It doesn't recognize Tor Browser as such, but in this case calling its anti-fingerprinting user agent a "desperate lack of personality" happens to be more a compliment than a roast!
On the other hand, it's disappointed that the browser claims to only have two cores and uses a resolution "from 2009".
More backstory: The ID assigned to posts is a sequential incrementing number. So it is possible to "aim" for a nice round number by posting at the right time
When people notice that their post IDs start approaching a large whole number, a bunch of people might try to get ("GET") the post with ID, say, 2000000 by timing it
It's not really a marker of anything, just a semi-random event that people have fun with. It's sort of... tolerated, as long as it's infrequent and doesn't cause too much noise
People calling each other "autists" is a WallStreetBets practice, from Reddit. It's not a thing on 4chan, not even on the interesting place that is /biz/.
4channers would use the "friend"-word as a neutral term (oldfriends, newfriends, etc), or less often "schizo" as an insult, but not autist.
Don't ask me why I'm taking the time to type all of this out, or who cares. Slow news day.
The first time I came across the use of “autist” as a semipejorative term of endearment was on IRC in the late 1990s warez scene, around the same time as the concept of neurodivergence was gaining traction.
I suspect the term has deeper roots than most people realize.
I remember it being used as a synonym for “obsessed perhaps a bit too much” even in the 90s, probably from the idea that if you had autism you would be amazingly brilliant in some tiny subsection of knowledge, like LEGO manufacturing differences.
I had heard that there's a community of people who insufflate caffeine on Reddit, but this one is news to me.
Seems a little funny to go through all the trouble and extreme stigma of injecting yourself with an IV drug, only to pick ground up coffee beans as your poison of choice (!)
The study is interesting mostly for the fact that someone tried it, but ultimately the results don't show a very strong effect. I wouldn't put too much confidence in how well it would replicate either, these kind of studies can have a lot of variation.
>Every drug seems to have a “right” way to take it. You [...] booty bump ecstasy
That is not really typical. People normally eat it as ecstasy pills, or as MDMA powder.
Most recreational drugs can be taken rectally, that usually makes for a higher bio-availability and a faster peak plasma concentration. Some people do that a lot, with everything. It is not specific to ecstasy, that I know of.
Nearly any drug (modulo those that have very specific contraindications for it, like codeine) that can be taken rectally can be IVed too. Back when I was still an active heroin addict, I would IV MDMA if I was going out for the night. It’s incredibly intense, more intense than most other drugs when administered that way. bk-MDMA was superior to even MDMA itself when IVed, as well.
Belladonna and Opium (B&O) suppositories are one of the best things that I've discovered. They were very reluctant to write me a prescription for them but they were life changing last time I had to pass a stone. Dunno what would happen if I asked for one outright... when I tell them dilaudid doesn't do much for me I get treated very skeptically.
> Dunno what would happen if I asked for one outright...
Nowadays unless you're over 65 you'd be labelled with "drug seeking behavior" (in your records) and sent home with nothing and a "come to the hospital when you pass your stone." Forget the fact that the difference between drug-seeking behavior and legitimately needing something stronger is indistinguishable, and forget the fact that it will cost thousands upon thousands of dollars for you to do it in hospital. Thank God they're keeping you safe from the evil Sacklers
I had a staph infection on my balls when I was recovering from cancer. My normal doctor was busy so I went to urgent care, with blood dripping down my leg. It was the first time I ever asked for pain killers. I was prescribed acetaminophen.
I understand that addiction is a big problem, but this was a male doctor looking at a whole in my testicles, and telling me he can't give me painkillers
My wife had some core muscles in her back collapse. Think unable to walk and could only crawl with me holding her hips up. When she went to the primary doc, he thought it was drug seeking behavior. When she went to the ER they luckily decided that she was serious and gave her the most powerful muscle relaxant available - Valium. She had no idea, but it it saved her life.
