just a psa for others: there is at least one, likely multiple youtube accounts that are making AI generated Feynman slop. Don't trust anything posted prior to the current dishearenting era.
One can also use vapes. I avoid the cartridge types as I don't want to guess what was used to process them. Instead I use a simple flower vape which on the face of it should be less bad than say smoking from a joint or bong.
Gummies and other edibles though require processing in the liver before they become active in the body (they are converted to a slightly different form of THC) so you would need to consider whether there are any negative effects on liver health from edibles and then compare to the various 'inhaled' methods.
General friendly advice - for anything not flower, try to get things that are made by live rosin (not resin) as they are the cleanest and should not involve the use of any hydrocarbon solvents for extraction. Live resin would be next, though it does use hydrocarbons. Distilliates which are often in vape cartridges are almost always made with hydrocarbons. While the production method shouldn't matter if everything is done 100% properly, it does require trust that all the butane, etc has been fully removed from the final product.
I really don't understand why anyone who has the means to buy a decent dry herb vape smokes it. I have a friend who's a daily smoker who just refuses to make the change. Has an absolutely terrible cough and yet he persists with smoking.
for the anxiety crowd: don't buy street weed and avoid sativas
about the 'study': I do not trust anything that comes out of meta studies given how many base studies are found to be either garbage or very lacking in controls. And without knowing an accurate life history it is hard to rule out or quantify damages done much earlier in life.
Agreed. Blending in CBD and other cannabinoids is way more effective than relying on strains. Basically everything out there is extremely high in THC and nothing else. Mixing in high CBD flower reduces anxiety a lot for me
For clean weed - not laced with anything - sativas are more prone to causing anxiety. I doubt one will find any kind of study proving this, it is anecdotal - myself, friends and the internet at large.
While not universally true, it seems that many of the sativas for sale are very high THC which probably is a primary factor. Other factors are terpenes, though there is still a lot of debate on whether it these are real or imagined effects.
Moderate THC (15-20%) indica or indica dominant hybrid flower, using a flower vape, IMHO, is the best way to go. Always a good idea to read strain reviews prior to purchase (or growing) as people will note those that have caused them to be anxious, sleepy, hungry, horny, etc.
People can also have very different reactions when taking a drug (weed, shrooms, lsd, etc) alone vs with friends, something to consider as well.
You talk like dispensary employees who are, in general, dishing out recommendations based on folklore and personal experiences. The only true advice is YMMV - there are no controlled studies on what different “stains” do, or even a formal definition of what a strain is for they matter.
What the literature definitely finds is that CBD ratio is crucial for anxiety (higher CBD = less anxiety). Some of the first lab experiments were pure THC and quite intense/unpleasant relative to what you'd get from a plant naturally "full spectrum." If you're ever in california, NY, Maryland, whatever then try something with 1:1 THC:CBD and maybe get some of the other CBs in there too.
[Strain sativa/indica can sort of be an indicator, but going by the dose of each active ingredient is the more scientific approach]
The entire field of statistics is based off not making critical type 1/2 errors (which meta studies are not able to control well) so I would say it is not just his "gut" feeling.
Like for car EVs, I'd like ot know what those range numbers are when tested in the real world - like with two or three passengers or in the case of this small truck, a few hundred pounds of tools and/or supplies (and better yet, hills and cold weather). I'm skeptical that that 200 mile estimate range doesn't drop quite a lot and heaven forbid you get a load of gravel in the back.
I had one, registered I think in 1991, back in the uucp bang days. Had to give it up due to changes in requirements and IIRC Nustar being a real pain. Would like to get it back but no desire to jump through hoops to do so.
From what I see of my own use and friends use of "AI" - it is a glorified search aggragator with nice pretty print output which has replaced Google search because all involved are tired of wasting time with the cesspool that vanilla search has become.
this is def. the #1 use case, and it's why we can't have nice things. I use the internet to go to places I already know most of the time; when I use a search engine to try and find something it's a complete failure - often because of all the LLM generated astroturfing.
Great observation. Thank you for pointing to an obvious error. I will fix it as soon as possible. it is not acceptable to order artists by their first name.
I go back to xxx.lanl.gov days - that is, the beginning. Back then it was all physics, some math and a little quantitative finance (not bitcoin). And the quality was pretty good because it was a preprint archive. In fact, a headline from 2000:
The APS is establishing, in cooperation with Brookhaven National Laboratory, the first electronic mirror in the United States for the Los Alamos e-Print Archive.
Today, from the landing page, it describes itself as "arXiv is a free distribution service and an open-access archive for nearly 2.4 million scholarly articles in the fields of [long list]. Materials on this site are not peer-reviewed by arXiv.
Well, that's a large part of the problem. A lot of the stuff there now will never see a journal (even of dubious quality) and there is limited filtering of what new submissions will be stored. GIGO.
Best thing ArXiv could do is go back to their roots - limit the fields and return to preprint only. Spin off the comp sci stuff for sure to someone else along with all its headaches.
A lot of comments very dismissive of anything "print on demand". As an author of a niche book in both hard/soft, I chose Lightning Source/Ingram because they produce quality books. At that time (2012) I could have gone the "easy" route and used Amazon but even then there were complaints about quality. I've received quite a few compliments about the physical quality of my book, primarily the paper back edition which I believe was 60lb cream paper stock.
Note that authors who take the easy way and use Amazon KDP w/ extended distribution appear on sites like BN, Books A Million, etc via the Ingram distribution but the physical copy will still be printed by Amazon and be inferior.
Some clues you can look for in general are - Amazon in the past two years has basically stopped stocking non-KDP POD books so they will almost always say avaialbe in X weeks (or if "Prime" 3-5 days). Amazon books are almost always a page count divisible by four and IIRC 828 pages is a limit on many trims.
So if you buy off of Amazon, check first to see that the Amazon listing looks like too.
It is really unfortunate that Amazon (and a few places in India) ruin it for everyone.
I don't think POD is the problem either, as there's another comment here that they're seeing non-POD books with the same quality (or lack thereof). It's the printers they're using.
Please keep in mind two things with the NFP report:
1/ the confidence interval for the monthly change in total nonfarm
employment from the establishment survey is on the order of plus or minus 122,000
2/ the report is based upon a survey of establishments. There is no obligation to respond and many do not and ability/desire to respond may be impacted by company health as well.
reply