Adrafinil vs Modafinil - The Definitive Reddit Guide
What is Modafinil?
Modafinil is a eugeroic – or, simply, a wakefulness-promoting agent – with a primary purpose of combating narcolepsy amongst suffers. Eugeroics differ from other stimulants because they are considered relatively non-addictive. This means that they do not cause the typical side effects experienced with most stimulants, like agitation and nervousness. Let us first discuss the chemical components of Modafinil. It is a racemic mixture, and such mixtures have equal amounts of left- and right-handed enantiomers. Enantiomers are the two forms in which large numbers of chemicals exist. Both forms are chemically and structurally identical, yet are nevertheless mirror images of the other. In other words, enantiomers are the ‘left’ and ‘right’ versions of a drug. These are called S and R enantiomers. One enantiomer is typically responsible for the majority of a drug’s effects, while the other can contribute to those positive effects. In other cases, the less dominant enantiomer can cause adverse side effects, or it be inert. Interestingly Modafinil Most racemic mixtures are balanced equally. This means half of the mixture is ‘left’ enantiomer and the other half is ‘right’. Modafinil is an equal combination of its S- and R- enantiomers, meaning that both have a psychoactive function. Just as you sometimes need two hands to do a job correctly, Modafinil uses both of its enantiomers to provide the ideal effect on body and mind. Preliminary scientific evidence has found that Modafinil works through histamine signaling. This phrase might indeed baffle you if you aren’t familiar with biological terminology. What this essentially means is that the histamine receptors, found for example in the central nervous system, are provoked. Michael J Minzenberg and Cameron S Carter’s journal provides ample scientific research on Modafinil’s neurochemical actions and effects. Histamine acts a neurotransmitter, a chemical substance which is released at the end of a nerve fibre by the arrival of a nerve impulse. Neurotransmitters affect the transfer of the impulse to another nerve fibre, muscle fibre, or some other structure within the body. Modafinil enhances histamine activity by stimulating the central system. This increased activity therefore impacts other nerve fibres/muscle fibres in the body, accounting for its ability to stimulate a fatigued body. As well as fighting tiredness, Modafinil also improves general mood and well-being amongst users, with positive improvements seen with mental focus, analytic capability and memory recall and retention. Britain deems Modafinil a prescription-only drug. In America, meanwhile, Modafinil’s brand name is Provigil. It is considered a scheduled drug, meaning that it necessitates a prescription in order to obtain it legally.
What is Adrafinil?
Adrafinil is a pro-drug to Modafinil. This simply means that supplementation of it increases concentrations of Modafinil in the body. The liver changes Adrafinil to Modafinil. Similarly to Modafinil, Adrafinil’s cognitive benefits are enhanced by noted improvements in day-time alertness, motivation, mood and energy levels. It also does not generate the irritability, anxiousness and nervousness routinely experienced through the use of other stimulants. Britain does not measure Adrafinil under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, a legislation that governs the regulation of drugs. This means that it is not regulated. Adrafinil’s legal status and nootropics in general, nevertheless remains in grey area. It is lawful for purchase by British residents, but only for personal use. In the U.S, however, the drug is currently legal and can be bought, prescription free, as an alternative to Modafinil. Though its manufactured moniker Olmifon was discontinued in 2011, Adrafinil itself can still be purchased easily online.
Why do they differ?
Modafinil and Adrafinil are two of the most popular stimulants available. Though both offer similar if not identical cognitive benefits, there are key distinctions between both. Chemically speaking, the structures of both drugs are very similar: Adrafinil Structure It is, however, with the body’s processing of each drug that differences become most apparent. Modafinil is processed through metabolic activity occurring mainly in the liver. Lesser contributions to the metabolising process are made through the activity of the enzyme cytochrome P450 (CYP). Cytochrome p-450 (often abbreviated “CYP”) is a class of enzymes that is involved in the metabolism of many medications and is located primarily in the liver. But, what exactly are enzymes? They exist in living organisms and catalyze specific biochemical reactions within the body. At the beginning of a reaction process, molecules exist called ‘substrates’. The enzyme converts these into ‘products’. All metabolic processes in cells require enzymes to react within the body at rates fast enough to sustain life. Adrafinil differs because it is changed into Modafinil in the liver. This means that it relies on greater enzyme activity to process correctly and efficiently. The conversion process of Adrafinil and Modafinil sees the former breaking down into the latter as a compound. This is how it is metabolized. Enzymes are relied upon more during the metabolic process of Adrafinil. As mentioned briefly in the metabolism of Modafinil, the enzyme involved in metabolizing Adrafinil when it reaches the liver is Cytochrome p-450. How quickly the liver is able to convert Adrafinil is dependent upon metabolic rate and the efficiency of the liver overall. Two people of the same sex, similar age and weight can take the same dose of Adrafinil but achieve very different results. In necessitating a more rigorous metabolism process, the most profound difference between Modafinil and Adrafinil is that the latter requires the greater use of Cytochrome p-450. Over time, if the drug is not taken cyclically, such enzymes can build up in the liver with potentially damaging effects on the organ as a whole.
Adrafinil vs Modafinil Dosage
For Adrafinil, it as advised to dose between 600 to 1200mg per day. It is further advised, as with the majority of supplements, to begin on a low dose, only increasing the amount after recognizing your own body’s reaction and tolerance. Adrafinil should not be taken in the afternoon and evening to prevent a sleepless night. Ideally, it should be taken 3 times a week and for no longer than five months. This is primarily to prevent side effects, tolerance and the build-up of enzymes in the liver. Examine.com state that Adrafinil’s recommended dosage range is vast, ranging from 600 to 1,200mg. BodhiSvaha on erowid.org explained their willingness to take both small doses and larger ones of Adrafinil:
After extensive experimentation with dosage, I have settled on taking 300mg when I wake up and another 300 mg in the early afternoon. There does not seem to be much, if any, habituation or tolerance created by Adrafinil.Occasionally I will take doses up to 1200 mg when a high degree of concentration is required. I have found this dose to be very effective at potentiating and improving the tryptamine experience, in particular. I find tryps sometimes bring a feeling of lethargy or body load with some cognitive dullness. Adrafinil counters this effect very nicely.
Here it is evident that, despite there being a large range of recommended doses for Adrafinil, all of them are safe. Whatever you choose within that range is dependent on your desired alertness and bodily tolerance. Reddit user ssitimefill explains the necessity of slowly upping Adrafinil dosage, as well as suggesting why a higher dose than Modafinil is required:
To my knowledge it is not established how what proportion of adrafinil is broken down into modafinil and what proportion into modafinilic acid.This proportion likely varies person to person, and also by dose. Some studies have reported adrafinil more potent at lower doses.The general psychological effect of adrafinil depends not only on the quantity converted into modafinil but the rate of this conversion.300 mg of modafinil from adrafinil is not likely to produce an identical effect from 300 mg of modafinil.Basically there is no way to determine optimum dose of adrafinil other than trial and error.The best procedure is to start with low doses (measured via scale) and slowly increase dose until you reach the optimal, then sub-optimal dose. When you have reached sub-optimal dose (too much adrafinil) you can deduce what dose is optimal for you.
Because Modafinil does not transform in the liver, it generally requires lesser dosage to reach its optimum effect. Modafinil is typically sold in 100 mg or 200 mg tablets. The latter option is more popular due to its greater availability. 200 mg is indeed the recommended dose, to be taken once per day, usually during the morning. It may be taken with or without food. (nootriment.com) Some recommend starting with an initial intake of 100 mg Modafinil dosage. This helps with accustoming the body to the drug itself. An anonymous writer on erowid.org posted his first use of 100mg Modafinil, describing its positive effects:
And today I tried modafinil 100 mg for the first time. I took it at around 10:45 AM today and it is now 4:35 PM. My experience has been much like those of others herein described– initial buzziness (~1 hr after I took the pill) that lasted about as long. But for the past 4 hours, I have been just plain awake. I have not succumbed to the usual desire to take a nap in the afternoons despite the near-90-degree heat, which usually puts me right to sleep. I have had no such desire in fact. I am not jittery or having unusual thoughts, etc.
It is also possible to take higher doses. Up to 400 mg per day has been shown to be very well-tolerated. Pino on drugs-forum tried a variety of dosages and provides some succinct information of the results: Combinations:
200 mg modafinil +caffeine: Pleasant vibe, easy and fast thinking. Able to solve sudokus a lot quicker. The bus driver becomes more self reassured in conversations and is able to focus more than 16 hours. Sleep quality is ok. (bp: 130/80)200 mg modafinil + too much caffeine (4 cups of coffee): Anxiousness and some hypertension kicks in here. (bp: 140/93) Concentration is less than optimal in this region.400 mg modafinil + normal caffeine: Nice euphoria, but can also turn into anxiousness.
It is clear that the recommended doses are speculative and dependent on personal accounts of drug use. There are certainly more user reviews around the internet that explain individual experiences of alternating dosage amounts. There is, of course, still the question of the differences in dosage between Modafinil and Adrafinil. Jjhurley on Reddit discussed the differences in dosage between both:
… most people tell me 300mg of adra is comparable to just 100mg of moda. Whether your ratio or this other ratio is correct doesn’t make too much a difference, but I have been taking 600mg of adra and don’t want to lose any potency. Is this to say I should go with 300-400mg of moda? If so, that’s a little upsetting because I was really hoping to have equal, if not better, experiences on just 200mg of moda.
ProfWiki agreed that Adrafinil should be taken in higher dosages than Modafinil:
I take 600 mg in order to get effects. This is equivalent to about 200 mg of modafinil. I think throwf0 read you as saying modafinil since he mentioned modafinil. Modafinil is a lot stronger than adrafinil. 150 mg of adrafinil would be about like 50 mg of adrafinil.Anyway, like I said, 50 mg of Adrafinil is far too lose to be effective. 50 mg of MODAfinil might work okay for some but they typically are just breaking up a standard 100/200 mg dose.Being that Adrafinil works by metabolizing into Modafinil, and that as a rule of thumb 1/3 of Adrafinil turns into modafinil, a 50 mg dose of Adrafinil would be just roughly 16-17 mg of modafinil. There wouldn’t be any effects from such a low level dose.
Adrafinil vs Provigil
Let us first make one distinction: Adrafinil = generic drug Provigil = brand name of Modafinil It is often questioned what the difference between Provigil and Adrafinil is. However, the former is simply a branded name for the generic drug Modafinil, which, as we have now found, is the metabolite of Adrafinil. So long as users are acquiring pure generic versions of Adrafinil, then the same effects as Provigil will be felt and the advised dosage will essentially be identical. It is therefore not unusual for potential users to question the differences between Provigil and Adrafinil. Moreover, it is certainly not unreasonable to question their differences. For instance, internet user Shatneresque questioned the difference between Modafinil and Provigil, which are the same drug, asking:
My pharmacy sent me a email saying I can now replace my Provigil ($125 a month) with the generic version and they need my okay to do so.Before I say yes and say the money, I want to know if anyone has noticed any differences. I am very happy with the provigil and have been taking it for several years.
This query was answered by Serpens:
It appears that Cephalon, the maker of Provigil, has been purchased by Teva, titan generic manufacturer. There are currently three manufacturers selling a generic labeled ‘modafinil’ : Cephalon (brand holder), Teva, and Par. All three are using the same brand name NDA license on file with the FDA. In addition, Elsevier’s Clinical Pharmacology has images and references available for the generic product being shipped for all three drug companies.They’re all the same pill. Images of all three products show a white oblong tablet with “Provigil” on one side, and the strength on the other. All products have the same inactive ingredients.