I see several issues here, but I think it is extremely important that no one leaves thinking Valium is the most powerful muscle relaxant available. Valium is a centrally acting muscle relaxant, among others. It is very difficult to kill someone with an overdose, mostly interactions with other drugs.
The best muscle relaxant / antispasmodic depends on the patient and the situation. Valium is a safe indication from someone not dealing with those medications, as a temporary measure.
All benzodiazepines (including valium - diazepam) create dependence.
It's possible the ER doc meant most powerful that he could legally prescribe given the clinical presentation; or perhaps he was just saying that because you don't give someone medication and say "well, you just got a basic painkiller, it's near the end of the its use-by, maybe it'll work", you say "We're giving you the best". It's the placebo effect, albeit with a medication that should work regardless.
What I meant is that she had a serious muscle spasm which caused any attempt to use the muscle to leave her in agony. Since the muscle in question was in the lower back and is used for everything to do with balance, this left her bedridden.
Its interesting because its a very specific, recent, and almost uniquely American religious concept, that's written into virtually every aspect of our culture.
That is, it seems like nowhere else has the idea of purification through suffering really taken hold at such a widespread level for so long. I'd argue its because its just the flipside of the Prosperity Gospel. If you assume that one's physical conditions are a reflection of one's spiritual choices, then your first move when someone says "I'm in pain, please help me with my pain" is to ask "What have you done to deserve this pain? I won't remove God-given pain; if you deserve it, it would be a sin to do so", instead of "Here's something to make the pain manageable while we figure out how to remove the source of the pain".
> I'd argue its because its just the flipside of the Prosperity Gospel.
I loathe the prosperity gospel too, and never miss a chance to blame its preachers where I can. But in this case I think glorification of suffering can’t be blamed on them because suffering was also fetishized by mother Teresa.
It does seem to be a uniquely American problem though.
I don't disagree that others outside of the US have taken up the cause of the holiness of suffering. I'm arguing that only the US has taken it and injected it into every aspect of our culture, because we have taken the Prosperity Gospel and injected it into every aspect of our culture.
Scratchy robes for monks in certain orders has long been a thing all over the world. But successfully banning comfortable clothing for all, regardless of religiosity, is really more of an American thing.
I agree it's terrible and very American, but I don't think it's recent. There's a good bit in this Backstory podcast where they talk about how part of the shift to sleeping straight through the night (as opposed to the previous behavior of first and second sleep) was partly driven by puritan busybodies (from the temperance movement, I think?) who thought that it was virtuous to sleep a bare minimum or less: https://backstoryradio.org/shows/on-the-clock-4/
I also recall reading of Calvinists who came to American in the mid-1800s to be free of such things as vaccines and insurance, because they thought those things interfered with God's plan. A plan, apparently, wherein a lot of people suffered while others stood around and quietly gloated that they were god's favorites.
Yeah. This overcorrection happened in my country too. We saw what happened in the US and the result was doctors became more afraid of prescribing opioids even when in cases of acute pain where it's warranted. Fear of causing harm to patients due to risk of drug dependence.
And yet benzodiazepines are taken by vast amounts of people as if it was water.
Go look at opioid prescriptions by country. Europe is way lower than the US. Plenty of anecdotes about how hard it is to get opioid prescriptions in Europe.
I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just it's lower than the US, yet less religious, which pretty much blows up OP's thesis.
But you said "pain medication", many forms of which are sold OTC in Europe just like basically everywhere else. Now that you've narrowed it to "opioids", sure...
Not everyone is easy to start an IV on, especially if it's hard for them to hold still (like if they're in so much pain that they're considering between IV drugs or a suppository).
I guess I misspoke a bit in the original comment. Yea - in the hospital, they’ll just inject if possible; however, if a doctor is writing a prescription and you’re offered pills vs a suppository, take the suppository.
