Friday assorted links

Comments

1. Not buying it. They have one person's story and a few quotes from the "experts". I do think chronic marijuana usage can sap motivation, but not necessarily. Louis Armstrong smoked daily, Willie Nelson does, Paul McCartney did and according to Scott Adams of Dilbert fame, he smoked while he was writing his books. I do agree that the edible forms of marijuana seem to create problems due to difficulty in adjusting the dose.

You're better than that, Rich.

Putting mood-altering chemicals into your body, for the express purpose of altering your mood, every day, is going to give you an ever-increasing addiction.

Das dicke ende commt nach.

It don't mean nothing. The states need the (tax) money. Same same legalized gambling - not 'that' many people lose the rent money on gaming.

I think CO is finding that auto accidents, damage and injuries are ascendant upon weed legalization.

1. The concept of "addiction" has been stretched to the point where anything that's pleasurable yet potentially harmful may be deemed an "addiction."

2. And "addictions" need to be treated by professionals. Who often have a bias toward narratives that portray them as essential resources in fighting the latest scourge. The prestige of experts is enhanced if the scourge is perceived as really, really, really bad. And there are also services to sell.

Which doesn't mean all experts are charlatans selling nonsense, of course. It's just that the barber isn't always the best person to ask to find out whether it's time for a haircut.

<I.Putting mood-altering chemicals into your body, for the express purpose of altering your mood, every day, is going to give you an ever-increasing addiction

Well, 9% of people, if the article is correct.

One wonders how close that number is to the generic "addiction prone personality" (or "self medicating a psychological problem") number.

Weed might have various real issues (such as triggering schizophrenia in younger people), but "zomg addition doom!!!" just ain't real important on the list, y'know?

At night I jerk and jerk but my dick don’t work it don’t even hurt!

Maybe so, but I limit myself to one full-strength martini at the cocktail hour: I like my mind alteration well calibrated.

Next time give me call and we can share one, lock eyes, and smooch the night away.

I hope u have a very thick mustache as that is my turn on ;)

You minx!

I'm a criminal defense attorney, and about half of the time my clients are subject to drug testing while out on bond pending trial. I see more people get bond revoked for testing positive for THC than any other substance.

I think it's fair to say that in general, no rational person is going to smoke marijuana if they know for fact that they're going to get caught and thrown in jail for it. I hear from my clients all the time "yeah, it was stupid." I usually correct them--it's way beyond stupid, it's downright irrational. If you ask me, addiction is the most likely explanation for that kind of irrationality.

Or, they are truly idiots with no self control. Must compare it to a behavior like shopping, gambling, or video gaming. If the baseline addiction rate isn't higher than those I am not worried.

Your claim is based on a number of arbitrary assumptions. But since this would eventually get down to a "Free Will" debate, I'll only say that reasonable people will differ with you.

They're not addicted. Just ask them. Everyone who uses marijuana will tell you that they are not addicted and can quit anytime they want to. They just don't want to. LOL

It is almost as if irrational people were overrepresented among criminals and suspects. Who would have suspected?

Maybe Tyrone comes out sometime for a contrarian view on drugs? Or maybe Ty, Tyler's evil stoner twin?
Here's a few missing parts from this blog: (1) maybe this sounds annoying but I think it is worth taking seriously, what is a drug and how do we draw helpful boundaries between food, medicine, and drugs? (less straightforward than you think, same goes for addiction); (2) psychiatry is in a rut, suicide rate hasn't budged for a hundred years despite our medical "progress", the medicine we are given has huge side effects and small effect sizes compared to things like exercise and diet, so how can you make sense of self-medication (with things like marijuana) given that the medical establishment isn't so straightforwardly effective/trustworthy? Maybe there is something to people helpfully, and cheaply closing the gap; (3) can we take seriously the possibility that "drugs of abuse" can have positive spiritual/mental/neurodiverse/behavioral effects? There's a lot of mood affiliation from academics and infovores on this, but it may not all just be JoeRogan BS.
Or at least maybe there is more helpful nuance to this than "you're better than that, Rich."

I’m a CUCK!

Of course you are, hun.

How about some self-awareness Not-A-Puritan Corey?

Suicide rates have changed, they have increased by over a third since the turn of the millennium. That in turn represented a drop of around a fourth from a previous peak in the 80s.

