Not when someone can banish it from the front page[1]. See this comment timestamp[2] and compare it with the sudden drop in ranking on the upvote tracker chart.
This story spent the entire day yesterday at #1 on HN. It got 4000 upvotes and 1300+ comments and was by far the most prominent thread of the day: https://news.ycombinator.com/front?day=2021-06-07. That's the opposite of "banishing".
We bent the rules considerably to allow this, for reasons I've explained at length here:
> highly recommend you try something like shrooms in the safe environment
Just listened to Seth Rogen's audible book (hilarious, and decent anecdata on shrooms particularly) and he would say shrooms are a lot more intense than LSD. Shrooms take control while on LSD you're "the pilot."
I heard he smokes 5 joints a day. His wife rolls them, so he doesn't smoke too much.
He has good genes, or a high tolerance.
I tried smoking around December, and realized I hated it. I liked it in high school. I couldn't wait until the effect went away. It's weird I kept trying it, and finally gave up. Was about to toss it, but hide it instead--too cheap to toss?
Then again real life has been scaring me for years. I wish there was a calming drug that was easy on the body.
> Then again real life has been scaring me for years.
Especially with the extremely high THC content of modern strains people often fail to recognize that weed is still a psychedelic in its own right.
Alcohol, for most people, will simply make you feel good (up to a point), but strong weed can often magnify strong emotions you have. During a particularly challenging time in my life I completely gave up weed because smoking only served to make me feel worse.
Like all psychedelics the negative experience can be useful, for example if you get very anxious when you smoke it's likely you have some other unaddressed problems, but for those that are just looking for an escape (and most people, myself included, are looking for this from weed) it can certainly make smoking during stressful times a bad idea.
> Shrooms take control while on LSD you're "the pilot."
A counterargument that a friend told me once: a psilocybin trip is like a wagon ride that takes you to what you need to see. LSD is like a jet plane that takes you instantly to where your brain wants to go.
I think it probably depends on the person. My first psilocybin trip was the most intense experience I've had, but then I had a lot that I needed to confront at the time.
I've had probably a hundred lsd trips and dozens of mushroom trips.
In all there were three trips I would call "bad", I went to what I perceived as hell. The mushroom bad trip was nearly indistinguishable from the acid bad trips.
In all three cases I felt immense gratitude for the trips being over yet thankful for the experiences.
May be because with mushrooms, you don't necessarily know your exact dose of the drug, as I'm sure it can vary batch to batch, and shroom to shroom. LSD, you usually know how much you're getting on each tab. Of course, you could could process the mushrooms and figure out how much psilocybin you're getting, then do a comparison... But usually, I think people just eat the mushrooms or make them into tea.
I've heard this many times and there is definitely some truth there, but for small doses (i.e. 100ug LSD and 1-1.5g mushrooms), I don't think you need to overly-concern yourself with minutiae of the differences.
There is no reason to take more than this as introductory doses, and then you can make up your own mind.
I can't relate to "workers" (employees) and I haven't been out of the workforce for nearly as long as PG.
Dalio emphasizes the importance of being believable, and I don't believe that PG understands the concept of work/life balance(or "work-life" or whatever).
It may not be. In fact, I'd suggest discussing the idea of validity in relation to opinions is probably fraught with peril itself. That said, any opinion which is more close to the unbridled truth is generally more structurally sound (and maybe that's a good hallmark for "validity") than opinions which are more sensationalized.
"Grey opinions" are essentially the opposite of sensationalized. I'm not the original commenter, but if I read them correctly, I believe they mean that the least sensational and most deliberate opinions are more likely to fully account for the truth of the matter (and hence be "more" valid) than those opinions which sensationalize.
I would assume the author of that comment was using "grey" to describe an opinion that is more nuanced and carefully considered. A black/white opinion would be hyperbolic or simply expressed to provoke reaction.
So if that's what a grey opinion is... then yeah. That's more valid. Especially if you value conversations aimed at exploring some reality rather than performative shouting matches.
Shady fly by night data hosting doing counter-intel, or better, Putin spending his precious rubles on running counter-intel ops for shady fly by night hosting companies, are both hilarious.
