Anodyne

Members2
  • Content count

    1,838
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

5 Followers

About Anodyne

  • Rank
    High Functioning

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Sydney, Oz

Previous Fields

  • Climate or location
    Sydney, Oz

Recent Profile Visitors

2,167 profile views
  1. Zedo - SJW has complicated pharmacology, chiefly serotonergic activity, but also effects on dopamine & other types of neurotransmitter systems, plus a bunch of enzyme-inducing stuff... short story, it has lots and lots of drug interactions, some of them dangerous. I couldn't tell you off the top of my head if combining with caapi would be one of the risky ones, but personally I wouldn't chance it. At least not without doing some detailed research into both their pharmacologies first. At a glance though, I can tell you that SJW has been shown to downregulate 5HT2A receptors, which are thought to be important to psychedelic activity, so even if it isn't dangerous to combine with vine, it may dull some of the effects. Also, many of the actives in SJW aren't heat-stable, so smoking may not be a good ROA.
  2. also, wouldn't you have to rename a whole bunch of monstrose bridgesii if you started censoring the tricho breeding discussions here? All those dicks...
  3. Are you kidding? It's so hard to tell, via text... No, there aren't. The rules, and I'm paraphrasing here, but essentially don't they just say "play nice"? Wasn't there even a supreme court ruling a couple years back to the effect that cussing was part of Australia's cultural heritage, and the language used was less important than the spirit in which it was used? Or to put it another way: you can say "cunt", just don't be one.
  4. Not sure if it's been embalmed into our law yet. Cops have been doing that for decades though, long before this tech existed. It is partly profiling bullshit (that they figure certain people - eg. those covering their faces - are more likely to be a real threat in some way, eg. wanted terrorists & fugitives), but it is mostly an intimidation tactic, as far as I can tell. You'll notice that they also target anyone using a microphone/megaphone, people who are obviously recording, and so on. I've seen arrest records after protests where the only charge was "resisting arrest", so if they can get away with arresting "ringleaders" on such circular reasoning then I don't believe they actually *need* legal support to harass people. But at the moment it is limited to certain events like rallies & strikes - cops don't get away with the same behaviours (or at least, not the same level) in a supermarket or school fete, say. In a way this has all been happening for as long as there have been cameras. Just much, much slower. But like the metadata retention scheme, it's at the point now where the speed & volume of the data processed have increased so much from previous generations of tech, that the entire nature of the system & the ways it can be used, is changing. I don't follow social trends so I don't know the proper terms for this stuff, but it's like a phase shift in chemistry - when you reach a certain point the matter isn't just "a bit denser", it is qualitatively different. I believe facial recognition (in the worldwide, real-time-linked sense we've been talking about) is another one of these shifts. In a sense, it has been happening for years, in another it has already happened. But there still might be room for plebs like us to get a say in who gets to wield that power in our futures, and for what purposes. So we should still protest shit like this, and wear bandanas to work some days for no good reason - just because we can. At least for now.
  5. In a society where the government relies on facial recognition for law enforcement (and other even less salutory activities), how long do you reckon the right to dress as you please will last? If this tech becomes widely used, then covering your face with a burqa, or bandana, or facepaint, or scruffy hair, becomes not only socially-unacceptable but downright suspicious potential-criminal type behaviour (remember that cops only need "reasonable suspicion" to detain & search you). I sometimes wear face-covering garments, for various reasons, and it is interesting to watch peoples' reactions to that - there is some curiosity, but an awful lot of hostility & fear. I would not like to see those prejudices given any more government support.
  6. Solanum nigrum? And (if that's what they are - my plant ID ain't so good) in answer to the edibility question...maybe? There seems to be a lot of local variation. But I think the gist of it is that they are usually non-toxic if you eat the berries ripe and any other parts cooked (leaves are eaten as a cooked vegetable in some places).