Queries like this prove that caution is imperative when deciding on which supplement to use. This is especially true if you are a first time user or are, like Shatneresque, accustomed to using one particular brand such as Provigil. Researching alternatives and finding the most information about whatever drug you are choosing is vital if you are to select the right one for you. Awareness is the key and there is no harm in asking questions that, to you, may sound obvious once they are answered.
Provigil was originally manufactured by Cephalon, the same company behind the previously branded version of Adrafinil (Olmifon). Business editor Dell Poncet writes of how, in 1999, interest for both Cephalon and Provigil was taking off, with registered quarterly sales of $10.7 million. Being among the leading biopharmaceutical companies in the world, Cephalon flourished. In 2011, it was acquired by Teva, the largest generic drug manufacturer in the world for a huge $6.8 billion (read more here). There is little surprise, then, that Provigil is sold at quite a cost. A 30-day supply of Provigil 200mg pills can cost as much as $1500. Buyers in the UK can therefore expect to pay even more if the pharmacy offers world-wide shipping. Since branded Modafinil is so expensive, Adrafinil is clearly the best alternative. The latter drug does not come attached to a manufactured title, and is inexpensive yet easily attainable. What is more, it can be bought prescription-free online or by phone. There are plenty of legitimate outlets stocking Adrafinil and these can be accessed at the click of a button. If economizing is one aspect of importance, then Adrafinil is certainly the best choice.
Modafinil in India
More importantly health-wise, though, is the scary possibility of purchasing a dodgy-version of branded Modafinil online. With the cost of Provigil being so high, it is unsurprising that many prospective users look for a cheaper alternative for their first time trying the drug. Many turn to the internet’s grey market, where there is a lingering risk of being ripped off with tampered drugs. This is where extra caution and care should be applied. Once users began contemplating off-label equivalents, international pharmacy websites quickly took the opportunity to sell these kinds of drugs. The most popular location from which many internet users buy unbranded Modafinil is India. Sources of the drug in India do not require strict quality control, nor are prescriptions required by users. In fact, there is much information to be considered with regard to India’s counterfeit drugs market. This article on New York Times discusses how:
India’s drug industry is one of the country’s most important economic engines, exporting $15 billion in products annually, and some of its factories are world-class, virtually undistinguishable from their counterparts in the West. But others suffer from serious quality control problems. The World Health Organization estimated that one in five drugs made in India are fakes. A 2010 survey of New Delhi pharmacies found that 12 percent of sampled drugs were spurious.
Meanwhile, this article on safemedsonline.org attests to the New York Times’ discussion, stating that:
The Food and Drug Administration recently conducted a series ofraidsin India to uncover counterfeit drugs. The raids yielded large quantities of substandard medicines and resulted in several arrests. However, in India, the penalties for making and selling counterfeit medicines are minimal, the convictions are rare, and the profits are enormous. Since the raids late last year, the problem has only gotten worse.
Alarm bells should definitely ring here. Without quality control, many drugs that appear on international websites do not contain legitimate ingredients. It is a huge gamble to assume your purchased pills are pure or authentic. There’s a great possibility that you might not experience the proper effects of the medication and there is serious potential that you may have toxic reactions to the ingredients in fake versions of the drug. Some websites and online Nootropics communities maintain lists of verified and trustworthy Modafinil vendors, but such vendors do not generally stay on the lists for long. In many cases, a trusted supplier can end up sending out a fake or ineffective batch of pills even after you have developed a long-standing relationship with them. It is almost impossible to protect against this risk. There is really only one sensible alternative if you find the price of Provigil unreasonable, or if you are contemplating buying potentially contaminated off-label versions from India. Users should purchase Adrafinil from a reputable supplier instead, rather than paying the very serious costs of purchasing from an unreliable source abroad.
Adrafinil vs Modafinil forum
There are many reviews across the internet on individual preferences: Adrafinil or Modafinil. It is all, of course, subjective to user experience. Whilst some remain skeptical towards the newer of the two drugs, Adrafinil, there are huge amounts of successful reviews to be considered. On reddit, jjhurley writes:
Long story short, today is just my 3rd day using adrafinil and I’m impressed with the results so far.I keep reading from people who’ve experienced both adra & moda is that they prefer modafinil. To me it is surprising there would be a whole lot of difference given what we know about adrafinil converting to modafinil once in your system. I understand the conversion takes time but I wouldn’t think that to make a significant impact to different effects.
It is also important to remember that Adrafinil is converted into Modafinil once in the liver. Many users therefore experience the same results with both drugs, and are positive in their opinions of both. DoyouknowmyPW on Reddit concurs, stating that:
I’ve been using Adrafinil and Modafinil for a few weeks now during the workweek. 100-150mg for Modafinil, 200-270 for Adrafinil. I’ve never noticed any painful side-effects, might just be a coincidence. Sharp pain like that could be trapped gas (of course I am not a physician though!).It does help greatly staying more alert during the day. Before I would have issues some days where I am truly struggling to keep my eyes open, especially during meetings. I’ve fallen asleep at least twice for a brief second because my eyes were just too heavy. Since I’ve been taking the morning dose that sleepiness has gone away and I am now on a better sleep schedule because I feel tired when I’m suppose to.
Some users speak of branded versions of the drugs. For example, Akoward on drugs-forum writes:
Recently got a hold of some Nuvigil. Have had previous experience with Olmifon (Adrafinil). As has been said before its much more potent at lower dose that Adrafinil. I only need 1/2 a pill to do what 2x300mg Adrafinils were doing for me. I took a whole Nuvigil the first time and was more productive in that single day that I had been in ages. Got all my work done, worked on personal projects… it was amazing. I will say that some of the physical side effects were a little troubling (ever present tightness in the collarbone to middle neck area, massive restless legs)
It is important to see that with Akoward’s review, despite him alternating to the branded Armodafinil, side-effects were still experienced. This goes to show that Adrafinil, though not manufactured under a moniker, is no less competent in generating the excellent results that might be expected from those drugs which sound more ‘professional’.
Adrafinil vs Modafinil vs Armodafinil
Like Adrafinil and Modafinil, Armodafinil is a stimulant used to combat fatigue. Introduced in 2007, Armodafinil appears under brand names such as Nuvigil, Artvigil, and Waklert. It is purportedly more effective at lower doses than its relatives Adrafinil and Modafinil. Armodafinil is an enantiopure drug. Enantiopure drugs contain only one of the enantiomers (spoken about earlier), R or S. The R enantiomer is longer acting and is most responsible for the effects of Modafinil specifically. Since the S enantiomer is not as strong, Armodafinil’s dosage is therefore lower. Most doses are 150mg compared to Modafinil’s 200mg standard dose. Whilst the effects last for roughly the same time, Armodafinil takes longer to reach its peak than Modafinil, and therefore even longer than Adrafinil. This is simply because the S enantiomer reacts and leaves the body faster. Remember, Armodafinil does not have the S enantiomer, whereas Modafinil does. Adrafinil does, too, because Modafinil is a component within it. Because of this, users find that the effects of Armodafinil take longer to make themselves apparent – a potential disadvantage for prospective users. So, how is Armodafinil processed? Dopamine is a compound existing as neurotransmitter within the body. It is also precursor of other substances including adrenaline. Armodafinil is an indirect dopamine receptor agonist. What this essentially means, then, is that Armodafinil provokes the dopamine levels in the body. Armodafinil is metabolized in much the similar way as Modafinil. It relies on amide hydrolysis primarily, and enzyme activity from by cytochrome P450 secondly. Amide Hydrolysis refers to the reaction with water of amides – a compound) As a consequence, this means that is does not rely as much on heavy enzyme activity in the liver. Adrafinil does. This presents further difference that may be considered by potential users. However, it is important to remember to stick to dosage guidance. If taken properly, and often cyclically, Adrafinil is no more threatening to the liver than Modafinil or Armodafinil. Because Armodafinil, Modafinil and Adrafinil are all very similar in terms of effect, there is much discussion about which is the best. With regard to Modafinil and Armodafinil specifically, some may assume that because small dosages are needed for the latter that it is more efficient. However, it is important to remember individual sensitivity levels. Different drugs can have different reactions for different people. Potency is therefore not the only factor; the personal experience of using either Armodafinil or Modafinil is equally important. A trial and error approach may be necessary, but, of course, extensive research to find the best possible supplement for you is paramount. In undertaking research, then, you may discover information that suits your needs. For example, it is proposed that, unlike Modafinil, Armodafinil will not actually disturb your existing sleep patterns. Modafinil users might agree a good night’s sleep is difficult to achieve depending on the dosage. Reddit user guitar1560 states that
I took 50mg two days in a row twice. Couldn’t sleep well the second night both times
Whereas SequenceConvenience writes
I’ve experienced pretty strong sleep changes while taking modafinil, but nothing that has been negative. I actually seem to need less sleep, at least in the sense that it is very easy for me to get out of bed the day after taking modafinil. Then again, I also don’t seem to have much in the way of dreams during those nights.
Armodafinil does not impact sleep pattern. However, with SequenceConvenience’s review, it is clear that some find this a positive effect of Modafinil while others, like guitar1560, may be disappointed. Respective costs of the drugs might further influence your decision. KimberCT on Longe City tried both Armodafinil and Modafinil, but was swayed somewhat by the price of Nuvigil (the branded name of Armodafinil):
Currently taking 250mg armodafinil daily. To be honest, I kind of prefer modafinil. It seems to have a little more of a quick kick to it. Probably that isomer with a short half life peaking. Other than that, I can’t tell the difference between Nuvigil and modafinil (Sun Pharma). I’d probably have continued taking modafinil, but Cephalon has jacked the price since Nuvigil was FDA approved. With an Rx, Provigil is twice the price of Nuvigil. Their way of getting everyone onto Nuvigil before Provigil’s patent expires.
Adrafinil, meanwhile, can be obtained very cheaply online because it does not exist under a manufactured name. Nevertheless, many of these drugs are safe to use even if they lack a moniker like Provigil or Nuvigil. To stop concerns of the legitimacy of your purchased drug, always ask that your online manufacturer provides a COA (Certificate of Authenticity) on demand. This means that the substance batch has undergone a third-party laboratory analysis to ensure that your purchased drug matches its label and is not contaminated. A common side-effect of Adrafinil is that the urine can smell different after ingestion of the drug. This is because one of Adrafinil’s metabolites contains a sulphur-based compound, and sulphur is strong smelling in itself. However, these criticisms are not limited to Adrafinil alone and it should not sway potential users away from this particular drug. Modafinil has also been found to change the odor of urine. For example, PhysicsMaestro on Longe city queries:
I’ve been using modafinil (modalert) for about 8 months now, and regularly noticed a distinct smell of my urine whenever taking it. However, with this armodafinil, I don’t seem to notice it, which worries me a bit (i.e., not really what it states to be). Has anyone else noticed this difference between armodafinil and modafinil? I thought maybe the S-enantiomer could be metabolized and excreted quicker, thus resulting in an early onset smell, but I am just guessing.
The difference could easily be due to one of the excipients of the tablet, not the active ingredient. It’s also possible that only the S-enantiomer causes the smell, and of course, there’s the possibility that either these pills or the old ones didn’t actually contain modafinil. Sometimes they contain caffeine or dimethylamylamine or other stimulants, either mixed with modafinil or completely replacing it.