> I had heard that there's a community of people who insufflate caffeine on Reddit
I'm curious if it even absorbs well via the sinuses. From experience with powdered caffeine (mixing with shampoo as a folk treatment for hair loss), it doesn't readily dissolve at room temperature water, though of course it dissolves just fine in hot water, which is why the standard quick extraction from coffee beans involves hot water (cold brew by contrast, involves long periods of steeping for a result that still has less caffeine)
Caffeine is only "sparingly" soluble in water (as opposed to "freely" soluble in boiling water).
Chemists have wonderful words to quantify the exact degree of solubility under various conditions: "sparingly soluble" means it generally takes 30-100ml of solvent to dissolve 1g of the material in question.
So, if you're hip to the quantity of caffeine in your beans (by, perhaps, grinding and boiling 100g and then analytically extracting the mass of relatively pure caffeine with something like DCM, followed by recrystallization in water maybe), you can figure out how much caffeine will be present in your cold brew based on the quantity of solvent.
> all the trouble and extreme stigma of injecting yourself
IM and subQ is surprisingly not much trouble, as long as you have a relatively pure dissolvable compound and safe solvent (various oils or bacteriostatic water) it takes like 2 minutes and $1.50 in supplies (a $0.25 syringe, two $0.25 needles, and a $1 PVDF/PETF 0.22um syringe filter). Not much more hassle than at-home insulin or TRT injections.
But definitely a huge stigma, and often the pharmacokinetics of IM/subQ administration aren't desirable for many drugs.
What? You must be confounding route of administration with safety. Sure, oral administration is technically the safest because of first pass metabolism, but the choice of drug is a MUCH bigger safety factor. Snorting caffeine is much safer than snorting cocaine by every metric.
Milligram for milligram the pharmaceutical difference is mainly limited to the local anaesthetic effect not present in the caffeine.
Administration is just how you can figure it out for yourself at similar doses.
Go ahead and consume a gram or two of caffeine by any means and compare the stress on the heart and other organs, as well as personality.
Just because it's cheap, legal, and easily available doesn't mean it's safer by comparison.
Also since cocaine users generally consume recreational overdoses doesn't make either one any safer at any dose.
Plus think how many more addicts there are even at much less harmful doses.
Why do you think some of these hard-core caffeine addicts are injecting it anyway, plus handling it as well as they do. Definitely not recommended for anyone who hasn't already built up the tolerance addicts are known for.
Clean living pays off.
To go even more extreme, imagine if there were a nuclear war because somebody who was a little overly nervous pushed "the button".
What drug do you think would be detected if put to the test?
I did a volumetric dilution of desoxyn crystals, in an attempt to find some alternative tool to manage my ADHD, as a complement to the very limited solutions available in my country.
The scary thing about desoxyn is that it's thoroughly unregulated, so you have to watch for impurities or contamination. Especially scary would be fentanyl hotspots, which can happen if the chemical was improperly handled during packaging.
It's a very scary thing to be attempting, and I've actually had the experiment sitting for several months in my kitchen without touching it, due to how slightly alarming the whole prospect is, but my natural curiosity and engineering instinct tends to win in the end, when I feel sufficiently prepared.
So far I've slowly ramped up to a 40mg dose of oral metamphetamine and I'm still not consciously feeling anything that couldn't be attributed to placebo, so I'm starting to consider scraping the current batch, sending it to a lab for an expensive analysis, and potentially trying again a few months from now, if I have the energy for it.
It's a pretty slow-going project since I have to prepare for 12h of potential effects of each dose, and ramp up slowly due to uncertain purity, but the potential payoff of not having horrible executive dysfunction is pretty interesting.
I was told recently by a person doing addiction outreach that the biggest spike in overdose deaths he sees is from methamphetamine being spiked with fentanyl.
Not going to judge the plan, but please make sure to have a Narcan (naloxone) nearby, familiarize yourself with its use and do the same for any friends/family/neighbors that might be in near proximity of you. If you can’t afford it there are organizations that can provide you one for free or lower cost.
Thank you, I appreciate particularly all attempts at harm reduction, that's very thoughtful and kind of you.
