Great for you, but it is with the self-reporting that I have a problem. Is it true or has the drug just altered your evaluation of yourself?
If you read Oliver Sacks' _The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat and Other Clinical Tales_, you'd see that self-perception can be completely off the mark.
Yes, a substance like LSD can alter one's self-evaluation, but that doesn't negate the validity of the experience. LSD and similar substances offer a unique lens, a radical shift in perspective that can unveil new ideas, hidden patterns. If you get a the message, hang up the phone.
In the end, all ideas have to be measured against all other ideas.
But I suppose what you're aiming at here are objective, measurable results in a scientific context? Well, we have a huge hole in the research body of about 45 years, thanks to criminalization (it is very tedious to get a study approved on a schedule 1 drug). However, in recent years, it seems to be opening up. They call it the psychedelic renaissance. Numerous studies have explored both the subjective effects and the applications in mental health. One that strikes out to me involves testing on individuals attempting to quit smoking. After a year, 80% (!) of the participants successfully maintained their cessation from smoking. [1] This is after a single dose!
Long rant, the point is, there are measurable, real-world impacts that these substances can have.
I've been wondering about microdosing myself, since for some reason LSD helps me do showers and other chores that I usually have problems with due to ADHD. I don't know why, though.
Reverse Engineering the (client) Github Copilot: It appears to be sending an enormous prompt, considering the 20 most recent files, from which some snippets are extracted:
> By default, the fixed window Jaccard Matcher is used. This class slices up a given file (from which snippets are to be extracted) into sliding windows of a fixed size. It then computes Jaccard similarity between each window and the reference file (the file you’re typing in).
A huge chunk of the people who use the internet do not know what a DNS is, nor do they care. So the block, while technically pointless, is not inconsequential
Interesting. Coming from a progressive european coutry, this sounds outrageously absurd. The idea of enacting laws based on the bible seems not just archaic but almost surreal. Are they stuck in the middle ages?
I can only speak for the bubble I grew up in, but almost everyone in that circle came from some kind of traumatic background. Vietnam vets, victims of sexual assault and other forms of abuse, etc.
These ultra religious groups provide a sense of community, and the highly restrictive rules and policies they espouse give them a sense of control - something that many of them have lost in various ways. It’s as sad as it is dangerous.
Some of them. It's not entirely different to or Poland's PIS or Northern Ireland's DUP, though I don't know of any modern major Republican leader who thinks the world is literally 6,000 years old.
Looking at data from 2022, about 13.6% of the population is White Evangelical Protestant, but that's been on the decline. It was around 25% a couple decades ago. Overall, just over half of the country is Christian, most being Protestant of some denomination.
But it's the White Evangelical Protestants that are the big driver here. You might think it's the 12.6% White Catholic and the 8.6% Hispanic Catholic populations that are the most fervently anti-abortion, but most actually vote for more liberal politicians.
The thing is, Evangelicals, if I understand correctly, weren't even that anti-abortion to begin with. That was seen as more of a Catholic issue historically. But what they're very big on is the idea that 1) America is the greatest country in the world, and 2) America is great because it's a Christian country. As such, they feel it's important to elect Christian leaders who feel and think like they do. And because they are predominantly white and their leadership is exclusively male, they want white men to be in control. (And I say this as a white, cisgender man.)
Because they've always been such a large percentage of the US population, and, more recently, because US distracting gives rural voters a greater voice than urban voters, they've been a large political force in the country since the 19th century, but in the 20th century, they were never so large as to completely dominate US politics. And this kinda worked well for both sides in the early 20th, since towns, counties, and states dominated by Evangelicals were largely autonomous enough to do whatever they wanted locally. But when desegregation came, and women entered the workforce in greater numbers, Evangelicals were forced to accept nonwhites and women holding important positions, even in their areas of the country.
Abortion became an issue they could use to gain support from Catholic voters, and as a wedge issue for the larger community. For Evangelicals, it was less about writing specific religious creeds into law, and more about forming strategies to gain political power so they could put the "right people" in back in charge of the country. It also helps reinforce that men are in control by removing autonomy from women.