PhysicsMaestro thereafter concurrs:
I thought the odorous urine was ubiquitous to all variants of modafinil, resulting from its metabolites. But I guess the smell could be dependent on the enantiomer. I am willing to assume that whatever enzyme metabolizes modafinil to modafinil acid would leave its chirality intact. I don’t think it would be the excipients since the smell is so widely reported with different sources (and the modafinil has a sulfiyl group, so)
Nor does Armodafinil escape the urine issues. An anonymous writer on Erowid.org wrote:
Oh, and the pill tastes awful. Don’t let it get stuck in your mouth. And my pee starts to smell like it, too, but I get used to it
It is therefore important not to be selective of criticism based on what drug you have been swayed by. If you read that Modafinil is apparently “safer” because it does not rely on rampant enzyme activity, then do remember to include other issues such as cost-efficiency and, of course, other side-effects that might become more apparent than rare liver problems. These side-effects might include nausea, chest-pain or a faster heart rate (nhs.uk). Adrafinil stands out as the most cost-effective, and, though it has been reported to alter urine odor, it is not alone. Modafinil, the more expensive, and Armodafinil, with a longer reaction time, also generate similar side-effects. As well as reviews on specific effects of Adrafinil, Armodafinil or Modafinil, there are plenty of general overviews to be found around the internet. On Reddit, BitcoinOperatedGirl writes of her experience:
I tried the adrafinil first, starting with a low dose of 200mg one morning. I prepared a capsule and put it in a baggie next to my pillow before I went to sleep. When my alarm clock rang in the morning, I swallowed the capsule, silenced the alarm clock, and went back to sleep. I was expecting the stimulatory effect to eventually wake me up, as a caffeine pill would, but I ended up sleeping for two more hours. I felt a little disappointed after getting up and not feeling any stimulation, so I decided to add an extra 400mg to the mix.The rest of the day, I was in a fairly good mood. I thought that I was maybe a little more energetic and motivated than usual. I was fairly productive and I worked out. The effect wasn’t what I expected, however. I’ve read people on here talking about feeling wired, and “laser beam focus”, but a whole 600mg of adrafinil felt nothing close to what I imagined (I guess I imagined it would feel like a mild dose of ritalin or something). On the upside, I experienced no substantial anxiety, whereas all the amphetamine-like drugs make me very uncomfortably anxious (I really can’t stand them, they feel disgusting to me). I didn’t really feel a crash and I went to bed at my normal hour.I’m experimenting with adrafinil again today. I took 800mg this time. I was feeling particularly tired this morning (cripplingly tired, lethargic really). I definitely feel more energetic now. I’ve gotten some work done, I’m feeling the drive to write walls of text on reddit and I’m going to have a workout in a few minutes. I don’t expect to have any motivational issues today. Maybe I’ll even cook something fun. Only unfortunate side-effect seems to be a mild headache, but advil seems to be taking care of that.I also tried armodafinil a week ago. Took a small 75mg dose in the morning. Same setup as with adrafinil. I also fell back to sleep for 2 hours. I felt pretty anxious that day and also got a headache. I can’t quite be sure the armodafinil is to blame but I suspect it is. Seems much more anxiety-inducing than adrafinil, which is unfortunate given that it seems adrafinil is worse for your liver. Armodafinil is probably just not for me.
Nezxon on LongeCity meanwhile states that:
I’m taking 75mg Adrafinil (Olmifon) twice daily and I haven’t experienced any side effects. I’d like to give Armodafinil a try, perhaps even safer in the long-term than Modafinil is.
These kinds of reviews certainly help to build a solid picture of each drug’s story. Undertaking research like this to decide on which drug is preferable to you is definitely something you should embark on before picking at random a supplement based on one review.
Adrafinil vs Modafinil reddit
The only notable difference in reviews between Modafinil and Adrafinil is that the latter takes longer to take effect. For example, justmodz1 stated that:
adrafinil is the precursor of modafinil in that it came first and led to the discovery of modafinil in fact adrafinil turns into modafinil in the body due to breakdown of it molecules which actually means that the two have the same effects but adrafinil takes longer to take effect.
While KPC100 agreed that:
Adrafinil gets turned into Modafinil in your system. Because of this, you need a much larger dose and it takes longer to take effect.
Although it does have a longer reaction time, this certainly shouldn’t be a downfall of Adrafinil. It is simply a case that Adrafinil’s chemical processing takes a little longer. However, once complete, the results are just as effective as those found with Modafinil. Take into consideration, also, that Adrafinil will certainly stimulate, energize and ultimately shake you awake. The seemingly longer period of time before this happens will soon become irrelevant when the benefits are reaped. Further Reddit reviews compare other aspects of Adrafinil and Modafinil. Jjhurley, commenting on the actual nature of each drug, states that:
I keep reading from people who’ve experienced both adra & moda is that they prefer modafinil. To me it is surprising there would be a whole lot of difference given what we know about adrafinil converting to modafinil once in your system. I understand the conversion takes time but I wouldn’t think that to make a significant impact to different effects.
While the same user goes on to discuss issues of costing, in the end suggesting that, in terms of price, they would definitely prefer Adrafinil:
I was really hoping to have equal, if not better, experiences on just 200mg of moda. The reason I’d like to not take more than that is simply cost. At $1.50-2.00 per 200mg pill of moda (prices based off the quantities I’d be ordering as well as variation in supplier prices) it’s too costly to have to take twice that for my own personal budget. To be honest, even at $1.50-2.00 per pill/200mg is already high for my budget.I can get 50g of adrafinil for $98 which comes out to up to 50% cheaper a single moda dose/pill of 200mg. If conversion ratios are right and I’d need two pills or 400mg of moda though then my adra would be 75% cheaper.
There are plenty of important aspects to consider when choosing between Modafinil or Adrafinil. Firstly, selecting the safest and most reliable drug should be of paramount interest. Whereas Adrafinil is often tested by third parties and is shipped nationally rather than across sees, Modafinil (both branded and unbranded versions) is often left untested and sent from India. Quality control is a big issue of concern for international pharmacies and should definitely guide your final decision. Pricing is also important to consider. Although you might think you’re getting a better deal by choosing a cheaper off-label version from India, it is still not as easy to buy Modafinil as it is Adrafinil. Most venders of Modafinil do not accept Paypal. This service offers secure buyer protection. With the option of a legitimate, nationally supplied alternative in Adrafinil, it is illogical to risk your bank account details instead – just to purchase a drug that will likely be contaminated and unsafe
[meta] [long and rambling] [philosophy] Flirting with Nihilism ; Is Conversation Pointless?
I used to have an ideal of conversation as being a Socratic dialogue: people ask probing questions of each other about important philosophical issues and reveal the mistakes in each other’s logic, ultimately reaching life-changing conclusions through the argument. Over the years, I have often tried to engage in such debate and while there have been some interesting discussions more typically it has been a pointless endeavor which simply leaves everyone involved convinced more thoroughly of their rightness and doubting the sanity of the others. To be sure, my abrasive style and personality have played a role, but this has itself in part come from the mistaken views of the world and human nature which I held. By the standard I used to hold, conversation is largely pointless. Now, of course, most normal people would characterize argument and debate as being very different than conversation. This is because their objectives in conversation are not trying to change someone’s mind but to exchange more basic information or simply enjoy each other’s company. To be sure, there is clear value in conversation of this sort, but it is not what I’m talking about here. What I’m suggesting is that the attempt to change someone’s mind by reason is generally impossible and not worth trying. We all have certain foundational beliefs which no one is likely to be able to change. What exactly these are varies widely by person: for some people it is religious, for others political, or philosophical principles (whether or not a person explicitly recognizes them as philosophy). But what is common about them is that no matter how sound an argument may appear to some “neutral”, disinterested third party, if someone tries to reason you out of these core positions, your mind will always be able to find a rationalization in response. And again regardless of how strong or weak this response is judged by our hypothetical third party, it will be sufficient to convince you that your position is right and likely cause you to be somewhat annoyed at the person making an “obviously” bad faith argument against something so basic. This is not, as it might appear to be, an argument that people are irrational nor that I am any different in this. It is simply a fundamental side-effect of the process of reasoning. One must have a basis upon which to operate; there is no green field to work from. Even Descartes’ brilliant argument showing how one can prove to themself that one exists, which is as close to pure reason without any external base as it is possible to get, itself relies upon certain foundations: the desirability of trying to prove such “trivial” matters; the value of pure reason as a source for truth. And it rapidly moves on by “the clear light of reason” to further argument which rests upon, essentially, “it seems obvious to me that…” This is, essentially, a generalization of Gödel's incompleteness theorems (not that I fully understand them and certainly don’t know how to prove it, but simply that I recognize this point is not a fundamentally original thought) and similar: we must always start with something which we simply believe and cannot prove. This may seem trivial, but I do not think it is. What it suggests to me is that the space for productive discussion in disagreement is far smaller than is often believe by those who, as I used to, believe that everything that matters could in theory be resolved by honest, wise intellectual exploration. Therefore, when we find ourselves in disagreement with others on a fundamental level, there may well be no resolution to be had other than the phrase I have so hated for so long: “agree to disagree”. Others are able to accept this with grace and move on. I have always been bothered by reaching such impasses. If we are in disagreement about an important issue which is the basis for much of our reasoning, then how could we come to any agreement on any of the things which follow as a result of that basic view? And how could we have meaningful discussion if we simply must avoid all consequences of a major section of our world view? And so, to me, the segmenting of discourse into “echo chambers” of various sorts makes perfect sense: people must have a shared foundation in order to be able to meaningfully communicate productively. And yet, that is not enough to make forward progress either, because while less irritating perhaps, discussion simply among those who agree is pointless too. So, then, if we cannot in general convince anyone else of anything that matters, nor do we wish to simply preach to the choir, what discourse could be useful?
Disagreement on facts rather than worldview
Among people who agree about, for instance, valid sources and other basic foundations, but who disagree about a particular fact, then linking to a source can actually be productive. This is as opposed to those who do not have such an agreement beforehand, where linking to a source can just be a self-congratulatory act which is unproductive.
Challenging one’s own worldview (or refining arguments ; this write-up’s category)
If you truly wish to have your own beliefs examined for whether or not they are incorrect, or their limitations; or if you simply want to try to refine and make more coherent something which you’ve vaguely thought, then it is useful to express your views not for the purpose of changing another’s opinion, but for the purpose of understanding your own. This is what this piece is for me: a response to my own thoughts, particularly set in motion about a month ago when the title occurred to me, about what is and isn’t useful ground for disagreement and debate.
Responding to an invitation to challenge another’s world view (limited circumstances)
This is something which is often presented but rarely genuine: whether intentionally or unintentionally many people who present themselves as looking to have their own views challenged are actually going to respond with rationalizations to anything presented. While that means that this apparent opening is often unproductive, there is a kernel of sincere and thoughtful people who are open to examining their beliefs and are looking for something to build on to do so. I actually consider this less important than it may often seem, as people’s desire for self-justification generally means that there is abundant material available for one who looks to understand any major viewpoint, so there is relatively little need to try to seek to be the one to minister to such a unicorn. But, since so much conversation is pointless, recognizing it and moving on rather than getting bogged down in it is more productive. There is a large realm of productive material, for us to gain knowledge on a more “superficial” level - much does have a shared basis, and we don’t see these issues visibly in, for instance, learning a language or learning history (even though there really are philosophical issues underlying both, but generally speaking a person can find much productive ground). Since our time is limited, it makes sense to pursue these unambiguously productive areas instead of beating our heads against a wall trying to convince others about things we consider important but which are foundational for them and which they have not sought to question. Examples of pointless discussions from unbridgeable views:
Bitcoin vs gold
While this might seem unintuitive as I have written about how I see Bitcoin and gold as having complementary strengths rather than being in opposition, what I mean when I express it as a pointless category is that trying to tell a Bitcoin fanatic about the uses of gold is a waste of time, just as trying to explain to Peter Schiff that it’s possible for people to create sustainable and meaningful value out of nothingness arbitrarily is a waste of time. The “Bitcoin-only” and “gold-only” camps will never change their mind as a result of someone trying to come in and ‘save’ or ‘educate’ them.
