1500+ entries in 0.067s
artifexd: Correction: I didn't really understand a damn thing.
artifexd: Ok. I've read it. Didn't understand much at all.
artifexd: MOA means "How it works", right? Mode of Affect or something?
artifexd: Shit. No. The ads made me think I had scrolled all the way down and yet I was only halfway down the page.
artifexd: I am not clinically ocd but I have ocd tendencies and I consider them one of my strengths.
artifexd: The OCD side-effect could be useful.
artifexd: The freaky side effects are hilarious
artifexd: Then I shall hop over to crazymeds page.
artifexd: Reading the wikipedia article on Lamotrigine doesn't give me any reason to see it as useful for a normally functioning brain.
artifexd: The only things you've named since you brought up amphteracin B are weapons and electrolytes.
artifexd: That certainly narrows the search space.
artifexd: I feel similarly about modafinil. Shit made me productive for many more hours of the day than I am now.
artifexd: Faster, better, stronger, smarter?
artifexd: What does your secret sauce do (at a high abstraction level)?
artifexd: I didn't know I was looking for a secret sauce. I'm still catching up on logs.
artifexd: I always thought of calcium as "that of which bones are made", not as "that which promotes the making of bones"
artifexd: It beats being carted around in a shopping cart.
artifexd: My first interpretation is Salt and Bones.
artifexd: Medicine/biology are far from my strong points. Even if I got the words right, I likely wouldn't understand them.
artifexd: Crude way to say it, but basically brain damage. Right?
artifexd: Or were you not saying creatine is dangerous and I just misinterpreted?
artifexd: The point being that saying something is dangerous simply because too much of it is dangerous is incorrect at best and deceitful at worst.
artifexd: And dangerous exesses of water resemble death.
artifexd: Holy crap. It is taking forever to get through today's logs. It looks like today is trying to make up for a quiet weekend.
artifexd: For the record, I'm not a creatine disciple. It is just an example.
artifexd: So your saying that consuming 1kg of creatine won't provide 100 times the benefit of consuming 10g? Ok. I'll buy that. But that doesn't make taking 10g ineffective.
artifexd: Ineffectiveness in what? Via what processes?
artifexd: Creatine is a supplement. It is quite successful at what it does.
artifexd: examine.com for supplements. crazymeds.us for medicines.
artifexd: True. examine.com doesn't have adderall or prozac.
artifexd: Seems limited in what it covers
artifexd: I am unfamiliar with crazymeds.us. I shall investigate it.
artifexd: Nicotine, when separated from all the crap in cigarettes is actually a pretty powerful performance enhancing drug.
artifexd: ThickAsThieves: Mailpile is an opensource web mail app that does makes pgp encryption easier. To be really useful though, it should be run on your own server.
artifexd: I want something more push-y than pull-y
artifexd: Hey, look at that. There's even a twitter feed that I can pull from.
artifexd: Is there a feed or would I have to continually poll?
artifexd: dexX7: Did you visualize the entire wot?
artifexd: Interestingly, wrt anduck, he has a total of -69. There are 7 -10 ratings that are CLEARLY from the same person.
artifexd: mircea_popescu: When asking about the visual tool, I meant for the whole wot. Specifically to identify islands, groups, etc.
artifexd: I would argue that the fact that it exists at all encourages the improper use of the wot.
artifexd: When I said "look at the sum", I meant look at the single number which is the sum of all ratings.
artifexd: Does anyone know of any wot visualization tools? I imagine something like bubbles with names and the lines connecting those bubbles are colored/weighted according to the rating.
artifexd: Exactly. So you can't just look at the sum of the ratings and learn anything useful.
artifexd: I would see such a rating as reflecting positively on the ratee.
artifexd: Imagine you had a negative rating from mtgox with the comment "TROLL!!!!!!"
artifexd: Sometimes a negative rating would be a good thing depending on who it came from.
artifexd: cgcardona_: I wouldn't worry about total wot rating since it is a meaningless number.
artifexd: Yeah. The key does seem to be having the server doing the work not directly accessible from the internet.
artifexd: Worth it, imo. Still, it does take up a lot of time. BE AWARE! ;)
artifexd: The problem with trilema credits is the investment in time. Reading becomes a very large time investment.
artifexd: The problem with trilema credits isn't the investment in btc. That's pretty trivail.
artifexd: sekuritee by obskuritee <- ftfy
artifexd: Put that ink in your printer and make a super sekrit paper wallet.
artifexd: I'm going to tell that to my daughter right now.
artifexd: "set enforce on" becomes even more important.
artifexd: I wanted to clarify whether I was being chastised.
artifexd: Just for a short period of time. :)
artifexd: Since nick changes don't show up in the log (do they?) later on, it could look like benkay was actually in here.
artifexd: Colors was just a possible implementation. The real point was to have the gribble auth status in the logs.
artifexd: But are you authed as mircea_popescu or someone else?
artifexd: nick. This, of course, assumes trust of the person maintaining the logs.
artifexd: mircea_popescu: It was the conversations part that led me to my suggestion about adding ident information to log.bitcoin-assets.com. If you and I are talking right now, I can ensure that you are who I think you are (wot-wise). But if I'm researching you and I find some stuff that your nick said in the log. I don't know if it was you or someone with your
artifexd: kakobrekla: It would be awesome if logs.bitcoin-assets.com could indicate if the person making a statement was authed with nickserv and/or ident with gribble at the time he/she made the statement. Like color coding the log entry or something.
artifexd: mircea_popescu is saying that if I were to see both ratings I would have a view of what happened such that I wouldn't need to ask anything about it, but, if I ignored one of the ratings, I would have a different view of what happened such that I would need to investigate more and thus possibly expose a falsified event?
artifexd: <kakobrekla> So now each of them herps derps legit things. You see half of it. <- That now reads as they both make legitimate ratings but "you" only pays attention to one of the ratings.
artifexd: <kakobrekla> Ok, lets assume a simple case, with s1 and s2 which are both legit. <- If we go with s and n as malicious/legit modifiers, how can s1 and s2 be legit?
artifexd: With that in mind, re-reading...