Narcan (naloxone) is a wonderful thing, that I wish was more broadly available. I would still worry that sometimes people are not able to self-administer Narcan, so in addition fentanyl test strips are a very good idea to also have. They're a little false-positive heavy, but that seems better than the alternative.
what do you mean unregulated desoxyn? Desoxyn is a brand name. Are you talking about street meth? If yes, then 1. those are usually cut and much weaker so dosage needs to be higher, however 2. You can at least do a quick acetone wash it to remove a lot of impurities which will also make it stronger per mg and both be less cut and closer dosage-wise.
You're right. I use it as a euphemism, I think because the stigma is so strong even I feel uncomfortable writing it. It is in fact mail-order "street" metamphetamine from an online reseller.
My understanding is that the production of metamphetamine has increased in quality over time, so that it should be possible to get something reasonably potent with a little trial and error. The idea is to optimize both on cost and size, because if it turns out to be viable as a tool, having to order smaller packages less frequently should contribute to reducing risks.
On point 2, I'm aware of the acetone wash, I think that's definitely worth doing (though it can't wash every impurity). I haven't attempted it yet due to fire safety concerns, and because I see it more as an optimization I can make down the line, if this whole insane experiment turns out to be practically viable as a potential tool in my toolbox.
The production has increased but as far as I know it's fairly easy to make so there's a ton of small mediocre operations making it and also there's always incentives to make it weigh more for cheap.
Is that a rhetorical question? The fact they're trying it indicates the answer is yes!
On a serious note, I'd just like to emphasize how debilitating this condition can be. You can know what you want, know what you need to do to get it, and simply be unable to get going (or keep going), for months, for years... and the only thing you hear from others is how lazy you are and need to work harder.
As a ground-level example, you can have a task on your mind all day, to the point where you can't relax or do anything else productive, but still get nowhere with it.
I had some (limited) success with microdosing LSD, which I tried because I do not tolerate stimulants well. At its peak effectiveness, it became literally impossible to procrastinate because I would just be consciously, excruciatingly aware of trying to avoid a task. The only way to get it off my mind would be to deal with it.
So for a time it was extremely effective for me. Also some nice bonuses were it made me much more friendly and social, and fond of physical exercise.
I stopped for various reasons including the legality, availability, difficulty of dosing correctly, and also it woke me up to some things happening in the world that are very unpleasant to be thinking about on a regular basis. I rather went back to my usual half-asleep state of mind.
>As a ground-level example, you can have a task on your mind all day, to the point where you can't relax or do anything else productive, but still get nowhere with it.
>I had some (limited) success with microdosing LSD, which I tried because I do not tolerate stimulants well. At its peak effectiveness, it became literally impossible to procrastinate because I would just be consciously, excruciatingly aware of trying to avoid a task. The only way to get it off my mind would be to deal with it.
This almost exactly matches my experience. I relate completely. A few months ago I spent about 6 hours trying and failing to do some basic everyday life task.
As a last resort, in the evening, I took a small threshold amount of a psychedelic. I knew full trips in the past had filled me with determination, so I wanted to see where the lower bound was. Can a smaller push than a full trip get me past the barrier? It did work in the end, but only after a few more hours of trying and 964 lines of notes on why exactly it is that I'm not doing the very thing I want to be doing right now.
For me, psychedelics get me in an emotional mindset where I start caring and being a lot more emotionally involved than normal, eventually filling me with enough emotional determination to can overcome almost any mental barrier. The only problem being that some tasks can't very well be done when you're far from sober, it's not a very functional tool above light doses.
And unfortunately using it like that feels way too much like an unhealthy dependency to me. I could never accept using it as anything more than as a last resort, because psychedelics have so many side effects and changes in perception. If I started depending on tripping to do anything hard, I feel like that would be an addiction, and surrendering a small part of myself to replace it by a chemical.
I'm trying to explore other potential solutions that would work better for infrequent to semi-frequent use, even if I know I can always as a hail mary resort to psychedelics, and if nothing else worked that should get me to guilt trip myself into having the determination to attempt anything that needs doing.