  7. Hey Flux, thanks for the links. I have encountered those in my searches - still trying to wrap my head around the second one (and others like it), but I think the gist of it is this: pregabalin/gabapentin inhibit neuroplasticity. This can be either a good thing or a bad thing. It isn't necessarily the same as just saying "lyrica causes brain damage" as that first article implies. If the changes that are occurring in the brain are detrimental (such as those in MS, as the paper discusses), then blocking them can be a good thing. This also applies to the kind of changes that can occur in chronic pain - where your brain has learned to send pain signals and continues to do so long after the physical injury has healed - it is just a matter of some faulty wiring, in essence. In that situation, if you can block those connections from forming in the first place, then you may be able to save people from a lifetime of chronic pain. And since lyrica seems to block those kind of new connections, then it could be very helpful in those circumstances. Where it all goes sour is when these drugs start getting thrown around to anyone who happens to be in pain, without looking at the whole picture. So if, for instance, you had a severe injury and were given lyrica immediately, it may head off those chronic pain issues at the pass, and they would just never form. (of course, you might still have the cognitive side-effects and withdrawals to deal with, but that's getting off-topic) However if the doctors were slack, or just hopeful, and waited awhile before prescribing lyrica until there were signs of chronic pain - then the story is very different. In that situation, the patient has already formed those faulty connections, and the lyrica is actually stopping them from getting better - it is stopping the neuroplasticity which would allow the brain to change its wiring again, to form healthier pathways. Same story for drug addiction (which of course affects many pain patients) - we are talking about some pretty entrenched neural wiring there, and changing that isn't easy even without the handicap of plasticity-blocking drugs. But of course, pregabalin is perceived as having "low abuse potential", so doctors are just handing it out in place of opioid painkillers & NSAIDs. I still believe it can be a miracle drug if prescribed correctly, for stuff like neuropathic pain, and possibly in acute care (eg. after severe injury or amputation). But it is being prescribed way more widely than that right now, which seems pretty reckless and short-sighted. I loathe pharmaceutical-company ethics, so I would be fuming about this anyway, but since this all applies to me personally as well, I am extra pissed off. I am going to be a long time untangling the mess that they have made of my brain.
  8. Actually, from what I've been reading this kind of response isn't as rare as you might think. I don't know what the split is - you might be in the minority - but the internet is littered with exchanges that echo the one between you & sagi above. Some folk don't get euphoria, at any dose. I'm in this group as well - the first time I heard about people using pregabalin recreationally I was very confused. I was taking a bunch prescribed to me after spine damage had me unable to walk & bedridden from the nerve pain, and while thankfully it worked for that and getting back the use of my leg was nice, it didn't get me high. And after learning about that potential, you know that I tried. Then it seems there is another split between those who get withdrawals & those who don't, and this is not necessarily related to whether or not they find the drug to be fun. I certainly didn't, and I found the cognitive side-effects distressing enough that I stopped taking it cold turkey at one point. This was before anyone had warned me about the potential for withdrawal - but as it turned out I had no troubles. When I had to do it all again recently, I did a rapid-taper over the course of a week just to be safe but again there were no withdrawal issues. Seems that some people just don't get them. So yeah, while I think it's sketchy as hell the way this drug is being widely prescribed with no warnings about any of this, it does look like the addictive potential might not be as cut-and-dried as it is for some other drugs (like benzos & opioids).
  9. Good point. REALLY good point. I'm in contact with a few drug-and-alcohol professionals, a few pain specialist types (including the ones who put me on Lyrica) and I have never heard any of them mention this. Given how freely this drug is being prescribed, it seems like something that should be talked about, but I am not having much luck researching the topic. All the research seems to focus on the benefits of inhibiting neuroplasticity in chronic pain patients - none of them seem to consider the possible downsides of doing that to someone's brain, especially since the kind of people who get prescribed pregabalin probably have a better-than-average chance of being depressed &/or opioid addicts, for instance. So if anyone comes across research into (or even discussion of) this particular issue, could you please send it my way? I would be interested to learn more about this.
