The way I could try to make sense of it is, something is being moved from outside so pushing the mouse forward means look down. Flight sims, joystick, 2d plane, ...stuff.
When "researching cannabis", using just pure thc may not be optimal because cbd, cbn, and other chemicals produce a different kind of high and, if I recall correctly, especially cbd counters some of the most negative effects of thc, etc.
Similarily, people might be worrying about oversimplifying mushrooms to just psilocybin because mushrooms have more than one chemical in them and they might work in a synergistic way as well.
I think you are agreeing with my point: if you can synthesize pure THC you can compare its effects to the cocktail of substances that is cannabis and identify CBD as another active part of the equation. Once you synthesize both you can look for a third, and so on. You can then much more quickly study interactions and combinations. Waiting to genetically create a different combination of all these substances is going to be much slower. Also it allows you to combine them with other substances to study those interactions. Imagine a study of a combination of CBD, a beta blocker, and psilocybin. That would be a difficult thing to do if you start with just the plant material, but easier with pure substances.
You might be talking about long beards taking some effort to maintain but keeping some 5-15 mm stubble is pretty convenient and fast with an electric trimmer and changeable blades.
I don't have the answer to these questions: who benefits from people staying in usa illegally and why? Why are (some) people illegally staying in usa being 'weaponized' as a political tool? As long as we have borders and nations, why shouldn't a country decide who gets in and why?
Baselessly prejudiced discrimination is obviously bad, but whites in the west had a head start of hundreds of years of amassing wealth and power. That's how the game mostly works.
We're born, we do the work and we die. We're not entitled to anything.
>The only solution is to replace the class system with something that provides unconditional dignity for all.
How do you qualify what constitutes a part of the country though? A whole lot of land changing hands and being conquered by force happened throughout the world's history.
I wonder how much of that unity sentiment is/was constructed and pushed on by leadership due to the area around current China being littered with competing kingdoms and a lot of internal strife and disarray throughout its history, not just the past 100 years.
In Chinese cinema, or at least some films, the theme of unity and to some extent 'glorious leadership' seems to be prevalent. Just came to mind that even in some Jet Li films (or equivalent) set in more ancient times you could probably be faced with some monologues or statements to that tune and at least I was a bit taken aback by how blatant it felt.
The 'narrative' on the international stage often times seems to be might is right. Cute mythological stories hardly change that.
Almost everything we appear to hold so dear and immutable or self evident seems kinda arbitrary depending on how far back you go and whether you consider yourself part of this team or that.
Nationalism or tribalism is a whole lot of make believe, is what I'm saying.
I honestly can't imagine sleeping in the same bed as someone, personally. For a bunch of various reasons...
1) I need to be very cold to sleep and don't want to be disrupted by someone else's warmth
2) I'd be woken up when the other person shifts around, and vice versa
3) What if my partner snores, has sleep apnea, mutters in their sleep?
4) What if we just have different circadian rhythms? I like to be up at 6am, which means bedding at 10pm. But my partner(s) have historically been night owls.
Agreed. I've been keeping a 3:30am-9:30pm schedule for a couple years now and I don't see it working if I had to share a bed, or even a house with a partner. I suppose people have to make certain adjustments if the relationship is worth to them, and most people end up doing so.
I'm interested in hearing more about about being a charlatan with the meditation app especially considering, as far as I remember, you can get it for free by just asking.
There's two types of people you meet who are into mindfulness: high practicioners (monks) and yoga guy from Los Angeles who is "kinda" into mindfulness but not really
I can only go by what he and other people close to him say but he says he used to do plenty acid and been to retreats in asia for months and months (cumulatively) during his early life and seems to be good pals with people like Joseph Goldstein (who studied under asian teachers in 60s/70s). He has probably experienced all kinds of stuff.
Point being, if you get (at least some of) what there is to get then does it matter where your body was born or what it looks like? Is it a bad thing that western born people are bringing this (buddhist/hindu/jain) thought to the west?
I would revise your statement that there are the monastics who dedicate their lives to this, the lay people who practice and the commoditized 'yoga' as exercise/stretching folk/peddlers who are far removed from its spiritual components.
Eh, if you use the word "mindfulness," you are yoga guy. A monk isn't mindful, he is mortifying his flesh to practice the tenets of the religion he believes in so fiercely enough he is willing to self-imprison to follow it better. What you see as mindfulness is just the surface results of winning that struggle. It is very possible to lose it instead, and monks are often open about the dangers of monastic life.
I think people really don't get religion in this sense. The radical, wild, anarchic aspects of it. Mindfulness is more just a wish for stoicism in religious guise; the idea of being not stoic, and weeping over your prayers in a cell because you feel the weight of the world's sin and know that the time is short will not often occur to people.
>Eh, if you use the word "mindfulness," you are yoga guy
Everything in Buddhism and meditation surrounds around mindfulness/sati/awareness you call it.
>A monk isn't mindful, he is mortifying his flesh to practice the tenets of the religion he believes in so fiercely enough he is willing to self-imprison to follow it better.
Monks have to cultivate the 8 fold path which includes right mindfulness so saying he isn't doesn't make him monk. And also wow that sounds so disrespectful and ignorant.
What exactly is wrong with being a regular person who practices mindfulness? Are the benefits they receive not legitimate in your eyes?
The philosophy I have been exposed to through meditation has helped me better understand how the ego can cause problems. It seems you are rather attached to the idea of a very pure, austere study of meditation and associated philosophies. There are other valid ways of approaching such things that you are unjustifiably disregarding.
Alternatively, you could look at it as someone simply being earlier on their path, and provide encouragement instead of ridicule.
I wonder how legislating such low thc content affects the viability of (industrial) hemp because I seem to recall reading that for example higher thc may help protect the plant against pests and possibly affect other qualities of the product as well as having synergistic or other medical qualities when combined with cbd and other cannabinoids in oil or other forms.
Are we gimping the potential of hemp by clinging to the war on drugs reefer madness mentality?
