That’s a tad vague. Who said the quote?

“Never shall two scientists of the same trade meet, but the conversation ends in a fight over semantics and one-upmanship.”

It was probably me, but I’m paraphrasing here.

Can be? Sure. But is he? No.

Not a kook. Legit scientist. He has a PhD in theoretical physics, not a theoretical PhD in physics. While he spends a lot of time as a science communicator, he has his bona fides.

Yes, it’s all just theories and intuition like all nascent science.

I think he is more famous as Dr. Bashir than Sudanese Royalty. How many would you recognize on the street? (Or in a plane as it were.)

My ST “Fandom in the Wild” claim to fame was that I met Siddig on a flight once. He was sitting right behind me and I never new. After we landed, and everyone gets up and opens the overhead compartment to grab their stuff, I get clobbered in the head with somethings that fell out; one of the articles bounced off my head and landed on the floor, the other came to rest on my head after a decent thump. It was by all accounts a good clobbering.

I am never a happy flyer at the best of times. My face must have worn a pretty grumpy expression and a bombastic stink eye because as I looked up with an article still resting on my head to confront my unwitting assailant I see Siddig apologizing profusely.

My face went from grumpy> confusion> recognition> delight. I said “Oh, it’s you.” And made a hand wave gesture to say “think nothing of it”. Then grabbed the article, gently hit myself in the head with it while wearing a big smile, handed it back to him and said “For you? Anything.” I could see the relief on his face as he went from concerned apologetics to relief that all was well. Then quietly grabbed my bag and left.

Love to see it.

This is the opportunity to build resilience. The US has already proven that their tech, even when located in other countries has to comply with US “law” not the host country they are operating in.

This is a direct threat. You want to sell cars in Canada, they should be independent.

We really can’t go down the China and US route of controlling fundamentals like transportation on a whim. It’s fragile and dependent on continual good relations with all parties let alone the new cybersecurity threats.

It’s a shit idea. It’s OBVIOUSLY a shit idea. If countries want to sell cars, let them sell cars. If they want to sell drm techno extortion devices, let them eat shit. Both countries have shown hostility to the rule of law. Both have shown the innability to separate business from geopolitics. Neither can be trusted. Making cars IoT devices is a terrible idea and an incredible weakness. If IoT cars are a must have for any reason, we must buid them as sovereign solutions, subject to our laws, and systems alone.

And users have to abandon all services that force a militarized google/microsoft into their ecosystem.

People tried to teach them about desalination, but it never took off as the community couldn’t spell it. An engineering team reached out to a PR firm and they are trialing “wawa-good”. Focus groups so far show some promise.

Not with that attitude.

And with a little CRISPR CAS-9, we can alter ourselves to become super-mutants or ghouls who can feed on ionizing radiation.

Then, finally, I’ll be ready for the postapocalyptic nuclear wasteland.

Darklight? Check

Flashlight? Check

Fleshlight? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Check.

The US is not business friendly.

Thanks for clarifying.

I don’t think the people who are prone to attribute things to Satan have much overlap with the people who work in or adjacent to pharmaceuticles. Also, what do you mean “without anything to go on”, we know exactly what’s going on. That’s why we’re talking about it.

Regulatory? Nice to hear some of you survived till today. Good luck buddy, I’m rooting for you!

Me dropping my manuscript off to my agent.

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.

-Adam Smith

Fun fact time because I’m that guy.

Coke and meth are similar in that they both activate stimulate Dopamine (reward, motivation), Norepinephrine (arousal, alertness) Serotonin (mood, modulation).

However they do it in very different ways:

Cocaine blocks neurotransmitter reuptake from the outside, it stops the neurotransmitter from being released from the synapse causing the area to flood and the synapse to fire more strongly, but still tied to normal stimulation. I.e. your body still produces the transmitter based on normal stimuli, coke just keeps it there longer, stretching the existing signal.

Methamphetamine drives release from the inside. It pushes dopamine out and into the synapse, and has some reuptake inhibition that combines drive the synapses far harder than normal. In contrast to coke, it doesn’t stretch existing signals from physiological stimuli, it makes signals regardless of what’s going on.

In short, coke blocks the sink’s drain. Meth turns on the tap and sorta plugs the drain. Slight advantage to meth here for ADHD. CNS depression that underlies it responds better to meth because the taps don’t open enough to begin with. Normal psysiological stimuli isn’t enough.

Both in theory could treat ADHD, but meth wins by a longshot because of the speed and stability of its pharmacokinetics. Coke is in and out too fast to give the user the therapeutic window of relief without causing spikes that trigger negatives like addiction or heart problems. Meth is slower and longer lasting. 20-60 mins for coke, ~4 hours for meth. Leveraging extended release (er) formulations pushes meths already superior action (turn on tap) into a daily therapeutic window, while coke is still just behaving like a party drug.

Source: Lots of personal research. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

I remember reading an article is a pop psychology magazine talking about the emergence of what was dubbed “climate anxiety”. The APA decided it did not belong in the DSM-V because it was not a mental illness, rather a natural healthy response to an overwhelmingly damaging and intractable threat.