Whatever psychiatry is doing, it is certainly being dwarfed by changes in society. E.g. people commit suicide more often when they have fewer friends. As the number of marginally attached Christians has plummeted we have seen a concurrent rise in the number of people with few or no friends (the same can be said for unions or for bowling leagues). We should expect rising rates of suicide just because society is changing.

What do you think addiction is exactly? We know about 10 percent of the population will misuse substances to regulate emotions. I'm pro legalization but the willfull propoganda and ignorance to this fact on the weed side is insane. They keep on with stupid lines about how's it's not "physically addictive" which isn't a medical concept but a stupid laymen concept. Professionals have been treating pot addiction for decades. It's addictive. And the inability to acknowledge it undermine the legalization movement. We now got radicals becoming reverse/ opposite world Jeff sessions and pretend it's a wonder drug with no downsides. There is no free lunch, everything involves trade-offs.

I’m a CUCK! My cuckoldry knows no bounds!!!

lots of LSWs can help you.
Catch them in your refactory phase and when you are manic.
They can help you better if they talk to you in your various moods.
Good luck, my young friend! There is nothing stopping you from being an admirable human being, someone who is loved and respected!

#1 Yeah, still healthier than tobacco? or not? Though it maybe does not kill, annedoctal evidence, makes me worry about its effect on IQ...

At least tobacco isn't associated with a whole number of mental illness like pot is. Especially on adolescent minds.

Tobacco addiction is the greatest predictor for the inability to defer gratification.

But, hey, you're going to the Head of the class!

Im getting the black cock tonight!

My Cuckoldry knows no bounds!

Anyone on this site ever use drugs? I have some experience. Alcohol is addictive. Cocaine is addictive.

Marijuana? lol. Folks that can't stop using pot simply have issues with self-control that have nothing to do with smoking.

#1 Yeah, of course reports of addiction are rising now that acknowledging addiction can no longer (/ is perceived to be no longer able to) get you into legal trouble. Whether there actually is an increased date of addiction... there are reasonable arguments for and against expecting that.

All in all it probably substitutes for addiction to something else.

2. Not accessible. But my observation is that some people are better at observation than others; indeed, most people don't observe much of anything, tuned into themselves rather than what's around them. No, I'm not suggesting that I have the ability to observe what's around me, but I have known people who are. I'd say they are more in touch with their primitive ancestors, when a keen awareness of what's around may be the difference between life and death. It's a paradox that as we have become more developed, out awareness of what's around us has been reduced; thus, the more dependent we are on AI for observing what at one time we could observe ourselves. An example of complacency, I suppose.

The conclusion of the paper is pretty narrow: "The present results suggest the good judge does indeed exist—some individuals are much better able to detect and utilize valid cues from targets—but this is only strongly evident when perceiving a good target [those with expressive accuracy... I still don't know what that means]."

The paper is not accessible. OTOH, why does this rise to the level of being notable? Not obvious to me - the implication is that TC believes some or most of human abilities are NOT distributed (over one or more variables). Now, THAT would be interesting: characteristic/ability/skill/phenotype X is singular with no person to person variation. I guess if you use a crude enough measurement scale both location and volume (as well as associated variables) can be singular (all humans are located within 10,000 miles of Earth's center, all humans occupy volume.) And then there's death and taxes...

As many dogs, my dog is an outstanding judge of character.

He growls at Democrats. That was innate.

I had to train him to urinate on them.

Poking them with a stick? I like your style.

I have to. My rule is not to commence imbibing until after 5PM.

chill on that

reading the Holmes Canon, young Gilbert and young Agatha asked themselves: how can we match this, or do better than this ? Father Brown and Hercule often discussed their insight into why people do bad things. Poirot had many years in the Belgian police force, Father Brown had been a parish priest for many years. The authors never discussed whether the two of them had been, before starting their careers, especially good judges of personality.

As for me, I once offered a co-worker - who was a little saddened at the slightly dysfunctional nature of our workplace - the opportunity to walk past the lockers (or offices) of our 200 or so co-workers and I would point to the 30 or 40 lockers (or offices) of those who were most likely to be bad people who do bad things, even while seeming normal. She rationally declined.

