reify_null

Interesting paper, I happened to do something very similar for my master's thesis around a decade ago. I did not prove the soundness of the type system due to lack of time but had the feeling that should not be a major obstacle, probably in my naivete.

I skimmed through this thing and found no way to define clocked feedback circuits. This was something I was conceptually struggling with that at the time. The pipelined combination of timing definitions seems straightforward enough as its just adding integers together. Maybe someone who is actually up to date can correct me or provide some more info.

For those interested in gruvbox, give gruvbox-material ( https://github.com/sainnhe/gruvbox-material ) a look. It's a bit softer than the original, which I find a bit easier on the eyes.

Is this also different between growing up without a father vs growing up without a mother? I have some thoughts on this of my own, not sure how accurate they are.

I suspect the first case causes more competitiveness issues, general aggressiveness (or toxic masculinity if you will, though the term is somewhat problematic) The latter more issues with trusting women, intimacy, etc. Not believing in long term relationships might be more likely if one of the parents is completely out of the picture, not so much gender related. This is from a male perspective, perhaps from a female perspective the two cases can simply be flipped.

There probably is some research into these things, but I wouldn't know where to start.

I have never heard of this existing, but I'm living at a coastal area, far away from the swedes.

Norway has a decent charging infra, at least in the area where I'm at. It's been improving recently as well. Circle K (the petrol station chain formerly known as Statoil) has started installing chargers near where I live, so I would assume they are rolling this out nation wide. A lot of people have individual charging stations at their homes as well. I'm not sure of the state of charging stations in the smaller towns though.

I recognize what you're saying about trusting yourself. Part of having experienced psychosis is regaining trust in my own mind, afraid of 'the bottom falling out'. I feel I'm doing well there. I'm also wondering if they have diagnosed me correctly. I pretty much haven't had any depressive symptoms for at least five years now, it stopped a long time before I ever had a psychotic episode. In fact, the depression was in line with my living conditions, it was something that made perfect sense at the time. Sounds like a question for a psychiatrist.

Unfortunately, like you experienced too, part of the healthcare industry still has a parent-child relationship between doctor and patient. I notice that the doctors which worked out, never really had that aspect, but treated me as someone with valid input. Especially for me, I like to understand things, dive into them, see what the mechanics of medication, disease and diagnosis are all about. It doesn't really work well with a doctor that just wants to prescribe whatever they think is right. I'm sure you can relate to that.

Thanks for the well wishes. I can say that I've been pretty much completely symptom free for a year now, and it does feel like I've only now started to really explore myself, and find out what I want out of life. All the best to you as well.

> As for the psychiatric help, I'm glad that for you not taking coffee and doing sports is enough. I've mistakenly thought that for years (more vitamin D, "it's S.A.D", no coffee for months, more exercise, etc etc), but I had to hit a wall hard before I encountered the help that I realized I needed my whole life.

This is actually what I'm afraid of. I haven't confirmed it yet, I'm still on my medication now. I might be developing some kidney problems (VPA is hard on kidneys and liver), so who knows. Based on your experience, and what others have mentioned, I might look for a psychiatrist I trust as an out-patient and see what my options are. I'm still not convinced the medication is stopping any psychosis either, but I'd rather not find that out the hard way.

Thanks for that perspective. That could explain it indeed. The psychiatrists I saw were the ones working the ward, not outpatients. So they really do see the worst of it. That being said, I really do admire the work they do, the people there are typically not easy to work with, at least not while they are on the ward.

I am lucky in that I'm on a low dose of not too strong medication (valproate acid, 600mg slow release daily). If I go off (I've weaned off it myself before) nothing really extreme seems to happen. Hope you are doing well with your medication.

Interesting. I have a negative bias towards psychiatrists myself. Experiences with psychologists weren't that great either until I went into therapy with an analytical psychologist. None of this mindfulness stuff, which I practiced myself for years already, but a complete focus on actually figuring things out and understanding why I see things the way I do. I don't think there is a single answer for everyone (not implying that you think so). The psychologist doesn't really stop me from talking about experiences with drugs, but doesn't really see it as something helpful.

I currently see my illness as existing of two components; genetic and environmental triggers. Stress and drugs, together with past trauma interact with my genetic disposition towards psychosis/mania.

Drinking less coffee, sticking to a routine, no drugs (particularly psychedelics), and sorting through my internal web of views with a psychologist, it looks liek that's the solution for me. Medication is part of it, mainly to provide some stabilization while I sort things out. It doesn't really jive well with how psychiatrists go about things though, in my experience, since they seem to think I have to be on it til the end of time. I would love to have contact with a psychiatrist I trust, so I could make some sense out of the medication part of my healing process.

Interesting article. I've been diagnosed with bipolar type 1 myself. I still struggle with accepting having that particular mental illness for two reasons; the way it is depicted in media and popular culture, and it being seen as a lifelong thing you can't possible get rid of. This despite having a psychotic episode twice. You'd think these things are clear cut. But they're not.

