thousand different cloud providers; surely at least one would have taken Parler on as a customer. And even failing that, it’s much easier for Parler to run their own servers than it is for me to run my own power plant.
Yes but they can only cut if you off for non payment, they can't cut you of for your political views. They can't even cut you off if you use your electricity to commit crimes.
Yes, because they’re a regulated monopoly. There are quite literally zero other ways to make electricity come out of my wall sockets. That’s not the case with AWS.
Strange. Of all my computers it is only my 2 windows machines that have trouble sleeping and waking. All of my linux machines sleep no problem and only wake up when I have scheduled it. I even have them set up to receive sleep and wake commands from my phone from anywhere. Windows doesn't play nice with that type of setup either.
My windows computers will wake up less than 5 minutes after going to sleep but I've left my linux systems on sleep for days and sometimes weeks at a time with no problem at all.