If I am a good judge of personality (that is, if I have a good radar for people who are a lot nastier than they let on, poor things - that is how I look at it - God really loves us and wants us to change for the better, it is really just as kitschy and melodramatic as you would imagine) then I am a good judge of personality, and that is that, while:

if I am not, nobody would be happier than me to know that people are better than I think, although the rational evidence of so much that I have noticed indicates that such is not the case .... (this sounds like a sad way to view the world, but maybe when you really understand people about as well as anyone can after a few weary decades living the kind of life that someone who cares about other people lives, not caring as much as he should of course, but still ....maybe you often see, unexpectedly, something you wouldn't if you had not, by chance or by prayer, become someone who is ipso facto a good judge of personality ..... you sometimes see, and there is no better feeling in this world, you see bad people trying to be better .... it is as if you woke up every day in a different country and every once in a while there was a celebration all afternoon and fireworks at night, you were not exactly sure why, you just knew such things happen in this world where so many people have so many different motives and where God, the great poet (diximus "factorem caeli et terrae, visibilium omnium et invisibilium" .... et J.C. per quem omnia facta sunt ... et Dominus vivificantus) and, et, cuius regni non erit finis, the funniest human that ever lived, helps out often: you don't know why, but another soul has renounced foolishness, and a person - a boring, a selfish and boring, a bad and boring person, it doesn't matter - renounces all that, and tries to help someone else be happy.

Good times, I heard something like this on an AM radio at about 2 AM driving through the U.P one night in the mid-80s and it seems like yesterday. It was that guy who started his show with a fog-horn and a really beautiful trumpet solo and I think the sound of waves on a shore, I always imagined that shore as being somewhere a few hours of cold happy sailing to the West of the Grey Havens , but in a world where sailboats were not just something for rich people (the last shall be first, what?)

In some royal circles "pardon" is rude and "what" is polite, I have been told

Crypto fan boy/girl just told me "Interests (rate) do not depend on the underlying currency". It takes a special kind of stupid to be foolish enough to buy crypto.

#5 Definitely turned me off more towards SV (like pay > $1000/month to live with randos from Craig's List?), especially for anyone who doesn't already possess a strong technical skill, or can't get into Stanford GSB.

Hey, in SV you can make >$100K a year and live just like you did in the college dorm!

Wasn't a selling point that worked for me, but...

#1. It will be very interesting to see if there is a long term spike in lung cancer with increased pot smoking. One of my former grad school colleagues did some very nice work on identifying the level of polynuclear aromatic carcinogens in marijuana smoke and showed that for some compounds levels were ten fold higher than in cigarettes (work was done in the early 1970s and when he showed me the results, I stopped toking up :-) ). It will require some good epidemiology to track this and if there is addiction that leads to increased smoking it will show up at some point.

A Harvard med school professor I talked to told me the current research doesn't show an increase in health problems (cancer or otherwise) with an increase in marijuana consumption if you control for other factors (diet, whether the person smokes cigarettes, etc.), and may indicate a slight increase in lung function (although he said he thought this might be because habitual marijuana smokers just have more practice inhaling deeply.

That said, I don't think everyone should start smoking weed (nor did he), though I don't have a strong opinion on legalization. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I know who began smoking heavily is now much less ambitious/productive than they were previously.

Marijuana users don't smoke anywhere near the same volume of material as cigarette smokers.

We can now safely assume that at least one Harvard medical school professor is a drug addict.

We can safely assume that my dick don’t work I can’t even jerk!

Nice job Morris.

Don't most marijuana users vape the drug now? Back when I was teen (20 some years ago) and smoked no one had vaporizer machines. But I have heard that they are a way more efficient delivery system than smoking, so I would guess habitual users nowadays buy vaporizers to save money on weed.

#1 isn't clear: Is this addiction chemical dependence like for alcohol or heroin, or is it behavioral addiction like to gambling or sex? They mention withdrawal symptoms, which makes me think there's a chemical component, but never outright say so. If it's primarily behavioral, then my reaction is "yeah, so?" _Anything_ that leads to an exciting or positive experience can lead to a behavioral addiction, of course smoking up is going to be on that list.

If it's primarily a chemical addiction, stronger than, say, caffeine, then that's something worth writing about.

I'm trolling here: So, you think behavior isn't based on chemistry? I suppose you can separate the non-chemical physics from the chemistry, but other than that, if you can show that any behavior is not chemistry, then you should found your own evidence based religion (unless you're adverse to receiving a number of prizes, including the Nobel).