  10. According to this study of some North American specimens, coprine (the alkaloid that reacts with alcohol) was only found in C.atramentarius, not comatus or micaceus. So use caution, of course - species have been known to vary in alkaloid content between continents - but it's likely that this whole "ink caps can't be eaten with booze" thing has been exaggerated and extended to species which don't actually contain the compound. In light of DNA tests showing that the old "coprinus" classification actually included genetically very different species that just happened to dissolve into similar inky puddles, this variation in alkaloids actually might make a lot more sense than previously, when they were thought to all be in the same genus. Also, while combining coprine & ethanol can make you extremely nauseous, it is not dangerous in the sense of causing organ failure or death, like some other fungal toxins. Just to put it into perspective a bit.
  11. The fungi are some kind of Coprinus/Coprinellus - they only grow on dead wood, so they are not harming your plants, just creating better soil. They're also edible, and can be used to make ink & dyes. I have seen gardens looking like that when plants were put into too-shady conditions. Understory tropical plants still need some sunlight...sure in their natural environment the tree canopy is catching much of the light, but leaves don't block as much light as say... bricks. The shade behind a house is a lot thicker than the shade under trees. Dunno if that's what is happening here, but if it is he might need to rethink his plant selection. The soil looks fine too, not "fine" as in "just alright", but as in "damn girl, that is some fine soil you have there". Whenever I have to dig through soil like that to get to a pipe or something, I carefully remove all that fine black topsoil & set it aside. You could have hidden issues like pH/salinity or overall drainage problems, but black sandy loam is not a bad thing at all. If you live in a really high rainfall area and are going to be digging everything up anyway, then you could add a bit more sand, maybe. But the root structure in that last photo looks fine & healthy - no signs of rot?
  12. That looks beautiful! I'm not a professional either, I barely even rank as "amateur", but from everything I've learned you have done a damn-near perfect job. Especially for dry (no mortar) work, which is extra-tricky to get stable. Nice work!
  13. This is another one of those that narrowly misses being a clever design. I saw they had diverted the water from the gutter across in the vague direction of the green wall below it and thought they might have designed it so that the wall could be fed by rainwater. As it turns out, the pipe is just open (I gather it was only bent because the plants were now blocking the path a downpipe would've taken), and not even angled sharply enough for the water to hit the plants on the wall - some of the birds nest ferns in the bed below might catch some of it, but mostly it just goes onto the path. While the greenwall is watered by drinking-quality water. Palm, meet face.
  14. Violet. I know sweet FA about 'em, but I'm sure the hairy stem would be a clue for those who know their plants better - if you could get some shots of the leaves (it looks like one has been cut off in the top right corner - they are usually heart-shaped to lily-pad-shaped if you're trying to separate them from surrounding plants), that might help narrow it down?
  15. lol I was just listening to someone from the foundation who created Harold talking about how that was not their finest moment and how that whole "just say no" campaign has been a resounding failure. People working in drug education/harm minimisation are now trying to bring the focus more on well...actual education, rather than just avoidance. Instead of "Just say no", we should have: "Just say KNOW". They talked about how the image of "happy healthy Harold" implies a standard of normal healthy behaviour that compels people to hide their drug use, which in turn leads to much harm. When there is pretty good evidence that social contact helps recovery immensely. So if we would just stop telling people that their habits are socially unacceptable, they wouldn't be so socially isolated, and would have a much better chance of avoiding many of the harms of drug use & addiction. Which I thought was a pretty spot-on analysis. They also talked about how it is near fucking impossible to get real drug education in classrooms though, thanks to conservative parental types. A few years back some schools in Western Sydney tried it, printing pamphlets with a harm minimisation bent - so rather than "don't use drugs", the message was "how to use drugs safely". It ended in a literal book-burning as angry parents set fire to all the pamphlets they could find. So maybe Happy Harold is as good as you can get, in that context.