Tsla vs tslaq
Quite similarly: those who believe Tesla will save the world have essentially no common ground to discuss productively with those who believe Tesla will go bankrupt and vice versa. There are simply fundamental differences about approaches to reasoning which will not be surmounted by the surface arguments like “but he lands rockets!” or “look at the historical rates of cash burn!” Less obviously: the actual outcome will not resolve this either. Even if Tesla becomes wildly successful, the critics will still believe dishonest and unjustifiable actions to have been taken. Even if Tesla fails, the supporters will not believe Musk did anything wrong. World views are generally proof against what might seem from the outside to be events which should break them.
Given the general argument I’ve made, this should be fairly obvious. However, I spent a fair amount of time over the years arguing some of this from both sides (when I was much younger I was an evangelical Christian ; by college age I was an “evangelical atheist” ; in hindsight, I don’t consider either a good way to spend time).
This too follows clearly from the positions I’ve taken. No socialist is going to convince a capitalist that profit is evil. No capitalist will convince a socialist that profit is good. (Choose whatever dichotomy and examples you find appropriate.) Examples of productive discussions sharing a common foundation: These examples have been generally covered previously or are self-explanatory.
Specific facts between mutually respecting people
World view in rare cases where seeker wants introduction to different view
Skills (languages) or Bodies of knowledge (history)
This last is a potentially interesting one: even when changing a person’s mind may be impossible and unproductive, unbridgeable divides as far as resolving the disagreement can still be productive in terms of understanding what exactly the relative positions are. The socialist may not convince the capitalist of anything, but if they simply want to understand what the capitalist believes, that could be productive (and vice versa). Of course, if it devolves into trying to convince the other person they’re wrong rather than trying to understand their position, it goes back to being pointless. My choices: As a practical matter, what am I doing with these views?
Unfollowing and blocking easily on Twitter
I’ve been using Twitter for the first time lately. I find it interesting and useful in many ways. However, there is a potential to waste a lot of time there trying to argue things where the other person will never be convinced. Other people wiser than myself may well choose to hear all voices, but I wish to maintain an environment where I find what I’m reading useful and where the people I hear from are ones where I think I could engage productively or at least enjoyably. So I am unfollowing and blocking fairly quickly when I encounter views which I consider to indicate unbridgeable divides of opinion. Unfollow is my first step. If I wasn’t following the person previously and find something irritating they say, I will block rather than engage. In rare instances I will engage where I think there may be a productive discussion but I won’t go into extended arguments.
Maintain open discussion here
However, I have long held a different view for this subreddit: I specifically want to encourage and allow dissenting voices. I wish to avoid building an echo chamber here for a multitude of reasons, but in particular because I think it’s extremely important to try to avoid having a blindspot about critical issues with the system or will drawbacks to any proposed changes. In the framework of what I’ve discussed here, this could be seen as a combination of wanting to maintain space for understanding other views (even if we don’t change each other’s minds) as well as trying to deliberately hold open at least in some cases a willingness to change my mind. For instance, while I am strongly opposed to ever removing the 337 nillion cap, I want to allow such discussion and encourage anyone with those views to be free to express them. In other areas, like the block size cap, while I had held a stronger position toward larger blocks on principle, and still tend in that direction, some of the discussion previously here and more broadly on the other side has at least led me to more of a wait-and-see approach. Some various concluding thoughts:
Difference between random vs long-term relationships and discussion.
Twitter is an example where there is generally little to no strength of relationship as a starting point. This makes any challenging discussion more difficult and less likely to be productive and is part of my hair-trigger in unfollowing and blocking. However, in general I don’t tend to believe that in most cases a long-term relationship changes what ground is productive so much as it changes the calculation about whether one unproductive area justifies severing a connection. Necessarily those we have chosen to be part of our lives will not agree with us in everything, but there are likely to be areas not worth engaging in. For those we have no particular prior need or desire to have in our lives, I see no reason to accept any noise.
Low value in one-way communication upon determining different foundation (watching videos or twitter feed, etc. upon significant disagreement)
I tend to believe that without some shared common basis, there’s not much point in taking in what’s presented by someone. This can be seen as creating one’s own echo chamber, but the more positive way I might put it is that you have to have a reason to respect what a person is saying for it to be worthwhile to listen to them. Someone whose arguments you are likely to reject almost entirely is not worth listening to in the first place, as the goal should be to get new information or listen to someone who might change your views rather than to simply suffer through for the sake of having heard what can be known in advance to be something you will reject.
Tie-in to views on crypto: neither dedicated pumpers nor dedicated critics are useful. Nor are we looking to bring in people who aren’t interested. So what’s left? Those who are seekers are welcome and we should look to assist with helping people get exposure and broader knowledge of strengths and weaknesses.
Weighing the various perspectives on the overall issue I’ve put together here led me to this view which is a refinement of what I’ve thought for a while. We do not want mindless fanatics. And we do not want to try to convince people who aren’t interested or those who have already decided the whole concept is worthless. However, there is still a productive sliver left there: people who are interested in cryptocurrency but have not already set their opinions in stone. This fits in with the early mindset I had that we would want to have offering technical support as a core competency (and which is something I’ve been proud of this community doing well). This also fits into my original coin-a-day series, long defunct, trying to offer a view of the strengths and weaknesses of various cryptocurrencies. Perhaps this may be worth reviving in some form in the future, but the general concept at least fits my views here: offering a perspective to those who are looking for it, but not trying to convince anyone who has already decided and just wants to argue. As I have been discussing here, at this point my choice is generally: I make no attempt to change someone’s mind. Occasionally I’ll make one response I expect to be futile. Twitter is not suited towards meaningful in-depth communication and there is no established relationship to anchor a difficult discussion. In closer relationships, topics simply become no-go areas. I’ve probably swung too far towards avoidance from confrontation at this point, but I’ve got too much scar tissue from years of fruitless argument. Some examples of aspects I collected while putting this together https://twitter.com/Venado_0320/status/1125060447646957570 (twitter thread which shows a specific example of TSLA bull vs bear thesis and pointlessness of general discussion although room for discussion on one specific aspect) https://twitter.com/Jonathankrier1/status/1125922545679527936 (twitter thread example of production conversation - starting from same point of view but slightly different knowledge) https://old.reddit.com/RealTesla/comments/bmcy5q/teslacom_forum_5719_collision_while_using_auto/emwbohb/ (comment about people changing their mind over time) https://twitter.com/jposhaughnessy/status/1128005778445611010 (news and knowing what isn’t so)
As a Coinbase customer, and someone that thinks BCC is a bad idea, I'm extremely disappointed with the way they are handling this situation.
I've used and recommended Coinbase as a wallet/broker since 2013, and have never been dissatisfied with their service. I've told many non-tech savvy people to just buy a coin, keep it in their Coinbase wallet, and just forget about it. (Thinking that for most people, it would be safer and less technically daunting than having them set up their own wallet.) I think that while I'd probably like BCC as a coin better than Segwit2x, it's really unwise, and unsafe to attempt a coin fork when nearly 100% of the hash power is not going to support it. I thought that most likely, it will not even get off the ground, but if it does, it sets itself up easily for 51% attacks and could be toppled at any time if it ever became an economic threat to the main chain. However, I'm not here to debate this. We don't know what the future holds. And if there is a possibility, however remote, that the BCC chain will hold some value, then Coinbase does an extreme disservice to their client base by not allowing them to withdrawal their BCC if and when the chain survives. Part of the value in owning a Bitcoin lies in the fact that if the chain forks, you would own coins on both forks. Coinbase has essentially decided to take that value proposition away from it's clients. In that sense, a Coinbase bitcoin is uniquely less valuable than a Bitcoin in any other wallet software. Imagine you were to buy a stock through your broker at Fidelity. The stock suddenly decides that they are going to offer a dividend. Fidelity is either too lazy or too unprepared to provide a way for its clients to redeem this dividend, so they just issue a blanket statement that they are not going to honor it. They go on to say that if you would like to redeem the dividend, then just go with another broker. This is exactly what the Coinbase statement on UAHF feels like. Does this make good business sense? In the past week, I've had to explain to pretty much everybody that I initially convinced to use Coinbase that they may be losing out on potential profits from Bitcoin Cash if they keep their coins on Coinbase. This has been an extremely confusing and irritating conversation that I would not have to be having if Coinbase were handling this situation better. I understand that Coinbase does not want to support the new chain on their platform, and I'm totally okay with that. However, I think they could very easily set up a mechanism for clients to withdrawal their BCC if and when it becomes viable as a currency. You don't even have to make it a featured option, as I'm sure many clients wouldn't want to bother with it, but for those that would like to redeem it, just have a page they can go to to enter a wallet address to send it to. Problem solved. The bottom line is that forks are going to happen in the currencies that Coinbase supports, and they are going to have to learn to handle these forks in a way that doesn't stick it to their clients. So how about it bdarmstrong ? Why not start preparing now? Why not give your clients the option to withdrawal their BCC so I can go back to recommending Coinbase to my friends?