Again, you might want to read the literature on addiction before making up distinctions and categorizing things in them.

Wouldn't "gambling or sex" possibly be chemical dependencies?

#1. 1-2 ounces a week is insane outlier territory, something like an alcoholic sucking down 50 drinks a day, every day.

Actually, no.

50 drinks a day doesn't even scratch outlier territory. The top 5% of drinkers average around 150 drinks a week. I lack hard data, but my experience treating them suggests that the top 2% are indeed looking at twice as high ethanol consumption rates by ethanol weight (they also tend to be very quick progression to cirrhosis from cheap distilled spirits).

Likewise I have treated people who tell me they have consumed 1-2 ounces per day. Given their symptomology, I can completely believe them. I have been told by an Oregon doc that he has patients who refer to their consumption in pounds per month and they were under the old "medical marijuana" rules.

This is always the case. The majority of consumption of vices lie in the top quintile at best, more often in the top decile. The folks around top few percentiles are not outliers but consume more than anyone remotely close to median useage could possibly conceive of using.

People who use this much tend to be nonfunctional in much of society for many reasons, but of all the using friends of the typical poster on this board (including the regular tokers) doesn't begin to scratch outlier territory. Outlier users are so messed up they rarely have friends who can access the internet and also typically have short periods of use either due to death or incarceration.

One drink is too many; a hundred not enough.

1. I hate these stories because it tosses out a statistic in a vacuum. So lets say 9% of people that try it become addicted. Ok. Is that a lot?

Alcohol and heroin are at about 15%. Of those, about 3/4 will die because of their addiction. Whats that 2nd number for pot?

TC just hates pot because he's a boomer that doesn't like it his former classmates that did. Some people use it quite frequently and lead productive lives. Before it, my life was miserable. I have lived half of my life without it (intermittent chronic use) and I can honestly say I genuinely prefer live with it as much as possible ( as in, using as much as possible).

Outsiders can say "ah hah! thats addiction!" But that same profile is true of anti depressants for some people. It helps with my constant anxiety and stomach issues. I am truly a better person for it. My wife never touched it and prefers that I use it.

My point is, tossing out a statistic in isolation is dishonest.

3/4 of alcoholics die of alcoholism?

You're seriously asking if 9% of the people who try substance X become addicted is "a lot"??? You're claiming that only 15% of the global population has ever tried alcohol? (aside from the fact that our guts ferment it). Wow²

"You're seriously asking if 9% of the people who try substance X become addicted is "a lot"???"

Far be it for me to answer for anyone else, but you are misstating what an addiction rate is. It's not the % of people who ever "try" it, but the percentage of those who are regular users who become addicted. It would be absurdly unbelievable to claim simply trying it led to 9% of people becoming addicts.

So yes, it's a serious question wither 9% is a lot compared to other things we seem to accept. Even if we accept the 9% as fact (and I'm dubious), a fact without context is just trivia.

"You're claiming that only 15% of the global population has ever tried alcohol?"

Where did you see such an absurd claim?

Agreed.

If it is 9% of all that once try weed, that would 9% of almost every young male and, to a lesser extent, young female.

I'm wondering what the addiction rates are for the (what? 50+) other genders.

Pray tell, how is it tossing out a statistic in a vacuum if it lists addiction statistics for cocaine, alcohol, and heroin (while noting that pot has a lower addiction rate than them)? Did you bother to read the article?

5. Shared space. Those familiar with large professional organizations are aware of shared office space: today the office belongs to you, tomorrow it belongs to someone else. And so it can be with living space as well. We live not only with the gig economy, but the gig working and living space. Is that a good thing? When one works and lives in different places, is he one person or two or three or four. Before the Council of Nicaea, the popular view of Jesus is that He, like the rest of us, was multiple persons: I am a son, a brother, a husband, a father, etc. And so it is with someone who works and lives in multiple places. Is it any wonder that people don't know who they are.

Low rent office space doubles as workplace and housing.
Or low rent apartments double as both housing and place of business.

Illegal immigrant Elon Musk and his brother started their first business this way, selling it for a net seven million or something to HP.

Many illegal immigrants live in small housing places with five or more people, using it for housing, and a base of operations for business employing kids that can't take wage jobs. Those over age 15 work wage jobs, and everyone works on the family business like gardening, cleaning, street vending.

