You’d probably dig Martin Denny, Arthur Lyman, The Tikiyaki Orchestra, and Tak Shindo. Might like Raymond Scott as well.

45 and flight?

There’s a few people I know who use it for boilerplate templates for certain documents, who then of course go through it with a fine toothed comb to add relevant context and fix obvious nonsense.

I can only imagine there are others who aren’t as stringent with the output.

Heck, my primary use for a bit was custom text adventure games, but ChatGPT has a few weaknesses in that department (very, very conflict adverse for beating up bad guys, etc.). There’s probably ways to prompt engineer around these limitations, but a) there’s other, better suited AI tools for this use case, b) text adventure was a prolific genre for a bit, and a huge chunk made by actual humans can be found here - ifdb.org, c) real, actual humans still make them (if a little artsier and moody than I’d like most of the time), so eventually I stopped.

Did like the huge flexibility v. the parser available in most made by human text adventures, though.

Good points, but a question because I see that comment a lot: When you say ‘we’ had a millenia long relationship with alcohol, who’s included in that ‘we’? If we’re talking humanity writ large, we’ve had a millenia long relationship with weed as well - just limited to people in areas of the world where it grows under natural conditions. Think the Indian subcontinent, China, etc.

This wiki article (by no means an authoritative source itself) is an interesting read. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_cannabis

Will admit I’m being a bit pedantic, but at many points through my life I’ve heard people talking about cannabis as if it’s some completely net new thing, which simply isn’t true unless you’re talking about very specific societies.

I can see how you’d reach this conclusion, but I also feel it discounts the decades of lobbying and protesting up to those moments. Plus, if the rationale was truly to make the populace more docile, why would there be such reluctance to legalization at the federal level in the U.S (not saying there isn’t a counterpoint to this, re: keeping federal institutions full)?

So in many respects, I’m right there with you. I do not believe the ‘it’s not physically addictive’ bit beyond ‘it’s not physically addictive with the same severity as cocaine, caffeine, alcohol if a heavy user, etc.’. People often do get physical withdrawl symptoms if they are heavy users that don’t taper off. Long-term heavy use can exacerbate depression and anxiety symptoms, though I do wonder about the impact of environmental factors here (the habits that get cemented in some folk’s smoking routine). Some people do have pre-existing psychiatric conditions that cannabis can trigger or worsen, and those folks should stay as far away from cannabis as possible for their health.

From a rec drug perspective though, as an occasional thing it can be pretty great for others. We live in stressful times - something that is acutely relaxing with a shortish duration, no hangover, and comparatively few side effects with casual/occasional use is pretty damn useful. The amount of trouble you can find yourself in at high levels of intoxication is pretty low v. many alternatives. And for many people who use it medicinally, it allows for better quality of life compared to drugs with much more severe, acute side effects.

My general take at this point is this: Cannabis is not right for all people at all times. It can be right, or useful, for some people sometimes. In places where it’s legal, that’s good because fuck going to prison for a plant. But it’s legal - not mandatory. Use should be a function of personal choice, with risk management in mind. Ideally, we should be creating a space to think about cannabis in terms of its pros and cons, and provide guidance for those who find themselves getting more of the cons - either around RoA, frequency of use, dosage, or whether it’s something they should be using in the first place if things are really bad. But with compassion and a clear-eyed view of what it’s actually doing for them on the whole.

AVAST, 'TIS A LOVELY SENTIMENT! THANK YE KINDLY, FELLOW SEADOG! ARRRRR

That’s chimerism. Capitalism is a large-scale and violent event in the natural world.

YAR MATEY, I CAN’T HEAR YOU OVER THE TRADE WINDS!

Lol, will dig a little bit then. Used to love doing something similar to this when Greyhound still rolled through here.

Worst anyone can say is no :)

If it’s any consolation (I had a ‘what exactly constitutes a counterculture in 21st century Canada’ moment a while back, and eventually, unhappily, landed on the same conclusion), it means that a lot of the progressive values that used to be considered countercultural are now mainstream. Generally a good thing, I think.

Granted, many of those have been coopted and watered down to the point that they don’t constitute a legitimate threat to established power - or at least, that impression exists - so that’s not great.

That said, a counterculture is never a monolith. Just a personal project while the world burns, but I kinda want to revisit that rabbit hole a bit now that I’m writing this.

Huh, wonder if this is still possible/possible in Canada. Imagine not but would be a fun adventure.

Just gonna chime in to say this was a pleasant exchange to read.

Nah, and to be honest it threw me off to hear some people interpet it that way. It’s always meant “acknowledged” or “I agree, no notes” to me.

If I wanted to be rude I’d do this instead: 👍🙄

I was very sad, and very self-isolating for a long while. This even translated to online interactions - always lurked and never posted, because really what did I have to say that anyone gave a shit about?

Started to feel a little less sad, and talk with people online a bit. The walls didn’t necessarily tumble, but they started to crack.

So here I am, speaking though Cracks_InTheWalls. Now, people still don’t give a shit about that, but in turn I don’t about that, which IMO is a significant improvement from where I was.

There’s enough worry about Canadian sovereignty and enough people who aren’t maple MAGA idiots/grifters but don’t immediately ignore what Trump says that, if they don’t think about precedent that much, this could swing.

I don’t really know or care what Trump’s intent was, even while I have some guesses, but I do know it’s being used as a talking point in the Conservative propaganda machine. “Lol, you think Carney’s going to defend our interests, but Trump just endorsed him. Hope you like being the 51st state. If carney wins, Canada loses. WEF, Ghislaine photo, Axe the Tax, etc.” The gambit is that all of this convinces more undecideds to vote Conservative than Conservative voters to vote Liberal (or NDP, or Green, or Bloq, but you get my point).

You and I, and I hope enough others, see through this particular tactic. But coupled with points like “Carney said he’d get rid of the carbon tax and GST on homes - those were PPs ideas”, there’s enough going on that I could see people getting swung. No one is truly immune to propaganda, and the machine do be churning.

Final edit (note to self: try all things before posting): the url works with or without dei in it. Do wonder about an existing link, somewhere, to try. Beyond that, post is false in my testing.

/paraderaining

deleted by creator

Former Post Millenial writer - shocker.

I’ve drank, and got drunk, at exactly one work function in my current capacity. The living hell that was a day of serious meetings with 3 hours of sleep and a wicked hangover/still being drunk has made all other functions water and bed by 9:30 affairs.

Luckily everyone in the meetings had either made the same mistake before, or were functioning alcoholics, so the fallout was just being a pile of misery.

If a VP decides to take everyone for drinks at a club after the official function, at absolute most show up to nurse one drink then leave. Do not be the last one out the door.