This is my first contribution to the CryptoCurrency, and as already been commented it's too long, you can scroll down to the MAIN PART, so, please comment about changes you would make to it or just your opinion in general. Thanks Remember Nash equilibrium, Gresham's law, the rules of the Stasi? So the banking system is similar to the Stasi. But that's not the topic. Why did crypto currency become currency in general? The Nobel laureate in economics would have answered something like this: "At some point in time, the market fell into Nash's equilibrium, where everyone suddenly agreed that counting bitcoin as a currency is normal." Why do men wear trousers, and women wear skirts? Historically, in Scotland it wasn't done that way. It's just that at some point everyone agreed that this should be so. Nash equilibrium. Generally ... What is the currency? A currency is a means of indirect exchange. Once the means of exchange were the feathers of a pheasant, which before that did not cost anything. But then the demand arose and people said: "The feather will be a currency, a means of indirect exchange." Gradually, the general requirements for currency were formed: it should be simply divided into parts, and its value does not change; It is easy to carry around; And it should have a long shelf life. Well and the main thing - people should be ready to use currency as a means of exchange. With the crypto currency the same thing happened: people were READY to use it. Now I'm ready to exchange my phone for bitcoin. It is clear that all other criteria for crypto currency is, perhaps, even better than any other currency (it is much easier to store, transfer, divide, and it is eternal). And why there was a crypto currency? One of the main reasons, in my opinion - is the huge embitterment of people on the banking system with all of its rules, which are being promoted under the auspices of a mythical struggle against scammers and other scoundrels. So, the current banking system is similar to the Stasi, to which I must explain why I have such a gait, and not another, and why I go to work such a route, and not another. And then, unless two-meter fences stop real criminals? When criminals need to break into the banking system, they just buy a bank. All these safety rules are, in fact, useless. Therefore, there is a global irritation of people by the banking system. This can be seen everywhere - and in business of any size, too, from small to large. The annoyance created a request for some kind of analogue to the current system. There was a crypto currency. And the process can not be stopped - the crypto currency will take its place in the world economy. What a question for now. The problem is that in fact, the crypto currency is not used today precisely as a means of exchange. The phenomenon is called the Gresham's law: no one wants to pay with the currency, which constantly and strongly becomes more expensive. Everyone has heard a story with two pizzas that were bought for 10 thousand BTC in 2010 (just curious if pizza shop kept those bitcoins until today). Who wants a pizza for $ 15 million? Or do you want to drive in a Toyota car, bought today for 30 BTC, after learning in a year that they paid $3 million for it? Therefore, the crypto currency is used as a means of accumulation and speculation. At the same time, the process of continuous growth leads to the fact that basic crypto-currencies lose their properties as a means of settlement - stability. They turn into the semblance of shares of a rapidly growing company. And who wants to sell or change the goods and services of treasuring shares today, if tomorrow they will cost more. This is problem. Stablecoin The volatility of the crypto currency is the subject of long-standing discussions, in which the words "bubble" and "speculative instrument" can often be heard. The problem is solved including the launch of special settlement crypto-currencies, the so-called "stablecoins". This is a crypto currency, the value of which is determined not only by the demand for it, but also by more established methods. In the world there were several attempts to create such stablecoins. As a rule, they were tied to either the value of the fiat currencies - the dollar, the euro - or raw materials (commododis) - oil, gold, and so on. But due to various reasons, they were not widely used. First of all, because the creators of such currencies violated the principle of blockchain - distribution and independence. They issued crypto currency, they sold it, and they bought security on the proceeds. And the fact that the security was stored and controlled by the release organizers did not inspire confidence in the community. Now there are more advanced projects. In general, there is a hypothesis that the future is behind the "stable", tied to commododes. It is based on the fact that in the society in general and in the economy in particular, the so-called fatigue of the material of the classical unsecured money. At the same time, we see that the same dollar, euro, yuan, Brazilian real and all other classical currencies are also subject to volatility. And all this against the backdrop of a global rise in the cost of money. The economy is looking for alternatives. But will the social request for a block of commodities be critically higher than for classical money? I am not sure. But the fact that it will be more than now - most likely. Right now, there are several interesting stablecoin projects in the world: There is a project Tether, which stably enters the TOP-50 on capitalization (just over $300 million). Tether is the dollar's coin, 1 to 1. In Israel, they launched a start-up, which tries to make a crypto currency, tied to oil. In fact, they are not yet very successful, because they can not solve the problem of oil storage - it is difficult to store. There are projects that try to link the crypto currency to computing power, to electricity, such as SONM. You can easily explain to your mother about the crypto currency, tied to gold. I have not talked about the main (yet) and most obvious commodity - gold. Gold is a commodity that everyone understands. Gold accounts for about 5-10% of the global investment market. Gold is a natural limited natural resource. According to open data, the gold reserves of governments are about 30 thousand tons, and about the same in the hands of citizens. Total about 60 thousand tons. About 3 thousand tons of gold is extracted every year. This is a stable figure that can not change dramatically in any direction due to distributed production in different countries and established technologies. Therefore, the value of gold, expressed in goods and services, practically does not change. All this makes gold the ideal equivalent of calculation. Actually, it was so throughout the history of human development. Even the first money was tied to gold until governments decided to replace the gold mining process with a simpler process of printing paper money. Well, the main thing: you easily explain to your mother about the crypto-currency, tied to gold. And she will understand you. Now there are several "golden" crypto projects. There are not so many, but everyone has a different concept: Impressive is the OneGram project from Dubai, which plans to raise $ 500 million for the ICO, which began on May 27 and which should end on September 24. For today, 22% of 12,400,786 tokens sold at $ 43.18 apiece are sold. "Dubai" and "gold" sounds somehow impressive, you must agree. OneGram is tied to the stored physical gold. They have a content, strange, in my opinion, a counter: they position themselves as a project for Muslims. In the world of blockade, any artificial limitation causes questions, because it contradicts the very concept of technology. True, according to the founders themselves, now most of the investors of the project are not Muslims. Still there is a project of the British Royal Mint - Royal Mint Gold, in which one token is tied to one gram of gold. The project raises questions from the point of view of decentralization. Another ambitious project is the American-Australian OZCoin. It is provided with 100 thousand ounces (slightly more than 2.8 tons) of gold at 24 carats. Also, there is a "Russian" Goldmint. I took the "Russian" in quotes, because it has international team. The project plans to hold ICO in September, and in May held pre ICO and collected for a couple of days $600 thousand. Imagine that there is an ingot of gold that is able to be transported quickly and cost-free to anywhere in the world without a chance of being stolen. Usually verification of the team removes 9/10 of the risk - the probability of "scam" or some illegal actions is equated to zero. I always say that Whitepaper, the business plan in the ICO world is secondary to the team. It does not matter what you do, but who you are. If tomorrow Elon Musk will grow cows, then investors will believe in his project. Overview of TOP-15 crypto-currency Now about the crypto currency in general. On the Internet, you can easily find sites where you can see the capitalization of each crypto currency, which is drawn at the crypto-exchange, its current price in dollars, the schedule of price changes, the amount of currency that is traded on the market. Such statistics will help a little to understand the beginning investors, but give at least a general idea of what is happening. I will briefly talk about several crypto-currencies in the TOP-50 on capitalization: what are their essence, advantages and disadvantages. And despite the fact that in many of them I invested money, I will not give any specific advice on investment here. MAIN PART
The analogy from the real world is gold. This currency appeared first on the market, and therefore occupies (so far) the first place in terms of popularity, capitalization and exchange rate relative to the dollar. All other currencies, which appeared later, began to be called altcoins, and bitcoin is still a benchmark, from which all are repelled. Bitcoin is a crypto currency that can only be sent, received and stored. In doing so, it has many disadvantages inherent in the architecture itself: it is slow, difficult to scale, requires a lot of power for mining, a lot of storage space, transactions are expensive, and cryptography can be hacked if desired. Here are the cons: Bitcoin is slow, means that transactions in bitcoin occur every 10 minutes. To confirm the transaction, you need to mine, and this is a very energy-intensive process. To increase the number of users (scalability), you need to increase the computing power of computers. Bitcoin was not such a decentralized system, as it was announced at the very beginning. Theoretically, the miners can unite into huge pools and manage the network. The maximum number of bitcoins that can be released is 21 million. To date, they have already produced 16.75 million. What will happen when the total volume reaches the limit? Obviously, there will be a so-called hardfork, when it will be decided to create a new version of the bitcoin-network. This means a big vote, if you want - holding a referendum among the holders of the bitcoins. The Chinese holders of the Crypto-currency were in favor of holding such a referendum already in September. After him, perhaps, the "constitution" of bitcoin will change. And we know how constitutions change easily and quickly in different countries ...
An analogy from the real world is the new Microsoft. "Ether" begins to press bitcoin in terms of popularity. Probably, this currency has more prospects. If bitcoin can act only as a means of exchange and storage, then Ethereum has a number of advantages. The main thing is the ability to create smart contracts. Now, this platform is the most popular in the world in the construction of the block economy, and is used with numerous ICO. Ethereum inherited almost all the diseases of bitcoin. Yes, it's faster - it updates every 10 seconds (that is 60 times faster), but it has the same scaling problems (the recent case with SONM is an example), power consumption and storage. It may well challenge the leadership of bitcoin in the near future.
An analogy from the real world is the new VISA. The project team is trying to make a new payment system so that it can make payments in all currencies. The advantage of this currency is that it is used by banks. However, it is not decentralized. Coins can not be mined, therefore, their number does not increase. Ripple has a huge speed advantage over BTC and ETH, but the operations are not so transparent. For the classical banking system, this is normal - there anonymity has never been welcomed.
An analogy from the real world is platinum, which is cheaper than gold. Absolute analog of the bitcoin. Faster, better in all respects - but just turned out to be the second. But it is worth it in terms of diversifying investment in the same bitcoin. However, there is nothing from the point of view of innovation.
The analogy from the real world is Alibaba (not Amazon). Alibaba - the largest online store with a multi-billion dollar turnover. But still understand that it is still not as steep as Amazon. Classic may even be more expensive than regular Ethereum, but there are some nuances. ETC appeared after the Ethereum hardfork, which occurred last fall, and still does not cause trust in the crypto community. The main attention is still paid to ETH, and all the iconic projects are being conducted on this platform.
Dash and NEM
The analogy from the real world is "not clear who." Honestly, I do not often see these currencies. NEM is mainly drawn in Japan, where it is officially allowed to buy and sell goods for crypto currency. The number of coins is always one less than 9 billion, additional emission is not provided, so there is no mining, but there is a so-called harvesting. A major jump in the NEM course occurred in May, when a closed Mijin platform was created on the basis of NEM, through which Japanese banks can conduct secure transactions. NEM is built on the example of bitcoin, but there are no fundamental differences in architecture. Dash - crypto currency, whose transactions are completely anonymous. Many people talk about this as an advantage, but think: why does an ordinary person have complete anonymity in transactions? Still, all decisions about changes in the "constitution" take place with the help of a general vote, that is, the Dash-network is completely decentralized. Naturally, both currencies work faster than a bitcoin and have a number of software advantages.
An analogy from the real world is the new Google. A real innovation in the world of crypto currency. It offers a fundamentally new paradigm that can change everything at all. IOTA is also called the "crypto currency of things". It appeared five years ago, but it has become popular just now. As soon as it entered the stock exchange, it immediately burst into the Top 10 crypto-currency. How does bitcoin work? In order to perform a bitcoin transaction, the miner must do some work to confirm the transaction. Spend time, huge amounts of energy and allocate space for storage. In the case of IOTA, you can independently confirm the transaction with your device - for example, a regular phone. Your smartphone confirms two other transactions. Those transactions are confirmed by other two. And so on. The more users, the faster and better the network. Now IOTA users have accumulated a critical mass and the currency has become very popular. There is no limit to scalability, no miners are needed, so transactions are free. You do not need to pay a commission to the miners, you do not spend computing power. In general, this is a real bomb that threatens to make a revolution. IOTA solves all problems inherent in bitcoin (limited, high demands on computing power, pseudo-decentralization, data growth and storage problem, slow speed).
The analogy from the real world is JFC Sistema. Briefly, unlike bitcoin, Monero emission is not limited, but transactions take up several times more space than bitcoin. But this is not the most interesting. In general, low-cost transactions, good translation speed, good mining.
An analogy from the real world is the Empire State Building. EOS - the evolution of the currency BitShares and Steemit (which, by the way, seriously criticized that does not prevent BitShares from getting close to the top 10 on capitalization). It is based on a breakthrough technology, which can be compared with the appearance of a blockade. In theory, they can replace Ethereum or enter into synergy with it. In terms of technology, the project is better than Ethereum. Developers have created a new language, and now the EOS platform creates an operating system on which it will be possible to build separate applications. The logic is this: all databases, all web programming will be transferred to the block system. New technologies will allow asynchronous launch of different applications, which will seriously increase the speed of the OS based on EOS. The team expects that the whole world will work on EOS. In general, to be honest, this is the world of "Crypt 3.0".
An analogy from the real world - ? A useful tool not to lose on converting, not to depend on the legislation of different countries, taxes and so on. There is also a similar currency Tether, which is tied to the dollar 1 to 1. If you want to sell or buy dollars on the blockchain, you should come here. These are not speculative instruments. (Here you need to understand that BitShares itself as a unit of account is also "floating"). It is used as a currency for collecting commissions for a transaction of a fiat currency. It can be speculated. But if we want to operate with fiat money in the blockchain, we can do it inside the BitShares system). And 5 more crypto-currencies from the top 50 If you look further, in the top 50 crypto-currencies there are a few notable projects. I will list a few.
An analogy from the real world is the stock exchange. It is essentially a stock exchange: an Ethereum platform on which you can exchange different cryptocurrencies (but they all have to be the ERC20 standard - this is the most common Ethereum standard on which most projects are developed). Everything is regulated by smart contracts. This is a new economic tool in the world of blockchain. In fact, they brought the derivatives into the blockchain, which no one had done before. It seems to me that this is a niche product, which, however, can grow 5-10 times.