One thing conservatives ignore is labor law allows kids to work on the family business or along side family in agriculture. Only a few States set an minimum age, maybe 13, but that's mostly to try to get the kids into schools until 6th grade, so they read, write english, do arithmetic.

Large families make small housing affordable because zoning always allows it and all in the family can work after age 4-5 to provide for the family.

#5 Person whose livelihood depends on people continuing to move to San Francisco, claims that it is a good idea. Stop the presses!

Of course, conservatives argue millions are fleeing liberal coastal elite cities for red states, while living and working in the liberal coastal elite metro areas paying rapidly rising taxes and housing costs because their political-economy commentary pays ever higher incomes thanks to the Kochs, etc, or from working as lobbyists or on political campaigns, who like the messages that:

Liberal coastal elite areas are so horrible they are being depopulate to the point of abandonment, and

The liberal elite coastal inhabitants are crushing the life out of red States by sucking all the workers out, and the money, and jobs, forcing surviving businesses to import illegals.

It's like the laws of supply and demand are reversed. The more people flee the coastal elite metros, the higher the living costs, while the flood of refugees into rural red States, the lower living costs go as demand rises.

And there you go, a wingnut, drama queen delusional take, by Mulp, on the coastal environs, which, apart from natural resource dependent components of the economy, account for %99.999999 of the increased GNP in the US economy.

Mulp's playing either the the dumb, completely fact-free, reason-free wingnut or taking on the guise of such, just to be sarcastic and silly.

Still, something seems missing. Look even until the 1950's we lived in towns that were small and before the civil war, we lived as farmers. Office space is a myth. Shared office space is a hoax like UFO's or white cats or the sea turtle alpine myth. When we go camping rayward, you will see wealth is relative, my friend.

Many say it is on the rise, perhaps because of the increasing potency of genetically engineered plants and the use of concentrated products, or because more users are partaking multiple times a day.

Genetically engineered plants?

To the best of anyone's knowledge there is no GE marijuana anywhere.

Unless we include "breeding", but then that's been all weed anyone ever had as long as anyone's been alive.

If "many" say it's on the rise because of a myth, well, I don't know that I trust "many".

#1 - another scare article. Like alcohol, THC is a drug that should be consumed lightly and moderately, and by adults. Stick to that and it's really not a problem. Boring I know.

Like alcohol, sales data suggest that majority of legal marijuana consumed is done by people who consume heavily and immoderately.

Like always, the vast majority of problems are concentrated in the small fraction of heavy users who look nothing like the median user.

I'm sure you are correct. And since it's always been that way, what is your point? For every vice there are the vast majority of people who engage in it reasonably, and the tiny minority that ruins their lives. And unless you go full Wahhabi that will always be the case in a secular society.

There is a large continuum between legalize it and ignore the problems and go full "Wahhabi".

One can further make the argument that just because we already have vices which are legal and burning billions of dollars of other people's money we should maybe not set up another bonfire.

This is, of course, futile because the rich, powerful, and educated all would rather have less hassling consequences from toking and they are quite fine with running the risk that society will get a rather large bill courtesy of the minority of users they will willfully ignore.

What large bill?

Marijuana does not kill anyone.
Marijuana does not make people violent like alcohol.
Marijuana lessens opiod addiction.
Marijuana and its extracts help people.

Legalize it.

Save lives and families ruined by minor marijuana infractions.
Lessen income to drug cartels.

I do not understand the resistance to legalizing marijuana. I do know that the science that made it a illegal was bogus. And I suspect it was Mr. Nixon's way of getting back at hippies and black people.

Get over it.

If it has some negative consequences, treat it like a public health issue.

Let Portugal show you the way.

Make America Great Again!

What really is incomprehensible to me is it is clear that alcohol is a more dangerous drug than marijuana. Yet, alcohol is legal with some age restrictions and marijuana, though safer than alcohol, will get you a criminal record and even ruin your life.

Does this make any sense?

No. No. No.

So what's behind it?

Please explain it to me.

Just for the record:

I do not use marijuana

and

I have no plans to use if it were legalized.

I just can't stand the insanity of the laws as they stand today.

5. "If you’re really tight on money, you can save by...finding events to attend with free food."

Free lunch home economics for the upward!y mobile!

