I can understand being hesitant about sharing the details of why you wanted the antipsychotics. It sounds like this is your first(hopefully last!) brush with psychotic/dissociative states of mind. Though I can't pretend to know what it was like for you, I can tell you I've been in similar situations. I've had several cases of acute psychosis caused by drugs(sometimes stimulants, sometimes synthetic cannabinoids) and/or sleep deprivation in the past. I also experimented heavily with all manner of psychedelic and hallucinogenic drugs in my early 20s, and I'm a severe hashish addict(currently 2.5 years in remission thanks to a moderation oriented treatment program I designed myself). It can be profoundly and existentially scary. You encounter parts of your psyche that you may never have met before, and reality breaks apart at the seams. You truly learn the extent to which your perceptions, thoughts, and even intentions are at the whims of implementation details in your brain. If you want, I could share some concrete anecdotes from my own experiences. But the main thing I want to say is give it time. These things must be processed, and it takes time, but it will get easier. And in time you will emerge with a better understanding of what it is to be human, and of yourself.

As to your comment on LSD, I support that. Sanity is taken for granted, until you temporarily lose it. If at some point you change your mind on exploring psychedelics, my advice would be to ditch LSD and go with psilocybin mushrooms instead, for a number of reasons.

Psychedelics very rarely cause actual psychosis, but LSD should have a higher risk than most, because unlike psilocin(the active compound in mushrooms, which psilocybin is converted into), LSD has non-trivial activity at dopamine receptors, and importantly the D2 receptors. LSD is in some sense the opposite to an antipsychotic in that it acts on the same receptors as antipsychotics, but with an opposite effect. Drugs that act as agonists on D2 receptors(usually Parkinsons meds) are well documented to cause psychosis in some people, as are stimulants like amphetamine which increase synaptic dopamine levels.

Psilocybin mushrooms are also pretty safe in that as long as you've identified the mushrooms correctly, you know what's in them. LSD on the other hand, more often than not is not actually the "original" LSD these days, but some LSD analogue. Usually it'll be something very similar in structure and effect to LSD, but it'll still be poorly studied compared to LSD. There are also drugs which are substantially different from LSD being sold on blotter paper as LSD, and some of these can be quite toxic(25i-nbome), extremely long lasting(DOB, DOM), or both(bromo-dragonfly).

Psilocybin is also free of course, since it's bound to be growing someplace near you in vast amounts, though the specific species depends on where you live.

And finally, it's much easier to take psilocybin in small doses. I always recommend people do this when trying psychedelics for the first time. Try a sub-threshold dose first, just enough to feel a little "weird". See how it feels, decide whether to do more next time, or stop, etc. It's possible to this with LSD, but it's much trickier, because LSD usually comes on this tiny little blotter paper. You can cut it up into smaller pieces, but there's no guarantee the drug is evenly distributed across the paper, and it's also impossible to be completely sure how much drug is on the blotter in the first place, unless you made them yourself. Mushrooms on the other hand are usually measured in grams; much easier.

But yeah, I'm not recommending you do psychedelics. Especially not any time soon, while you're still healing. It's always good to have a stable baseline before you go stirring the pot, so to speak.

I noticed you said in another comment that you were treated with antipsychotics in the psych ward. Would you say they had any effect in lessening the symptoms? My intuition says no, since I'm not aware of any conventional antipsychotics that interact with NMDA receptors directly(mostly they act on dopamine and serotonin receptors), but psychopharmacology is tricky that way...

And, another thing. Have you ever tried dissociative drugs(like ketamine, PCP, DXM), and if so, how similar would you say your experience was to those drug experiences? Of course, feel free to tell me to fuck off if you don't want to discuss that in a public forum.

The tendency for the Lisp community to self-segregate into these bubbles is something that's perplexed me for years. You noted that you don't agree with it; I'd in be interested in why. I do agree with it, in the sense that this phenomenon does occur to an extent, and certainly to a larger extent in Lisp compared to other languages. The part I don't agree with is that this is a universal deal-breaker for Lisp. And there's still plenty of cooperation and sharing in the Lisp community. Emacs once again is the prime example. Yes, every .emacs is as unique as a fingerprint. But the reason GNU Emacs refuses to die is precisely its wonderful ecosystem of extensions that have in fact been shared and maintained by a wider community. And this ecosystem is in part possible because GNU Emacs is devoid of any sort of boundary between application code and extension code, which is a philosophy that can be traced back to the LISP machine era.

It's also interesting to tie this in with RMS(the author of GNU emacs, what a coincidence!) and his stance on Free Software really being about every individual user being free to modify the software they run. Of course, the deep implications of this philosophy, and its implementation in Emacs and other Lisp software, are clear to me, because I'm a Lisp programmer, just like RMS. And the Free Software movement originated in a time when most people with access to a computer had at least some amount of familiarity with programming. But as computing has become mainstream, RMS' original vision has morphed, and the focus has been on the importance of the wider community being able to modify software. And that's certainly important. But it's not really free software in the original sense unless you happen to be a programmer. Most software users today are not programmers and likely never will be, so regardless of how the software they're using is licenced, they're not really free in that original sense, are they?