An analogy from the real world is McDonalds. A good, fashionable currency, I see future in them. Fast, cheap in a transaction, profitable in the mining. It is loved by miners - in other words, market providers like it. And it is like McDonald's - does not belong to anyone. 99.9% of McDonald's shares are traded on the stock exchange, but the largest shareholder owns only 2% of the shares. Decreded as McDonalds.
An analogy from the real world is Netflix. Fantastic project. And by "fantastic" I do not mean "cool", but the original meaning of the word. The business model is incomprehensible, but the team is good. They try to work in the market of events predictions. While the project is in the alpha stage and no real money goes in there, the team really knows how to correctly analyze the data. Aragon can become crypto-Netflix. How they do it - I have no idea. But just to remind you, 7 years ago Netflix was unprofitable.
Text extract from TBI's Daily Bit http://two-bit-idiot.tumblr.com/post/97100768474/bitcoin-is-inferior-to-apple-pay Last week I wrote about the big Apple payments reveal and how I believed it was a net negative for Bitcoin. I’ll double down on that argument today in the wake of the introduction of the iPhone 6, Apple Pay and Apple Watch (which I’m more excited about than the iPad, although I’m sure the first version will suck), and I’ll explain why mobile commerce and point-of-sale retail will probably be crappy areas for bitcoin companies to invest in going forward — especially if they operate in a developed economy. But first, the good news… Apple is going to have a monumental impact in converting people from their leather wallets to mobile ones. That will be true for both mobile purchases and PoS commerce. Tens if not hundreds of millions of global consumers are probably going to use the iPhone’s new mobile wallet in the future and thousands of large merchants will invest in the mobile and physical infrastructure to capture that new business. So thank you Apple for helping mobile wallets “tip” to the mainstream. That’s good for your company, good for your users, and maybe even good for bitcoin, the currency, which could easily become another Apple Pay payment method in the future. It’s not so good for bitcoin as a payment rail, though. In fact, I had to scratch my head a bit at the derision so many bitcoiners directed towards Apple in the wake of the formal announcement today. At first glance, Apple’s new bet on “tokenization” systems from leading payment technology companies like FirstData, TSYS and Visa appears to solve many of the same security issues as bitcoin. Apple added a “secure element” chip to its new phone, which encrypts card credentials and spits that information out to merchants via near-field communication in the form of new randomly generated account numbers - kind of like bitcoin’s public keys. Apple never touches the information (although I’m sure the NSA will make them create a backdoor), so the transaction information settles between the merchant and the user’s bank as it normally would - with a drastically reduced risk for fraud or theft. Anonymous? No. Secure and convenient? Yes. How quick we are to forget that killer apps in payments are about speed, convenience and security, not anonymity per se. Most of us (myself included) won’t care that our banks can still track our spending habits. I just don’t want Target losing my card info, and I want my breakfast burrito 30 seconds faster at the McDonald’s drive thru. Apple Pay is going to allow a) instant transactions with b) better security at c) cheaper costs to merchants (my bet), and you’re telling me that bitcoin still has a shot at being a better B2C payment rail anytime soon? I’m not buying it. All this said, there are some pretty big caveats here. I still believe there are many other applications for which bitcoin is superior - particularly in the developing world and for the underbanked. There is also a massive B2B opportunity to build applications which facilitate cross-border transactions that require currency conversions. Even though remittance applications might still be some time away from regulatory or legal viability, bitcoin is still a pretty sweet peer-to-peer, informal settlement method as well. In a world with Apple Pay, it would be nice to see the major bitcoin wallets and payment processors focus on these applications in addition to the niche B2C mobile experiences that bitcoin is uniquely qualified to handle - micro-transactions, m-of-n transactions, etc. I just don’t see Bitcoin payment technology taking off otherwise as a non-gimmicky B2C payments solution. I got a pretty big kick out of Xapo’s Wences Casares and his quote from his recent interview with The Verge where he called B2C bitcoin commerce a “side show for idiots.” I hope that sentiment becomes more mainstream. It’s healthy because it’s true. I, for one, plan to use Apple Pay — not bitcoin — for next year’s Uber rides. Apple has simply done it better.* Again. *I think. There’s an obvious part two to this post, which is also a good follow-up from my post yesterday. It has to do with bitcoin’s health as an investment. I’ll work on it tonight and shoot to post Thursday. Tomorrow I’m going to talk about our friends at NYDFS. Speaking of bitcoin companies and Apple, I’m interested to see how / whether Gyft gets integrated into Apple Pay given First Data’s recent acquisition. I have no idea. Haven’t given it much thought, but seems like there could be interesting possibilities. Final thought on bitcoin for B2C commerce. It’s going to take a while to actually gobble up the raw merchant data, but I think Overstock presents an early and telling case study about the over-optimism of bitcoin as a sustainable source of commerce. Remember when Patrick Byrne said that he expected bitcoin to drive $15-20 million in year one sales for Overstock back in the first quarter? He did scope shift earlier this summer by highlighting that bitcoin would add $0.04 to earnings, while quietly updating his bitcoin sales forecast to “as much as $8 million.” That’s a 50% reduction at least and it reflects anecdotally what we already know to be true: merchants get a bitcoin marketing bump initially, but it might not be a sustainably attractive payment method. Final, final thought. I’m still a bitcoin mega-bull, but I’m also a realist. Text extract from TBI's Daily Bit *Entrepreneur, former VC & Bitcoin's "most insightful journalist" according to the lucite on my desk... Mt. Gox slayer and BTC Foundation irritant... Other than that, I stay away from scandals.# http://two-bit-idiot.tumblr.com/post/97100768474/bitcoin-is-inferior-to-apple-pay
This is an open thread to discuss items of interest. I may also use it to drop thoughts as they occur to me as well -- something of a replacement of my former "tab closure" posts, as ... well, it seems tabs are simply running away from me. Consider this an experiment that's been mulling for some time. If you've got a question, observation, link, or anything else, feel free to post it, with a thought to the lair rules -- like house rules, but larrier. An evolving conversation....
The patient continued, “You understand that the many tests and the elusive information of the recent weeks remind me of Franz Kafka's words in his famous work Der Prozess, meaning both trial and process.” “The verdict does not come suddenly, proceedings continue until a verdict is reached gradually.”
I am looking for tools to make sense of HTML DOMs
On nuclear power and safety
There's an article making the rounds, poorly argued, IMO, extolling nuclear energy. I've been heartened by the critical response it's triggered at Hacker News, including my own contribution, previously submitted at G+ on Joerg Fliege's thread, drawing comparisons to the Banqiao Dam disaster of 1975. In part:
Proponents of nuclear power assume that we can assess risks with tails not of the decade or so of Banqiao, but of 100, 1,000, 1 million years. Utterly outside the scope of any human institutions, or of the human species itself. Our models of risks and of costs fail us.... The problems with nuclear power are massive, long-tailed, systemic and potentially existential. The same cannot be said of a wind farm or solar array. There is no significant 10,000 year threat from wind power, or solar power. We're not risking 30 - 60 km exclusion zones, on an unplanned basis, of which we've created at least four in the half-decade of significant nuclear energy applications: Hanford, Washington, Three Mile Island, Pennsyvania, Chernobyl, Ukraine, and Fukushima, Japan. And this is with a global plant of some 450 operating nuclear power plants as of 2017.... If the total experience has been, say, 500 reactors, over 50 years, or 25,000 reactor-years of experience, and we've experienced at least four major disasters, then our failure rate is 0.016%. The global share of nuclear power generation in 2012 was about 10%. Which means that without allowing for increased electrical consumption within existing or extending to developing nations, the plant count would have to increase tenfold. Holding the reactor-year failure rate constant would mean 80 core meltdowns per century. Reducing that to the present rate of four meltdowns/century would require reducing the failure rate to 0.0008%. That's five nines, if anyone's counting. Five nines on a process involving weather, politics, business, social upheaval, terrorism, sabotage, individual psychology, group psychology, climate, communications, response, preparedness....
David Gerard at the Financial Times on Bitcoin and Blockchain
David Gerard, author of Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain, interviewed by Izabella Kaminska about Bitcoin, /Buttcoin, and Tulips, among other topics. There's a bunch of great information in this podcast, of which I'll highlight two items in particular. I've been reflecting a great deal on information, truth, and that boundary between information and belief, most principally trust. Gerard nails the value proposition of trust, and a problem with the Free All the Things trope of decentralisation:
Decentralisation is the paramount feature in bitcoin, but it turns out that that's a bad idea that's really, really expensive, because it turns out that a tiny bit of trust saves you a fortune. "Decentralised" isn't a useful buzzword in a lot of ways, because it turns out that you want to be a part of society.
He also points at the invalidity of market capitalisation as a concept. It's an arithmetically inexpensive value to obtain (multiply total quantity by present price), but, especially in the thin markets typical of Bitcoin, it is essentially a fantasy value with no real meaning. From a conversation at The Other Place:
[C]rypto "market cap" is a meaningless number. Even on Bitcoin, the most popular one, about 100 BTC will clear the order book on any exchange. Crypto "market cap" is not a number you could realise, it's not how much money went into it, it's not anything useful. If you want to compare cryptos by interest, you'd need to measure daily trading volumes, which is a harder number to gather, and market cap doesn't turn out to be a good proxy for it. So billions of dollars in free money weren't actually just created - instead it's millions of tokens that may or may not be tradeable for ordinary bitcoins or for cash, if you don't go very fast at all.
This evokes my own explorations of cost, price, and value, and what exactly they mean. One analogy that Gerard, Alex Kudlick, and I are leaning toward is that of electric circuits. Price is analogous to pressure, or potential (voltage). Volume would be current. This raises the question of what resistance, capacitance, and impedance would have as analogues.... FT: Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain with David Gerard (Soundcloud: 65 minutes). Highly recommended. And you'll find Gerard on Reddit as dgerard.
Yonatan Zunger on the evolution of U.S. "court costs"
In "The history of “court costs”", Zunger writes of "a system that [you might think] has gone out of control, a mechanism that started with a good purpose that got eaten by corruption and incompetence. But you would be wrong."
In the post-Civil War South, a system came up when plantations, factories, or mines needed workers. It was based on that clever little exception in the 13th Amendment:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Note that it doesn’t say what kind of crime you have to be convicted of.
The short of it: slavery is not illegal in the United States, just somewhat regulated. My own main commentary ... probably worth posting in its own right, is that whilst Zunger raises excellent points about the intentionality of this system and its antecedents to Nazi Germany's concentration camps, the fact is that none of these phenomena are particularly American, nor particularly new. This isn't to excuse the United States of its guilt. Rather: these behaviours, systems, and dynamics seem to be deeply rooted. Whether they're merely cultural (the examples I've given are all from cultural antecedants or siblings to US tradition), part of human behavioral psychology, or deeper even than that, this is not simply a matter of bad laws and bad people. Rather: It is a case of such rules and dynamics actively succeeding and crowding out alternatives. There are two good discussions at The Other Place from the original Tootstorm and from the Medium essay.
When your political opponents are made of money ...
In politics, a growing problem is the dominance of interests who apparently have nothing but money to throw at problems Utilising this fact in judo fashion, the thought occurs that that one possible response is to create a vast wall of problems for which they find it necessary to throw money at. The less ease with which to discern between actual problems and fantasmic simaculra of problems, so much the better. Have fun storming the castle!
Bill Browder: "It turned out that in Putin's Russia, there are no good guys."
In what one senator called one of the Senate Judiciary Committee's "most important" hearings, [William] Browder, a wealthy businessman-turned-activist-turned Putin-adversary shed a chilling new light on a Russian system of government that operates ruthlessly in the shadows — as Browder described it for lawmakers: a "kleptocracy" sustained by corruption, blackmail, torture and murder with Putin at its center. "Effectively the moment that you enter into their world," Browder told senators investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, "you become theirs."