Ha. I mean I've ducked into Jiffy Lube up the street from me for free coffee now and again but that's about the extent of what you can expect.

As I commented at the Medium site for #5:

“…you can save by … finding events to attend with free food.” Why stop there? Dumpsters are full of tasty, nutritious gems. So what if they’ve had a few bites taken out of them — you’re ok with living with roommates well into your 30s, so think of your fellow prior diners as food-roommates. Foodmates, in fact! Now stop reading this and get back to work…

#1. Do only c. 9% of physicians subscribe to the "addiction model" of cannabis abuse? The relevant sciences do not require use of the term "addiction" with regard at least to cannabis, as the term does not enjoy a useful, universal definition among researchers with respect to cannabis, cannabis use, and cannabis abuse.

Whatever maladaptive relationship a small minority of cannabis users may develop does not require media resort to the scare word "ADDICTION", surely. (Or: let's talk soon about media addictions, shall we?)

I'm rather a fan of this book which argues that the whole drug addiction phenomenon - or rather, heroin addiction - is largely bogus. Fake. A sort of conspiracy of mutual advantage involving medics, police, users, and so on.

He points out that coming off alcohol is much more life-threatening than coming off heroin.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Junk-Medicine-Doctors-Addiction-Bureaucracy/dp/1905641591

One thing that the article didn't say: some of the most important abilities (finding affordable housing with roommates who you can live with, and networking) are hugely enhanced if you go to college or grad school in the area: Stanford or Berkeley, SF State or San Jose State or other Cal State campuses if you can't get into the elite institutions. Alumni of those institutions have a built-in network of future roommates and professionals as well as local knowledge of the real estate market. The "runway" that the article describes is pre-built and lower cost if you're already in the Bay Area with a social network. Obviously an outsider can still move to the area and succeed, but locals have a head start.

The roommate thing is only a big deal for pampered Americans who grew up in their many-bedroomed houses and avoided having roommates in college. Even 40 years ago if you moved to Boston for grad school or an entry-level job, it was pretty much automatic that you'd need to live with roommates or have your own significant source of funds. Or rent out a room in a house with an eccentric widow, as accurately portrayed in Jumpa Lahiri's short story "The Third and Final Continent" about a newly minted librarian moving to Cambridge MA.

Well, if all your immigrant family are dead, you are entitled to living with cheap, small chores only, housing of a minimum of two rooms, plus at least one motor vehicle, with dedicated driver if liberals say you can't drive due to being too small, or maybe blindness.

My immigrant forefathers died circa 1650 so I'm entitled to 4000 square feet of enclosed space, two acres, and accommodation for at least three large vehicles, plus a dozen more small transportation toys.

I've thought of having a roommate but I can't figure out where they would sleep and put their stuff. It would help if they lived in an RV which I have room for in the driveway.

I would think a newly minted college grad or really anyone in their 20s would prefer roommates to living alone. Instant expansion of social network plus a likely wingman(woman). That was how it worked for me and my cohort, I wanted roommates until I got to about age 28 or so.

4: "Over the past century, reindeer herding has become a big economic driver for the Sami"

Wait, I thought that the Sami had been herding reindeer for centuries if not millennia? What were they living on prior to herding reindeer?

This article says that the Romans in the first century CE observed people wearing furs, traveling on skis, and herding reindeer in "Thule".
http://reindeerherding.org/herders/sami-norway/

The remarkable thing about marijuana is that it cures people of every other addiction. I assume this because every proponent claims that it is healthier than alcohol or tobacco. Obviously, then, nobody smokes cigarettes or drinks once they take marijuana. That's comforting because the last thing we need is a third major mainstream substance abuse problem.

3: I saw a documentary that said that the Himalayas play an important role in the monsoon, IIRC the story is something like the moist air from the Indian Ocean would move much farther inland and distribute its rain across a wider area -- but the imposing wall formed by the mountains causes the clouds to dump all their rain on the Indian subcontinent. I forget what the explanation was for why this is seasonal rather than more evenly distributed throughout the year, maybe it's increased evaporation from the ocean during the summer.

The documentary then went even farther to speculate that the Himalayas affected not only the regional monsoons but global climate as well, in particular the Ice Ages. Again I forget what their model was, and it seemed highly speculative.