Then LLMs showed up. And suddenly, I can see on the horizon a revival of free software in the original sense. And yet it feels quite far away. For this to become reality, we need a lot more than what we have currently, which is a pretty damn good search engine/meme generator for the "normies", and a pretty damn good boilerplate generator for the coders. I think we probably need an entirely new concept of what software even is. I think we probably need new foundational research. I don't necessarily see a role for current LLM architectures in this. I feel more like current SOTA is scratching at the surface of the real deal, and it may take a few years to understand how to make foundational progress. Maybe we even need another AI winter to force the capital expenditure into other avenues. Certainly we need foundation models that are open in all possible senses of the word. Being tied to proprietary, heavily censored blob running in a giant datacenter is a non-starter.

It seems like the majority of people in the field have some intense tunnel vision about LLMs and transformer architectures. I'd love to see more variation there. I know Lecunn is doing some unique stuff. I can't pretend to understand whether it has legs, but I applaud the effort. Certainly we need to address the issue of energy expenditure, the absurd amount of data and training iterations required, and the lack of online learning. Human brains are vastly superior at all 3 of those metrics. So like, how about addressing that instead of just building ever larger sandcastles filled with nvidia chips? Anyone?

Those are some of the thoughts percolating through my head. I can't really figure out what to so with them. Maybe someone else can. Please? Thank you.

I do like the nerfs in this release. Making excalibur harder to get for Valkyries is a good one, as well as nerfing the unicorn horn. The run where I ascended felt a bit too easy at times. But of course valkyrie will still be by far the easiest role, I think. I bet I'll be stuck for quite a while trying to ascend anything else.

Yes, it's true that some(specifically 18A) of the successes Intel have had since the CEO switch were essentially part of the plan under Gelsinger. But to say that nothing has changed seems simply uninformed, and that's me being charitable.

LBT has done lots of things, including securing significant investment, cutting costs, made some good deals in the DC segment, and most importantly, started making real progress(still early days though) in finding actual foundry customers willing to commit to 14A. Intel under Gelsinger was approaching its foundry business in a "build it and they will come" sort of way, hemhorrhaging huge piles of cash and merely crossing their fingers that customers would show up at this point. One of the first things LBT did as CEO was make future development of 14A contingent on finding customers for it, which is precisely ehat he's been trying to do.

This quarterly report was the first during his tenure that showed some real financial progress: the quarter was profitable when analysts expected breakeven, sequential foundry revenue grew, 18A yields are up, guidance looked good. This, to you, is practically nothing? It seems to me that going from bleeding cash at an accelerating rate, to turning a profit, is about very much something.

And again, I agree that hype is a bit overzealous right now, but arguably the fact that there's market optimism about INTC again is a huge victory on LBT's part. Because how exactly is IFS supposed to attract customers willing to make multiyear commitments to their services if the company is universally seen as a sinking ship? To state the obvious, market sentiment can make or break a public company, no matter how disconnected that sentiment is from the fundamentals.

And to say Intel has no AI strategy seems disingenuous. LBT has addressed AI strategy quite explicitly in public, and you can look it up if you want.

I'm cautiously bullish on INTC in the long term. I do expect a correction at some point, just like I would for any stock that goes up more than 20% in one day, but to me that's just market swings. The daily machinations of the stock market are like a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

And of course, the area is wide open and well covered by cameras, and usually self-checkout means paying by card or google pay or something, which will tie your identity to the purchase.

Obviously I realise the shuttle program was pretty far away from being able to head out to the Earth-Sun L2(AB, and wasn't even working towards it. But man, it would be nice to have that ability.

And Thibault iirc is the kind of person that's not terribly interested in earning lots of money. Of he wanted to, I'm sure he could make bajillions elsewhere in tech, because he's that good. But he apparently prefers to only work for a "measly" upper middle class salary and doing something he's really passionate about. And I thank him for it, because lichess is awesome.

When I think back to using computers as a kid, both at school(starting in 1999) and at home I don't think it's all that black and white wrt just playing at home vs learning useful skills at school.

At some point in the early 00s my underfunded elementary school acquired a bunch of old windows 95 computers. We would have classes where we mostly did basic touch typing, MS Office etc. At home, my middle class parents had also managed to find me some old outdated clunker. And yes, most of my time at home was spent playing games, chatting with friends on msn, pirating mp3s etc.

But I'd say I learned orders of magnitude more from my frivolous activities than from whatever we did at school. At home I was learning things like: online research(into warcraft cheat codes or quest guides for Runescape etc); software troubleshooting(having to reinstall windows because I downloaded malware on limewire or otherwise borked my install somehow); fast typing(from chatting with friends about whatever 12 year olds like to discuss. Probably 90% of my typing practice back then came at home, not at school, and there was no touch typing. I could type 100+ wpm on just 4 fingers by the time I was in middle school. Never actually learned to properly touch type until I had force myself into it 5 years ago due to RSI); English as a second language(from various forums, irc, etc, hard to avoid back then); And I believe one of my first forays into programming was trying to get a cracked game with a broken .bat installer off TPB to work. I had a friend who got into it via Morrowind modding.

Actually, come to think of it, most of computer class was also in reality spent sneakily playing flash games and/or messing around with the computer settings just to screw with the next student/teacher to use it.

Even generalising beyond computers, I think a remarkable portion of the skills and interests that end up defining us as people, can be traced back to stuff we did trying to avoid boredom as children.

To summarise though, I do think computers have a place in school. But especially at an elementary school level, I think play should be a significant portion of their use, because play is how kids explore the world and themselves.