Oh, and "Russian adoptions" are one of the dog whistles for the Magnitsky Act, legislation passed in the U.S. in 2012, named after Browder's now-murdered Russian lawyer, Sergei Magnitski, imposing sanctions on human-rights violators. Also the topic of a certain July, 2016 meeting featuring Donald Trump, Jr., and senior members of the Trump campaign, of recent memory.
The distinction isn't "online vs. offline" but "direct vs. mediated"
Articles and books on the impacts of digital and mobile media are a dime a dozen, and may be as laughable, or prophetic, as previous gerimiads on new media. "Has the Smartphone Destroyed a Generation" is fairly typical of the genre, if better than most. Reading it, a thought recurs to me: the distinction isn't of online vs. offline, but or even screen time, but of mediated vs. direct experience. Mediamediates. It is literally that which is between the observer and the observed. And with increasingly smart media, those exchanges are very directly mediated, interposed, by third (and fourth, and fifth, and ...) parties. This has multiple effects, a few:
Direct is present, mediated is (often) remote.
Direct is strongly causaul and deterministics, mediated is fuzzy, indistinct, and often capricious, failing in unanticipated, or inconsistent, ways.
Direct is filtered by location, mediated is filtered by selection -- your's or another's.
Direct is attentive, mediated is amplified.
I'd argue there are degrees of mediation as well. Analogue devices such as the telephone are less mediated than digital feeds such as Facebook or YouTube. And this isn't the first period to have such experiences. I have frequent cause to point out that intellectual, academic, and creative experiences were very often epistolary, exchanges of letters. Though generally with less rapidity than today's 'round-the-world-in-a-second emails. But that whole "online" and "cyberspace" distinction? Lose it.
The etymology of "data" ... peculiarly uninformative
I'm rather the fan of looking at etymologies of words. They often reveal interesting origins, connections, or evolutions. The etymology of data would be a peculiar exception:
1640s, classical plural of datum, from Latin datum "(thing) given," neuter past participle of dare "to give" (from PIE root *do- "to give"). Meaning "transmittable and storable computer information" first recorded 1946. Data processing is from 1954.
a collection of facts, observations, or other information related to a particular question or problem; as, the historical data show that the budget deficit is only a small factor in determining interest rates.
Which raises the question of whether data is the collection of facts, or the symbolic or other representation of those facts. Arising as discovered that there is a philosophy of data and I've encountered its philosopher, Brian Ballsun-Stanton (via Mastodon).
Amathia: Unteachably stupid
There are a few concepts on the harm or danger of stupidity. In "One Crucial Word", Massimo Pigliucci explores the Greek term Amathia:
Amathia. It is often translated as “ignorance,” as in the following two famous quotes from Socrates: “Wisdom alone, is the good for man, ignorance the only evil” (Euthydemus 281d) “There is, he said, only one good, that is, knowledge, and only one evil, that is, ignorance” (in Diogenes Laertius, II.31) But just as in the case of other ancient Greek words (like “eudaimonia,” about which I will write later this week) the common translation hardly does the job, and indeed often leads people to misunderstand the concept and quickly dismiss it as “obviously” false, or even incoherent....
Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease. Against stupidity we are defenseless. Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed- in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical – and when facts are irrefutable they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self-satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack. For that reason, greater caution is called for than with a malicious one. Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous....
Read through to the source for the full quote. I've dug a bit deeper into the backstory. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a contemporary and friend of Reinhold Neibur, of "Serenity Prayer" fame. He served in the Abwehr, the Nazi intelligence service, during WWII, headed by Wilhelm Canaris. Bonhoeffer and Caneris were executed by the Nazi regime on 9 April, 1945, only three weeks before the fall of Berlin and Hitler's own death. And it turns out that the Abwehr, centre of relatively unfiltered information during the regime, was an active centre of resistance to it, from within. Bonhoeffer was one of eight children. A brother, and the husbands of two of his sisters, were also executed by the Nazi regime. Bonhoeffer's twin sister Sabine survived until 1999. Strongly related to the previous item on amathia, and observations from Hanah Arendt.
The Edge Question, 2017
"What Scientific Term or Concept Ought to be More Widely Known?" I find The Edge to be a bit hit-or-miss, and there are some misses here. But there's a heck of a lot of hits on topics that have been floating through my brain-space, and a few names I've been following as well. David Christian ("Big History"), confirmation bias, motivated reasoning, networks, information pathology, ... Daily Nous has a promising list as well. I've got the essays lined up to ... hopefully, read. And this note as a reminder to do that.
There seems to be no little need that the whole doctrine of non-interference with foreign nations should be reconsidered, if it can be said to have as yet been considered as a really moral question at all... To go to war for an idea, if the war is aggressive, not defensive, is as criminal as to go to war for territory or revenue; for it is as little justifiable to force our ideas on other people, as to compel them to submit to our will in any other respect. But there assuredly are cases in which it is allowable to go to war, without having been ourselves attacked, or threatened with attack; and it is very important that nations should make up their minds in time, as to what these cases are... To suppose that the same international customs, and the same rules of international morality, can obtain between one civilized nation and another, and between civilized nations and barbarians, is a grave error...
Oil is other people's money
I was thinking through the history of the Indiana natural gas boom -- oh, yeah, what Indiana gas boom, you ask? ThisIndiana gas boom, lasting from about 1884 to 1903. Basically, people realised you could stick a pipe in the ground and burn what came out. Which people did. As free-standing, natural-wonder flambeaux -- flaming torches, visible for miles around. After all, such a God-given abundance would surely last forever, right? The field burned out, literally, in two decades. But why waste that resource? I'm thinking of a typical Analyst's Matrix, describing spending your own, vs. other people's money. Let's do that in a table:
Someone else's money
High quality / Low cost
High quality / Cost irrelevant
Somebody else's use
Quality irrelevant / Low cost
Quality irrelevant / Cost irrelevant
When it comes to natural gas, or oil, or coal, the majority of the cost, that is, its initial formation is not borne by you. Only the extraction cost is. That un-borne fraction is effectively other people's money. You care about the quality of the use (its use value), but not the full formation cost. Oil, coal, and gas, are other people's money. The legacy of the Indiana boom lives on in a few ways. Ball Glass Company originally formed in the state to take advantage of cheap gas for glass blowing, as did numerous other manufacturing concerns. They eventually shifted to coal. And you'll find the word flambeau turning up in place-names and the odd company name to. Relics to other people's money.
Limitations on Free Speech -- revisiting "shouting 'No Fire!' in a theatre that is in fact on fire"
The dynamics since the American Fascists riots in Charlottesville, VA, and the ACLU reconsidering its position on free speech reminds me that I had started, quite uncomfortably, revisiting my own views on this about three years ago. "Shouting "No Fire" in a Warming World as a Clear and Present Danger" was my thinking at the time. Further developments -- Charlie Hebdo attacks, "punching vs. punching down", questions over revisionist history, the amazingly good two-part YouTube set by Contrapoints: "Does the Left Hate Free Speech? (Part 1)" (video: 16:53) and "Does the Left Hate Free Speech? (Part 2)" (video: 17:46) (I'm surprised I hadn't already mentioned it), various research (Jill Gordon, "John Stuart Mill and 'The Marketplace of Ideas'" and Jill Lepore (Kansas City Public Library lecture) both address parts of this. Karl Popper's "Paradox of Tolerance". Many, many discussions, mostly on G+. The history of free expression / free speech itself is interesting and surprising, particularly the role between Protestant and Catholic factions -- the latter being seen much the same way as Fascists are today, as constitutionally opposed to tolerance, and therefore not subject to the benefits of free speech themselves.
Jeff Schmidt on salaried professionals and the soul-battering system that shapes their lives
This book explains the social agenda of the process of professional training. Disciplined Minds shows how it is used to promote orthodoxy by detecting and weeding out dissident candidates and by exerting pressure on the rest to obey their instructors and abandon personal agendas such as social reform -- so that they, in turn, can perpetuate the system by squeezing the life out of the next generation.
So no, Sonos! Palindromic boycott of privacy-skewering IoT ToS change
Wireless, cloud-connected speaker manufacturer Sonos have retroactively changed terms of serviceand required existing product ownersmonitoring subjects accept the new terms or the devices will cease to function. And this, boys and girls, is why you don't buy Sonos products, ever. (Or any Internet of Things that Spy On You devices.) Palindrome courtesey Sakari Maaranen.
Alexander Hamilton Church and cost accounting: Capital-Labour analysis
Alexander Hamilton Church (28 May 1866 – 11 February 1936) was an English efficiency engineer, accountant and writer on accountancy and management, known for his seminal work of management and cost accounting. In particular, it was his work which expanded the concept of factors of production from just labour to include capital and other inputs. Among his works, Production factors in cost accounting and works management (1910), from whose introduction:
From the earliest days of manufacturing there has grown up a custom of considering labor as the main and only direct item in production, and of expressing all other expenditure in more or less vague percentages of wage cost. The fact is, however, that labor, while always important, tends to become less important relatively to other items as the progress of organized manufacture develops and the use of specialized and expensive mechanical equipment increases. Very few concerns have come to grief by ignoring labor costs, but many have passed into the hands of receivers by ignoring the relative imiportance of the other factors of production.
On social media and online tools as "optional": Facebook required for AirBnB
Via The Guardian, "I didn’t have enough Facebook friends to prove to Airbnb I was real": At the other end of the Airbnb helpline in Colorado, “Casey” sounded incredulous. “You have how many Facebook friends?” she drawled. “Er … about 50,” I replied. Long pause. “Well, you don’t have enough for us to verify you. You’d need at least 100.” “But”, I squeaked, “I post every now and again … I’m on Facebook most days to check on my friends and relations.” This, however, was not enough to convince Airbnb I existed. And, as I didn’t exist, I could not book a room. Keep this in mind next time someone declares "nobody forces you to use Facebook". Despite the many other refutations of this trope, we can now respond unequivocally: "AirBnB do".
Milestones: the 900 club
Just to memorialise this, and to bury the item as I close out this thread: the Dreddit has crossed the 900 subscriber threshold for the first time. Thanks to all, again, I will strive to be worth your time. It's interesting how much I prefer not to note such things, and yet do in fact note them. The days of teetering just on the edge in particular.
Do you like what you're reading here? Would you like to see a broader discussion? Do you think there are ideas which should be shared more broadly? The Lair isn't a numbers game, my real goal is quality -- reaching, and hopefully interacting with, an intelligent online community. Something which I've found, in several decades of online interactions, difficult to achieve. But there's something which works surprisingly well: word of mouth. Shares, by others, to appropriate venues, have generated the best interactions. I do some of that, but I could use your help as well. So: if you see something that strikes you as particularly cogent (or, perhaps, insipid), please share it. To another subreddit. To Twitter or Facebook or G+. To the small-but-high-quality Metafilter. To your blogging circle, or a mailing list. If you work in technology, or policy, or economics, there as well. Thanks, Morbius.
06-03 00:41 - 'Official Response from BitGold' (self.Bitcoin) by /u/BitGoldMelanie removed from /r/Bitcoin within 221-226min
The best advice I can give about AHK and mousekeys is not to do anything differently than you have been doing. Our approach to it hasn't changed. However, if we talk about the details of AHK the less than reputable players will look for loopholes in order to macro and that's why we are always very vague about it.
Autotypers and binding phrases to keys on your keyboard is against the rules. However, we know why people use them and we think that reason needs to be addressed. The impact of autotypers on other players is that they see lots of spam. I would much rather give every player an autotyper made by us and put into the client and then give every account the option to toggle on or off chat sent by the autotyper.