For the meteorologists in the article, I guess this is stuff that they can treat as exogenous constants, they're trying to model weather on a much more detailed and short-term time scale.

#5 -- so SF isn't so expensive if you have roommates, sublet an apartment with a long commute, never eat out, don't drink, watch TV or play videogames, save up money before moving out, sell your car, and go to lots of events with free food.

Oh, and avoid those big-name supermarkets! Buncha price gougers, those guys.

The article puts the cart before the horse, I think. You earn money to improve your quality of life. Suggesting that people decrease their quality of life in order to make the money go further is another way of saying that SF is hard to afford.

Well I noticed the article was really big on admiring SF scenery. If the scenery is the point then barely scraping by is still worth it.

3. One significant impact of Climate change in India is increasing unpredictability of the rains even if the monsoon starts as predicted. I don't have the figures but these are significantly impacting the rice crops by farmers not being able to plant in an expected cycle, with pre-harvest crops being hit by heavy or unexpected rains. there was always uncertainty , but it seems worse now.

i'll speak, when i want to speak, . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwrHwZyFN7M

looking out for you with categorical imperatives & love songs

that's a big, talking 2u, in your face, . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h33h90xbFeM

don't goad me, i'll sing like this, all gdnd nite . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ech6pZoBJ4

that's a big, communicating to you lil f's

@twilightzone.com

you hear songs like this? late at night? you are blessed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnIJrbwjlZA

a big chirps up, from meatspace, in the real

and playing good songs too, . . .

i'll play songs over and over again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrZRURcb1cM

"like"

with humility, ask me if i given n s 'bout when that girl is singing, 'bout when we were alive. i was there. yup

and i was alive, in meatspace, garden of eden

you lil, f face nobody s heads --you can't
touch me, but you can learn

sorry for being so crass . . .

i'll play this song anytime i feel like it . . .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXV_QjenbDw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guKoNCQFAFk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guKoNCQFAFk\

and you all, spectators , can go disappear somewhere

you wish you were me

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMA-_ElvKsk

a big, stumbles into the room, didn't want to, but was

and the big songs were playing . . .

and paul had dated, 'mr big' girls, . . .

just the way it went, . . . , hounds

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXV_QjenbDw

your ego gets away from you sometimes, you chat with your brothers & sisters

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwHpDOWhkGk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_0FHyF3Pyk

i play a song like that? ask me if i give ns 'bout wtf u eversaid 'bout nothin'

a big, steps up to the plate, and chit/chats sometimes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrZRURcb1cM

mr big, speaks, from time to time

we play these songs because they really happened in meatspace and we want you to remember them

clear the bar material

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xW2taEoH6s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXV_QjenbDw

i'll play that song all gdmnd nite, and if you complain? i'll beat the . . .

polite people having a nice evening
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2MtEsrcTTs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L86gQQBYSc4

i'll play these songs

I looked up the author and she seems to have a cottage industry -- everything ingested to pleasure is awful and addictive. She really covers the whole Puritan waterfront.

I have seen hundreds of people addicted to alcohol and nicotine. I once was addicted to nicotine. It took me years to quit. I know no one - in my entire lifetime - who I would say was addicted to marijuana. Lots of people dabble without ill effects. I can see that an addictive personality might have a problem, but I'm talking about the people who get addicted to everything. From my experience in Colorado, I determined good bread and butter are more of an attraction.

I'd be wary of anything published by the fed's drug shops. I know how bureaucracies operate. They will publish anything to preserve their existence.

To continue its reign as the world’s most innovative place, this region requires a constant stream of talent. If smart motivated people don’t move here, where they can share ideas, best practices, and capital, many great companies may never be formed.

Translation: move here so I can exploit you.

I’ve witnessed dozens of people make this transition. Some certainly had help from parents or a nest egg from their previous career. But just as many didn’t have those advantages. I’ve seen people employ scrappy strategies to extend their runway long enough to build an in-demand skillset and earn a much higher salary.

This article is aimed at engineers who see themselves continuing to be engineers. Given how high even entry-level salaries are around the country and globally, it is insane to burn your nest egg while you are basically in your prime years (obviously if you are founding a startup it's different). The cash you earn from that high salary that your "in-demand skillset" gets you should go into savings because that high-demand skill set won't stay in demand and you have know idea what kind of career you will have in 15 years.

Comments for this post are closed