51–60 of 171 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
long term implications of a living human being is death. the live human being will create pollution, will kill a couple of ants, might become a murder, a liar. Life is risky.
It's unnecessarily more risky when you do stupid things. You can't use a little risk to justify arbitrarily more risk, you have to make an argument based on the value produced.
This is an interesting article for HN. It's spun as a negative, using terms like "threatening", "monopoly", "controversial", and "retribution". You could write it the other way, where an immigrant-founded[1] startup is disrupting the mental health industry. Frankly, most of this seems like par for the course. Of course the company is seeking to push their product to market and commercial viability--and the potential…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this isn’t an addictive substance. Edit: the OP removed statement about addiction
I removed the addictive part. This substance can have dangerous side-effects and bring you to the hospital, so it doesn't need to be addictive to hurt yourself.
What of drinking alcohol? Eating too much food? Riding a bike without a helmet? Taking an antidepressant with known potentially dangerous side effects? Going outside without a jumpsuit made out of Nerf foam? At what point do you get to live your life for yourself instead of avoiding doing things you think others might not want you to do?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I found your article very interesting. Thank you very much. One question I had is what and how COMPASS obtained their IP. Surely “distillation” of the psychoactive substance is widely known? It would be a bit like me trying to patent pancake mixture.
You're right - so Compass the for-profit has only filed an application for patent. But it's likely they're trying to patent a method of manufacturing the compound, rather than the compound itself (which, as you say, is publicly know.) As for the IP owned by Compass the non-profit, they didn't respond to comments on what that is, so it's not clear what exactly it entails.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's unnecessarily more risky when you do stupid things. You can't use a little risk to justify arbitrarily more risk, you have to make an argument based on the value produced.
The substance of interest is psychedelics. According to what we know, they are pretty safe. Additionally, it is most definitely not "unnecessarily". Introspection, personal growth, and so on is not "unnecessary" to me and to many people. If it is to you, that is fine by me. Not sure what you are referring to by "stupid things" though.
if they're trying to monopolize psilocybin, they probably should have chosen something that isn't replicable by a teenager with access to a pressure cooker and a pasture
This is an interesting article for HN. It's spun as a negative, using terms like "threatening", "monopoly", "controversial", and "retribution". You could write it the other way, where an immigrant-founded[1] startup is disrupting the mental health industry. Frankly, most of this seems like par for the course. Of course the company is seeking to push their product to market and commercial viability--and the potential…
Is it a good or bad thing that it is immigrant-founded?
This is an interesting article for HN. It's spun as a negative, using terms like "threatening", "monopoly", "controversial", and "retribution". You could write it the other way, where an immigrant-founded[1] startup is disrupting the mental health industry. Frankly, most of this seems like par for the course. Of course the company is seeking to push their product to market and commercial viability--and the potential…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are the downsides of legalizing Psilocybin and/or using it for treating depression?
At the moment, there's nowhere near enough research yet to know the potential downsides of using psilocybin to treat depression. So far, there's only been one study with 19 participants and no control group. It could be hugely successful or, as with any drug, it could come with possible side effects.
This is an interesting article for HN. It's spun as a negative, using terms like "threatening", "monopoly", "controversial", and "retribution". You could write it the other way, where an immigrant-founded[1] startup is disrupting the mental health industry. Frankly, most of this seems like par for the course. Of course the company is seeking to push their product to market and commercial viability--and the potential…
It's becoming so tiresome to filter it. Maybe people should try hard to write a factual and forthright account of what they're talking about and then have a note at the end saying "I'm a granola-faith healer, and I think the above is a good idea" or "I'm an old-school conservative lung surgeon, and I hope that you too conclude that this is bullshit".