Posts
Wiki Contributions
Comments
To go one step further, potentially any and every major decision they have played a part in needs to be reevaluated by objective third parties.
I like a lot of this post, but the sentence above seems very out of touch to me. Who are these third parties who are completely objective? Why is objective the adjective here, instead of "good judgement" or "predicted this problem at the time"?
I haven't looked into it; seems plausible it helps, but since it's a signalling molecule I'm wary of amplifying it too much.
The best known amplifier of NO in the bloodstream is viagra. My understanding is they haven't found general health effects from it, despite looking really hard and first investigating it as a treatment for heart disease.
Yeah when I was writing this part of me kept saying "but humming is so cheap, why shouldn't everyone do it all the time?", and I had to remind myself that attention is a cost. This is despite the fact that it's not cheap for me (due to trigeminal neuralgia; I'll probably stick with enovid myslf) and attention is a limiting reagent for me. The too-cheap-to-meter argument is really seductive.
I think some poly scenarios save money (although most are accessible without poly), but poly also gives you new and exciting ways to lose it (these can be replicated without poly too, but it's harder).
If you can't afford your home without everyone's income, then your housing stability is dependent on every relationship in the house. Hope everyone is chore compatible. And is in agreement on if the house allows kid. And everyone's work is near each other. And...
I've seen poly housing (and found family shared housing) go well and save money, but mostly when at least one person had a lot of financial slack (to paper over housemate losses) and no one was so badly off they can't afford to leave. If someone needs the house sharing to work, issues will fester until they become toxic.
2https://www.modestneeds.org/ will give one time cash infusions to people with capital intensive problems (like moving costs, or keeping a vehicle). I haven't looked into them in a while; a few years ago there was a requirement that the cash infusion would get recipients on a stable track, I think that might be looser now.
All of the problems you list seem harder with repeated within-person trials.
I found the gotcha: envoid has two other mechanisms of action. Someone pointed this out to me on my previous nitric oxide post, but it didn't quite sink in till I did more reading.
Can you clarify this part? The liquid is a reactive solution (and contains other ingredients) so I don't understand how you calculated it.
I agree the integral is a reasonable interpretation and appreciate you pointing it out. My guess is low frequent applications are better than infrequent high doses, but I don't know what the conversion rate is and this definitely undermines the hundred-dollar-bill case.