I don't know. I can relate to not wanting to be dependent on external factors or substances. But you wouldn't say the same thing to a diabetic who needs insulin, right?.
(Then again, some forms of diabetes can be "cured" (removing the need for external insulin) by a ketogenic diet. Then again you could say the diet is also an "external factor"...)
There seems to be this cultural issue around mental health problems, this stigma associated with them. You wouldn't tell someone in a wheelchair they just need to try harder to get up
the stairs! But with brains that's basically what most people say.
On the other hand, neuroplasticity is real and it is amazing. The Woman Who Changed Her Brain is a great book on this subject. A lot of people get attached to a label that describes their current limitations and keep themselves in that box forever.
I was able to significantly increase my Conscientiousness (organization and work ethic) by consciously transforming my self-image. (ADHD can be very loosely defined as a pathologically low level of conscientiousness.)
This worked surprisingly well but it did require a constant level of effort to keep up the act, because I wad quite literally using my acting skills to be a person without ADHD. Same hardware, different software!
>But you wouldn't say the same thing to a diabetic who needs insulin, right?.
Yes, that's where I'm conflicted. At the same time that I try to pretend using psychedelics for ADHD would be an addiction, I'm actively seeking metamphetamine instead. Which doesn't exactly have a reputation as a non-addictive healthy substance to be self-medicating with.. I can see the idea that medication is medication and shouldn't be stigmatized.
Still, I think I feel that way because I can make a reasonable point about side-effects and how much therapeutic benefit I get vs impairment, in my personal experience. LSD is pretty effective, but for me (and this might not generalize) it works best when it's a full introspective trip where I'm going to have amplified emotions. Which is also where I'm most impaired and least able to interact with the rest of the world. If I compare that with the effects of stimulants for ADHD, at least in expectations they seem like a much more functional thing to be on, on a frequent or even daily basis.
Though I admit if microdosing works for some people, then that seems potentially just as good a medication, too.
>There seems to be this cultural issue around mental health problems, this stigma associated with them. You wouldn't tell someone in a wheelchair they just need to try harder to get up the stairs! But with brains that's basically what most people say.
For a long time I used to have had some strong bias against using any external help, instead just trying harder or trying to better myself through sheer force of will. I instinctively never liked the idea of depending on any medication, like it was a crutch. I was wrong, but I think there's still a bit of that instinct resisting treatment. You're completely right about the stigma existing, too.
I'll have to read The Woman Who Changed Her Brain. I've found one sort of mental trick that helps me get things done, but it's about getting into a mindspace where I have to admit to myself that procrastinating is wrong/makes no sense, until that forces me reject the wrongness out of a weird childish sense of right and wrong manifesting as determination. Probably no one else can relate to that part :) It borders on guilt-tripping or emotionally manipulating myself, and I'm only half happy with exploring that idea further.
Trying to transform your self-image sounds like a whole other thing, that's a really interesting idea! I feel like a small part of me would hate that, because that feels dangerously close to 'lying' to myself (which my childish intuitive sense of right and wrong frowns upon pretty strongly). But on the other hand I can absolutely see how that'd be effective. Self image is a powerful thing, and there's something about the mindset I'm in that completely changes how much difficulty I'll have starting things.
I'll definitely try to apply that idea, of acting like someone who might think differently and see themselves differently. I feel like I've spend many hours circling the problem, but I still haven't found some effective way of getting from a mindset where I'm facing strong mental barriers to a mindset where things are easier. But I have all the time in the world to try, so, thank you for sharing that idea =)
So the way I did the self-image thing was, a bit of context first, I had been exploring this idea of infinite parallel universes and timelines. So every time you make a choice, you create two universes, two new life paths based on which choice you made. So there's also infinite parallel versions of you, each one having the personality and character shaped by the sum of their decisions (values) and experiences.
