ferraris were meant to be tweaked, what do you think the entire field of motorsport exists for? from F1 all the way down to the local DE event at the local track, cars are tweaked endlessly, with passion. you won't find any shortage of tweaked exotics at your local autocross, either. if nobody "twaeked" cars, you wouldn't have ANY of the improvements in performance, safety, and comfort you find in your modern automobile.

and furthermore, a HUGE aftermarket exists for ferraris (and other cars, expensive or not) for the sole purpose of tweaking them and making them go faster, safer

there is no philosophical difference between the manufacturer "tweaking" cars, a privateer racing team putting together a specialized hill climber, or an enthusiast "tweaking" his own car in a garage while drinking six packs. none whatsoever. it's people, working on cars. period.

it's incredible there are people on HN like you. i'm a little shocked to be honest.

Yes, I was also sure this site was populated exclusively with ferrari-tweaking experts. I'm a little shocked, too, but there it is. ;)

I agree that the last comment was overly snooty (I think it was in response to the implied snootiness of the original comment, but snootiness does not justify more snootiness).

That said, I think there's a bit of an indirection of the point when you go to celebrating "diversity of opinions". Yes, diversity of opinions is good, but there is a difference between "diversity" and "the space of all possibilities". Some opinions are just dumb, and having them doesn't improve the community.

More importantly, it is not merely the opinion that is being rejected - it is the attitude accompanying the opinion. If the original comment had been something along the lines of "I'm wary of trying psychoactive drugs because it seems like the brain is a very sensitive organ, and messing with its state could have subtle unintended consequences", then it would be expressing a very similar opinion, but the attitude would be completely different.

By the same token, if the original comment had said "You're wasting your life if you don't use psychoactives to broaden your horizons", then that would be a polar opposite opinion, expressed with a similarly unacceptable attitude.

I'm happy to see either of those opinions expressed on HN. But I'd happily do without either attitude.

It's been cobbled together over hundreds of millions of years out of whatever spare parts were lying around. It does its job remarkably well considering, but there are obvious design flaws that could be improved.

That being said, I did find their comment to come off a bit arrogant, and dismissive. If you do choose to live a lifestyle where you do not use these substances, like I and many others do, that is okay. But it's not okay to try and push this view on others. In turn, those who do use such substances shouldn't try and push their view on those that don't. Live and let live.

Then We put nam "drugs" as something way way worse than alcohol.

You don't need to use any of these, but this is the perfectly engineered view.

You can see this pattern in human behaviour, easily manipulative behaviour. Shopping culture, money spending, corporations, laws, this is like big fractal blooming same thing.

Still, it is interesting, seeing it all expressed and experiencing it, ever changing.

Have a nice day!

Saying that is like saying "I'd never mess with Ruby-on-Rails; you can't do better than CGI and C."

My own opinion regarding the matter is that there are plenty of mind and body altering effects that we encounter every day. I'm a chemical engineer, and anyone who is involved with chemistry or biology can tell you that all but the simplest mechanisms are difficult to understand. There can be repercussions you would never predict from some compound. Heck, even ordinary food items (high fructose corn syrup, margarine) are constantly under debate because of the unknown long-term effects. With a system as complex as the human body, it's difficult to tell what subtle effects may exist.

But you can't avoid it. As a whole, people are living longer and healthier than they were in the past (well, maybe that second point is debatable in some countries). I think the best philosophy is to weigh the risks and go with what you ultimately think will be the best route for yourself. Someone who has terminal cancer may be willing to try a new drug that isn't well understood at all, but that's because the possible benefits far outweigh any risk.

So it comes down to an individual decision of what you find to be an acceptable risk. And I think it should be a right to make personal decisions like that. For me personally, I'm not going to try illegal drugs because I believe they have a higher probability of causing negative long term effects. Do they actually? Who knows; you could debate this ad nauseum. And science isn't anywhere near a stage to definitively confirm or refute it. But it's not a risk I'm interested in taking. In fact, I find it funny that out of all the unconventional things that Feynman tried in his life, the thing that embarrassed him was the time he tried LSD (he was worried about any unknown effects it might have on his brain).

Yeah, some people even have experiences without drugs that they interpret as revelations from God.