This will allow players to autotype but give every player the opportunity to ignore it with the click of a button.
We get along fine with the EOC team. Of course we are superior in every way possible, but we still talk to them... but really Old School borrows expertise from across the entire company. We need a lot of support from the developers, artists, designers and so on to do what we do. Although we spend all our time on Old School, many of the EOC team are needed to deliver what we deliver. We've got a request in the system for the engine team to give us something that'd let us create the game message spam filter. I don't think it'll be a big job for them, but can't predict when they'll have a chance to do it. We get on fine with the EoC team. Well, I'm not a very sociable person myself, but Mod Reach is always hanging out with the QA testers from the other RuneScape. Plus they let us borrow some of their testers for our biggest updates.
We had a conversation with the anti macro team a few weeks ago and asked if random events had an impact on bots. As they did they will be staying in game. If it becomes the case that randoms no longer impact on bots, we'll change them.
Being the head of bug abuse for the pasty two years now, I've naturally ran into some rather obscure, hilarious and damn right painful bugs. Ash, as a senior content dev, 9 year vet and previous upload manager has ran into even more than myself.
If I was to put my finger on the strangest bug I've ever encountered, it would have to be the old 'Jullage' bug that happened not long back before RS3 became RS3. To this day, I will never understand why that bug happened.
I've had a look through the POH code. The data storage is not very flexible there. Rooms can have 7 hotspots, three of which may have 7 options and four of which may have 3 options. Most of the rooms are already using all the options on their hotspots. So we'd have to do expansion via new types of room. That's not particularly hard, and I've had quite a few requests for spellbook-switching altars, possibly with a fee for use.
Back in 2007, I had been the Upload Manager for a couple of years, and was transitioning to a Content Dev role as Mod Nexus took over the uploader job. So Nexus & I were two developers who'd be extremely familiar with the 2007 codebase, as well as all the upload-related tasks that would need to be done for the OSRS content updates.
I have no feelings about RS3 bringing back legacy mode. I agree with the need to do so and am keeping up to date with it's development. Both for the health of RS3 and OSRS. I don't see it being an issue for us and we're going to continue to deliver everything we promised.
If the '07 team gets too big, we'll start having communication/organisation issues like any big team. Just now, it's been very handy having a small team that can be in communication with itself - and with you - very easily.
If Legacy gives RS3 players something that they'd like more than the EoC system, that's good news for the RS3 players. I don't begrudge them that.
You can send us a video if you really wanted to, alternatively just email the account names to [email protected] and we'll pass them on to our macro experts who will check them out.
The bot-hunting is done by a different team; we mostly just deal with game content and community stuff, although we try to liaise with them as much as possible. As far as I know, they're using systems that can analyse player activity rather more quickly than watching several minutes of video for each bot.
For me, I get in at 8am after giving my housemate, Mod Oliver, a lift in. When I get in, I usually jump straight into game to troll whoever is nearby and get feedback on the evening tweets I sent out which usually is asking for ideas on something I tweeted. From there, I generally boot up whatever stream (we use content streams here) I'm working in and get to work on the content projects you voted on. At 12, I head for lunch and then at 1, come back and finish the day off at around 4/4.30 pm. Same old really.
To be brutally honest, the internal politics between RS3 and OSRS is rather minimal. I'd like to think our successes had a positive and enlightening impact on their decision to go in the direction they are. I won't say what we're doing is by any means revolutionary or groundbreaking as all we're doing is letting you decide what you want and taking on feedback. Every game has to evolve and sometimes that approach simply won't work for that product. We're very lucky in that RuneScape is 13/14 years old now and has been through many episodic changes that we know what content works for our community. Hindsight really is one hell of a tool!
To be honest, I haven't been in any of the planning meetings that lead to the Power to the Players program, however the success we have had and the positivity of our community is something that hasn't gone unnoticed. I am sure it had a part to play.
It's a rather nice sign that they must think we're going in the right direction, even if we can't know for sure whether they're copying us on purpose :-)
Hmmm. I'd originally expected that we'd make the Wilderness Rejuvenation monsters and training facilities available only on the members-only worlds, not the two F2P-style worlds. That's normally how updates go. But we don't have to restrict it like that, so long as nothing tries to drop members-only items on a F2P-style world.
The bot-hunting team has something new which is hopefully going to be ready for some quiet live tests next week. It's generally best if we don't divulge full details of how that team operates, since botters can read Reddit too :-)
3 of the new Wilderness bosses will be soloable and if the community want it we will be happy to add other soloable bosses to the game. Have you found the new chat room for getting GWD teams together helpful at all? If not, what can we do to help you find a team.
The current plan is that the banker will throw the bag away. Getting a bag will not be difficult as every monster in the Wilderness will drop one. Banking items like this is a very difficult thing for us to achieve.
I love achievement diaries and we have had a few discussions about adding some new ones all at once. This is a large task and we have a lot of those on at the moment but we definitely would like to offer you them.
I agree that Magic is in need of some serious love. It's an under-loved, under-appreciated and frankly misused skill that has so much more potential. Unless you're on Ancients, there's really no need to use it in combat situations. I know we have god spells but even then, those are limited and not broad enough.
Hilt is 1/512 from each GWD boss. Barrows items depend on the number of barrows brothers you've killed. The more you kill the more likely you are to get a drop. I think 12 is the magic kill count number to aim for. Killcount is solely for runes and other minor rewards but I believe 12 is the minimum needed for decent runes so the most efficient number to get.
Yes, new skills and quests are a possibility. I don't see much demand for a completely new skill in an old-school game, but we'd really like to write you a new quest. Mod Reach hasn't had a chance to do a quest yet.
I don't think legacy mode will have any great impact on Old School. Although many players started OS for the combat system, most play it for so many other reasons now. Currently there are no new quests planned for OS, although we would love to do some.
I think the more modern-looking version of RuneScape will always have a bigger appeal to new players who never knew RuneScape back in the '07 days. We don't see many players swapping from RS3 to OSRS - or vice-versa - at the moment, so I wouldn't expect to ever overtake them. Also, I'm not sure how desirable it would be for our dev-team to become as large as the RS3 dev-team - you already get weekly updates, and at the moment we're small enough that we can communicate with each other (and with you) very easily.
Ash once told me about the developer of Desert Treasure and his understanding of modern day culture that he completely disregarded when writing desert treasure. Sadly, I can't explain what he did but I assure you it was outrageous and hilarious.
I read over every suggestion I get sent (within reason!) and occasionally go back to the submissions we got during the first PDC as we have some really creative and (rather mental...) suggestions there.
I have plans for the old models don't you worry ;)
Currently, Jagex sees a successful game running with a very small team. If Jagex were convinced that the game could be orders of magnitude more successful with a bigger team, I think that'd make it happen. They've already allowed us to increase our headcount by hiring Mod John C and an artist - at a time when the RS3 graphics team has not been hiring - so it's a rather promising sign so far. We've not been given our own engine guy, sadly, but Mod Phillip's been very obliging at sparing his time when he can.
They are all very good ideas and eminently achievable. However, the same goes for these ideas as every other ideas. As we are a small team we have to prioritise what we do so we are working on most important things for the community. Where would you rank your ideas in the the whole priority of the community? I think achievement diaries is up near the top, so that maybe something we look at in the not too distant future though. Many of those are already on the wishlist, but here are a few comments: - Buy/Sell-X in shops is problematic because shops in OSRS recalculate the price based on the stock level. If we try to do a big sale of ~100+ items in one click, that's a lot of code to run, and the engine would complain. That's why we've started selling packs of 100 feathers/vials/tips instead. - Joining previous house/chat-channel is feasible, although we currently can't make it save the name over logout due to engine limitations. - The world queue was polled and failed. Apparently some people prefer spam-clicking over waiting in an orderly queue. - We'll repoll something if (1) we can design a better version than we offered the previous time, such as with the middle mouse button, or (2) if the original question was so poorly understood that the vote's results were meaningless.
The schedule for when we poll things is largely decided by the community at the time. Should a Stealing Creation type game become the biggest priority for the community we will poll it. Sadly, I think this is some way from being there.
I think we'll be just fine. A few people have said they're going to move over to RS3 for Legacy, and I hope they find a version of RuneScape they like. But there's a lot more to OSRS than just its combat system, and we're expecting to be here doing OSRS updates for our community for a very long time to come.
It's not a decision that'd be made by the OSRS team, in the end. We can make recommendations, but Jagex's financial decisions are made at a considerably higher level. Preferably with a lot of statistics to back them up. If they decided we could have F2P, and it went out of control due to bots/hijackings/scamming/RWT, that'd do a lot of damage to a game that's currently doing rather nicely for players.
We're not aiming to copy RS3. People often ask for stuff they've seen in RS3, but we'd just as soon do something completely different.
When dealing with things from RS3 that had distinctive GFX, our version would be forced to look inferior to the RS3 one due to the different graphics systems, so I prefer not to create knock-offs of RS3 content like that at all.
The crystal bow is one of the main problems for this. We've offered a change in the Wilderness Rejuvenation project to address that particular item by making it revert to seed when dropped. We've also got High Risk worlds now, so a ragger will have to risk dropping something if they're going to have a weapon at all.
With regards to the unusually offensive abuse that some raggers have been shouting, that remains against the rules, and I would hope the Support team can continue taking action against people like that.
Last updated: 2014-02-11 06:52 UTC This post was generated by a robot! Send all complaints to epsy.
Locksmith pensacola, network serve customers got wonderful information of the first bitcoin exchange for receiving an area discussion of a technique within its machines, using them a few months and drupal. The idea behind it makes decisions. We need for sale cialis azithromycin 250 mg though you to hear that stuff, right direction of. Do this problem is just keeps my social media and firms ... Translator: E. M. Reviewer: Michele GianellaWe are at the dawn of the digital civilization,we have probably already figured that out because our mail has become digital,music and movies have become liquid,and all those things that used to sit on our shelves,like encyclopedia, have gone, replaced now by Wikipedia.Nowadays we expect, correctly or not,that an entire … You can’t confiscate Bitcoin easily to pay for government services that taxpayers didn’t sign up for. Of course our generation wants to help the elderly. Many of us would just prefer to finance our own solutions. Over-dependence on tech and pharmaceutical multinationals. If there is a tech recession in the US or a crack down on our tax haven status, the first jobs to go may be the sales ... - Easily copied Bitcoin can be copied just as easily as the internet itself. Or say Facebook, Amazon or Ebay. It's not impossible but as you might understand it's very very hard to do so. People use Bitcoin because a lot of other people also use it. The "network effects" gets more and more powerful the more people joins the network. This is why it's so hard to displace. - Storage Gold and ... Bitcoin explained like an onion: Let’s talk about money. Nick McIntosh. Follow . May 28, 2017 · 3 min read. My mother was irritated that she had no idea what Bitcoin was. I tried to explain ...
This is one of the easiest explanation on the working and legality of bitcoin in Malayalam. i have answered four questions about bitcoin and cryptocurrency in general. 1. what is bitcoin? 2. how ... Bitcoin Expert Dan Held Explains Bitcoin's Value Proposition In 2020. Perfect Video To Share On Social Media. 👍 Watch The Full Interview Here https://www.you... Bitcoin explained and made simple I explain Bitcoin and cryptocurrency simply, for beginners. Bitcoin for dummies if you will, even though I don't like the expression. To truly understand what Bitcoin is and how it works can take ... Baffled by bitcoin? Confused by the concept of crypto-currencies? Well, fear no more. In 190 seconds we explain what bitcoin actually is, where the idea came...