So after I did a personality test and realized that my repeated failures in life were likely the result of my 0th percentile ( ! ) conscientiousness (which the test humorously explained as "if you were one of 100 people in a room, 99 people would be more conscientious than you") I decided I either had to do something about it, or continue to suffer stupidly.
So I decided I would become conscientious through sheer force of will. But I realized that my entire identity was holding myself back. It felt like "not me" to act hardworking and well-organized, because I had become attached to the idea of not being that way. I'd be pretending to be "someone else".
So using this "parallel universe" version of me, that is highly conscientious, was a loophole. I imagined that our timelines were coming closer together until they merged and we became the same person. (I later learned that visualizing an ideal form (eg. a deity) and merging with it (to absorb its qualities) is used in the tantra tradition!)
From then on it still took constant conscious effort (in fact, that "constant vigilance" is actually a big part of conscientiousness--you don't let anything slip under the radar) but it was much easier after that powerful intention and visualization.
That's mostly a myth, it's not very well absorbed through the skin at all.
For a thumbprint, you still put your thumb on your tongue and lick it. But it's important to keep in mind that only very rarely have people actually done thumbprints. Those are mostly stories, legends, and artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take them as fact.
From LSD - My Problem Child, pt. "Discovery of the Psychic Effects of LSD":
"Nevertheless, in the spring of 1943, I repeated the synthesis of LSD-25. As in the first synthesis, this involved the production of only a few centigrams of the compound."
"In the final step of the synthesis, during the purification and crystallization of lysergic
acid diethylamide in the form of a tartrate (tartaric acid salt), I was interrupted in my
work by unusual sensations."
...
"But this led to another question: how had I managed to absorb this material? Because of the known toxicity of ergot substances, I always maintained meticulously neat work habits. Possibly a bit of the LSD solution had contacted my fingertips during crystallization, and a trace of the substance was absorbed through the skin. If LSD-25 had indeed been the cause of this bizarre experience, then it must be a substance of extraordinary potency."
so Hoffman doesn't actually know how he absorbed it
>Possibly a bit of the LSD solution had contacted my fingertips during crystallization, and a trace of the substance was absorbed through the skin.
that's a possibly, I suppose if that possibly exists then possibly some got on object X and then after leaving lab object X came in contact with his mouth or even nose when he touched his face.
idk, the rainbow family (lsd distribution network) requiring inductees to take a thumbprint to test that they aren't cops and see if they can handle the inevitable accidental dosing that can occur when laying blotter makes a lot of sense to me.
I wouldn't assert that it's 'fact' but seems very plausible. (A full 'thumbprint' is probably uncommon, but ingesting a visible amount of crystal from a fingertip seems believable)
Oh it's very well absorbed through the skin, and not a myth at all, and can be easily searched many places online.
We would routinely put this to the test.
Not only is it absorbed through the skin, but it takes longer to start and end the trip. We would do it on purpose for a longer/more intense trip if we were say camping for the weekend.
You would solely take LSD by putting it on unbroken skin? Multiple LSD chemists have confirmed this is a myth.
An esteemed underground LSD chemist arrested in '05, Donnie Shackelford, is quoted in an unfinished book on black market LSD production by Tim Scully. Here's an excerpt from the interview.
>Tim Scully said, "Did you ever get dosed through your skin in the lab". Donnie Shackelford replied, "No, I have accidentally dosed myself while laying sheets, I either touched my eye, or mouth. But the answer to your question is no, you cannot be dosed through the skin. I never wore gloves in any procedure unless lye is used and it isn’t in this procedure. I learned the hard way dropping a flask with 20g of LSD in it. I was extremely upset. I’ve had it all over my hands many, many times. I was there when Dr. Nichols basically called bullshit on the good doctor at Mindstates 60th anniversary".
