Now that it's recreational and all of the THC and CBD percentages are listed on the packages, I've noticed cannabis high in CBD is sticky, much more so than cannabis high in THC.
For the many years it was illegal and I smoked it anyway, sticky cannabis aka 'dank' was always preferred. I believe CBD cannabis is more popular than it seems.
Here in Florida I think CBD oils were recently legalized and I think a single strain of marijuana (with negligible THC and high CBD) had been permitted for epilepsy patients. To be honest I haven't followed to closely after the last medical marijuana bill didn't pass.
Anyway, is the CBD/THC ratios interdependent? Meaning as one goes up, the others go down? Or are there some strains with significant amounts of each and others with low amounts of each?
I just did a little research. It would seem the high THC/low CBD is caused by the farming technique:
"However, modern growing techniques have also affected these chemical levels. For example, illegal growers have turned to indoor marijuana farms to avoid detection. Growing cannabis locally in such farms also circumvents the need to import the drug, and guarantees a more reliable harvest. However, the 24-hour lighting used in these farms inadvertently reduces CBD levels in the plant."[0]
I noted that I didn't read that section, apologized to the first person to point it out, and edited my comment to reflect it. The rest of my points stand quite well on their own and have nothing to do with Milo except as an example.
No, you were getting downvoted because of your indignant hysteria and outright harassment of a commenter over something completely irrelevant, and now I suspect that will transition to being downvoted for complaining about downvoting. Don't do either.
Stating a fact is indignant hysteria? I was replying to his comment which was a lie.
> outright harassment
I'll come back to this.
> a commenter over something completely irrelevant
OK. From OP:
"The man deserved what he got, but there are dozens of accounts that were his "executors" - doing the actual harassment for him in many cases - who got off scot-free, while he remains banned. There is no consistency."
From the article:
"However, the decision to ban Milo because of the actions of a few of his 500,000 followers (if that is indeed why this occurred) is horribly inconsistent."
Both of these statements are semantically similar—there is inconsistency.
That's an example of where the comment is low quality due to the OP not reading the article. So I reject that it's irrelevant.
Back to the harassment. I stated facts as plainly as I could. If he/she finds facts intimidating then I would say it's on the OP to examine what he/she said & did, and not on me to ignore or use mental gymnastics to defend incorrect statements.
I wasn't gonna reply, but you've called me a liar at least twice now, so I feel bound to.
Nothing in my comment as it stands now is false. Nothing in my responses to you are false. When I noticed something incorrect, I modified it, noted it, and accepted responsibility.
The fact that my comment is similar to the article doesn't make it false. The fact that I didn't notice the similarity immediately doesn't make it false. Even if my comment is of lesser quality because I didn't read the section of the article on Milo, which is a matter of opinion, that does not make me a liar.
Most importantly, the opinions stated in the last two sentences of the comment are positions that could be addressed on their own merits even if everything I had said up till that point was a lie, which it was not.
It seems to me that you have a preconceived understanding of what I was trying to say. I can't speak to what t that is or why, but I can see that rather than admit that you have a difference of opinion with me or engage me on my points, you attack me as a liar. In the process, you break HN rules and destroy part of the civility this comment chain has otherwise been enjoying. You are the one causing the issue here, not me, and you ought to stop.
> "I think there's a possibility that the arbitrary enforcement is partially because Twitter knows that if it were consistent in enforcing its own rules, so much of its population of users would disappear that it would be hobbling itself.
> "The only "safe" way to use Twitter now is as an echo chamber - only follow people you like, only talk to people who think the same way you do. That's a waste."
These are points. The content above them is evidence leading to the points. The points can be made on their own without the evidence, but a good way to construct an argument is to state the evidence before the points. I could have posted them on their own without the stuff about Milo and they would have stood just fine. That's what I'm referring to in my second comment. Length by percentage in this case has nothing to do with semantic or rhetorical value.
But I think you probably know that, since you ended this comment by insulting me again instead of responding to my content. It seems to me that it's easier for you to insult me than to engage with what I'm saying. I'm done with this conversation now. If you need to think me a liar in order to protect whatever your narrative is about all this, okay. If you just prefer to assume bad faith when someone makes a mistake, rather than give people the benefit of the doubt at no cost to yourself, okay. The rest of HN can (and has, judging by the flags and downvotes) decide for themselves.
> Length by percentage in this case has nothing to do with semantic or rhetorical value.
In logic, the strength of an inductive argument is based on the premises. So I would say that the premises have great rhetorical value.
With that in mind, length seems like a reasonable proxy.
> It seems to me that it's easier for you to insult me than to engage with what I'm saying.
I just wrote a massive comment. When you say things like this, it brings out the gadfly in me. It's absurd to say I don't engage with what you're saying. I wrote a reply to nearly everything you said.
> If you just prefer to assume bad faith when someone makes a mistake, rather than give people the benefit of the doubt at no cost to yourself, okay.
I explained why. With the mistake, you're referring to the your first comment again. To repeat: it has nothing to do with that!
To be fair, the points about that person were almost near the end after heavy points about the product, it "felt" like conclusion territory which I often skip if I've gotten the point already, and to be honest, I about ran out of steam by that point too. Is it so crazy to imagine that someone reads an article that makes its point quite clearly even before the conclusion, and comments upon it after reading solely its meat? Hell, I almost closed the article once I saw that person's name, even.
A lot of people here just are snapping to criticize over this, which is oddly reminiscent of a subtext of the article, not doing this comment section any favors, and specifically discussed in the HN guidelines.
Now that I've made a substantive comment: who cares, seriously?
That's the same guy that posts as @graycat here on HN. Most of his posts espouse the wonders of hardcore applied math, often with a comprehensive bibliography, so he seems to know what he's talking about, although his rambling (and, to be fair, somewhat off-topic) style does him no favors on HN, which is why his posts almost always end up at the bottom of the comments here (see also @michaelochurch).
True, but it's more b/c his criticism of VC and PG specifically has a Captain Ahab level of intensity and persistence, which can get in the way of discussing, well, anything else.
Still, the "single-issue commenter", as exemplified by both of them, can be valuable to a good community. @michaelochurch's writings have definitely shaped my thoughts, so kudos for him, and, if I were in the position to use it, @graycat's bibliographies would be rewarding to mine (unless his knowledge is outdated, as @barrkel suggests). Yet I can't help but get the impression that the single-issue commenter is very prone to overexposing themself, especially if a large proportion of their comments are multi-thousand word diatribes that recycle most of the same themes. Not to mention, people readily pattern-match prolix commenters to complete crackpots, even though both those users seem to be above that level. My impression is that single-issue commenters would be best served by posting a lot for a year or so, followed by some time to lie low -- if their contributions to the discussion around their issue are really valuable, their posts should stay in moderate circulation as other users refer to them in later discussion.
He displays a lot of knowledge, but also doesn't look fully mentally with it. He has trouble controlling verbosity and keeping things relevant and on-topic. It's also not clear how much up to date knowledge he has; he writes like an old man complaining about the foolish optimism of youth.
What's the probability they don't know this?
They're corralling the sheeple:
Get typing your sanitised comments. Engagement up.
Weasel Words are kind words.
Correct isn't politically correct.
Motives are always good. There're no bad people in utopia.
There is no marketing. Interviews aren't marketing. HN isn't marketing.