The first part of the article is spot on, really. Even medical professionals have strong biases that are pretty visible even when you're institutionalized. Mentioning drug use is almost guaranteed to put you in a certain classification bucket. What's more, once a history is taken, while being psychotic or (hypo)manic, you are once again put into some kind of classification bucket, despite not being well enough to frame things properly.

I don't mean to be completely negative here. Once you are institutionalized, this is needed to get things back on track, start some kind of medication or figure out some first line treatment. However, the stigma afterwards is very real. GP's, psychologists, even surgeons take in this information after the fact, and its almost factual. And the effects the author mentions are very much there; imagined or not, they are there for the ill person. Being extra careful not to seem overly rash, overly emotional, too impulsive around doctors. Just because they have your best interests at heart, doesn't mean they're free from bias.

I always assumed that 'depression' and other complex emotional states were very similar across different people and across time. In a sense, that we as a species were referencing a shared, common understanding of the word which is totally informed by our physiology.

Except now, I think what is most likely the case is that we use/learned to use words like depression in a context based fashion, like mapping a set of contextual behaviors to a word. The actual experience of depression is sort of non-existent. The usage of the word and the contexts in which it is applicable changes as society changes its interpretation of emotional health and the behaviors or mannerisms that go with it. I think how we use depression in popular culture isn't indicative of anything fixed, it depends on the zeitgeist in a way. I'm sure this is different from a clinical standpoint, I'm not at all qualified to comment on that. But then again, most people don't use it in clinical terms anyway. Still, I think this is distinctly different from 'sad', as in, the context is different for the two states.

The book 'How emotions are made' by Lisa Feldman Barrett might be interesting to you, it goes exactly into this sort of phenomenon.

Why is it ironic? Specifically, I don't make any claims whatsoever, nor do I say that there is anything special about it. To me, its a categorization of experiences which tend to happen when you sit down and do some vipassana meditation. Nothing special about that, it's even reproducable for the most part. Like self-exploration.

I think its important to note though, that its generally advised against to practice meditation outside of establishing a foundation in virtue/morality. Not that that is stopping anyone (past self included). I would argue that the religious texts are extremely important in grounding the meditation practice in that way. It's very easy to ascribe all kinds of super-natural ideas and beliefs to the stages of insight and the 'ego-death' at the end of those. In the end, its still you, with your perspective, your ideas, your wrongs and rights. Accepting that is the true jewel, in my eyes.

Talk about a false dichotomy there. No person is fully a pessimist or optimist. Framing it in terms like this just serves to stifle actual discussion. A nice soundbite from someone who happened to be optimistic about the right thing.

VPA does have some side-effects, possibly depending on the person, which might conflict with it being used as a nootropic. For me it reduces ability to concentrate and makes moods less intense. The latter is expected behavior for BP treatment, but not what most people would like to trade for, what I would call, marginal benefits in comparison. There's a whole range of other side effects, some of which are pretty bad.

Anecdotal evidence just tells you you can't translate individual cases to larger distributions, or at least, that should be the case. Especially when it comes to psychedelics for some reason, this is just dismissed as 'oh well, bad stuff happens sometimes'.

I've seen the same as you, in myself and others. It might not be true for all people, but at least a significant, noticeable subset of the people who use psychedelics do fall into that 'category'. Like minds unraveling themselves, almost becoming ghosts in their vague perceptions of themselves and others.

And I think your perspective is justified, just by listening to the stories people tell about the experience itself, not by doing statistical analysis per se. Users tend to speak about feeling one with their surroundings. In group settings, boundaries disappearing between people. People becoming more sensitive to ideas and 'vibes'. Do it often enough, and you'll become more and more biased towards the things you surround yourself with while under the influence.

But here's the thing.. that stuff will pull you under if you're not careful.

If I wanted to learn how to live life, accepting the reality of it, while being on psychedelics, then I guess they wouldn't get in the way :)

Sure, there are different points of view and you have pointed that out. My point was that the conflation of meditation and psychedelics is not something which is universally true, or at least not universally accepted.

From my personal view, there is no comparison to 'that' and getting my every day perspective closer to it. I think psychedelics can be interesting to see that change is possible, that things are not set in stone, least of all your mind, but it's ultimately proven to be no real solution (for me :) )

There certainly is a large overlap between people who are advocates of one or the other. Though I think, coming from the eastern philosophy side of things, the association is kind of strange. Literally, withholding from intoxicants is part of the five householder precepts in Buddishm & Taoism, maybe in others as well . With good reason (my opinion). At least from a vipassana perspective, anything like psychedelics will just get in the way.

That being said, I like the idea of using these kind of tools in a controlled setting for treating certain psychological issues. I hope they're careful in not getting too many people zonked out on newly created mental constructions. Though I suppose its better to be happy than depressed, regardless of the conditions surrounding it.