>"Another fact: I've made LSD in my lab on many occasions for research purposes, possibly in not so meticulous a manner as Albert Hofmann. Nothing ever happened. I had several graduate students who made LSD as an intermediate for projects. No accidental ingestion of LSD ever occurred. A technician in my lab makes it routinely because we use it as a drug to train our rats. He's learned by experience that he never gets high, nothing ever happens. And yesterday I was talking to Nick Sand, and Nick said, "I made a solution of LSD in DMSO…" -- DMSO (dimethyl sulfoxide) is a chemical that greatly enhances absorption of other chemicals through the skin -- he says, "…I painted it on my skin. Nothing happened." A concentrated solution and nothing happened!"
A kilogram is a lot, considering LSD is active at microgram doses, although in practice there are labs producing and handling kilograms of it.
LSD in powder form is readily available on the black market. Expensive (because you don't just go and ask to buy only 1mg of LSD powder), but not exceptionally unsafe or rare.
Now the people who handle Fentanyl and Fentanyl analogues, those probably want to triple check their gloves and mask before putting them on.
> in practice there are labs producing and handling kilograms of it.
Really? I doubt it. 1kg is about 10 million doses (@100ug each). I don't think there are enough people gobbling acid for there to be labs producing on that scale per batch. The cost of making a mistake with a batch that big would be quite high.
Do you think they actually have that in stock, and if they've ever fulfilled a 1kg order? I don't mean that facetiously, but I am skeptical that it's just a marketing stunt!
I am not gonna name drop anyone, but there is one reputable seller that is online for 10+ years and is resold in all colours on all popular platforms. If they announce that bulk stock is available and shortly after the announcement it's sold out. It's either really smart marketing or just the reality of how big the market actually is :) However 1g Gramm is available too, maybe it's more like 1000 people buying 1g?
Edit:// having more acid than you could ever need is somewhat a novelty in this scene
Very amazing. I wonder if you're talking about a clearnet analogue vendor or a darknet one.. regardless it brings me joy to consider that there are multi 1kg stashes around the planet and that the well will likely not run dry in any foreseeable future.
Some of my friends grand parents still have a bottle sandoz LSD around from back then when Hoffmann shared the love aggressively.
IMO it's wonderful to know that this substance won't disappear anytime soon.
It's a darknet vendor btw and their name contains small mythical creatures. No personal experience with them, but I know their product and have a morbid interest for the market :)
I think OP didn't mean that you can absorb fentanyl through the skin but rather that you'd have trace amounts of fentanyl (or even the more powerful analogues such as carfentanyl) on your hands and then touch your mouth or eyes. That can certainly kill you.
A lot of people in or around tech are furries, are into things like japanese animation, or are into My Little Pony. I don't consider myself one, but people often jokingly say that furries run the Internet.
And it's not really specific to HN. For instance you have well-known people in the community who do vaccine R&D, or cryptography, or contribute to the C/C++ standards at ISO, or several other STEM things that are pretty outspoken about their interests.
This is made more obvious on Twitter, where people tend to blur their personal and work identities a lot.
Opioids should require a reasonable bar, if we go from a really low bar to a really high bar, all we are doing is making the same mistake twice, but in opposite directions.
The wildly excessive prescription of oxycontin & opioid is a crisis and a tragedy. If the response is an overreaction in the opposite direction, the result is also more tragedies.
Pain doctors seem like they are really stuck between a rock and a hard place now. You have a whole population of patients who have been given pain meds like candy, and when you suddenly take them away they're left dealing with the problem. Some of them turn to street drugs out of desperation, and that's a countdown to another fentanyl overdose.
Then there's people with chronic pain who may legitimately need the medication on a continued basis (some of whom have had their dosage increase to dizzying levels during the opioid crisis!) You frequently have patients with chronic pain who, after the pills are taking away, spend their time thinking of ways of killing themselves, as a pain management option. They cannot deal with the all-natural, constant torture.
When I look at the opioid epidemic, to me it's really hard not to think that the onus should be on pharmaceutical companies to not advertise their pain medication to doctors as non-habit forming when they are the very opposite, and results in those extremely addictive pills being given like candy to an entire population.
On the other hand, it's disappointed that the browser claims to only have two cores and uses a resolution "from 2009".
reply