The farm bill makes 'hemp' anything with below 0.3% THC legal. For this reason, we have a LOT of testing on the THC content of cannabis, since it is required to sell and manufacture. As it turns out, naturally cannabis quite commonly has >0.3% THC even before heating or activation of THCa.
Any human-like animal with our receptors eating a large amount would get high as fuck, cooked or not. A ruminant eating pounds of the stuff raw, would not be that different from a human consuming an ounce of baked pot.
Learn to be a roofer, make bank (I paid my ~"uneducated" roofer like $5k for labor alone for ~48 hours of labor), buy rural Indiana land, build your own private observatory, enjoy doing your own research without the crushing burden of the academic grinder.
Astronomy is one of those fields where amateurs make new discoveries quite frequently.
You can't do private research because most astronomy is really data- and compute-heavy astrophysics. Optical searches are fun and everyone loves new comets, but comet hunting isn't academic science.
Interestingly, when hunting on a computer or some new celestial object gets "hunted" by university astronomers, they call it "research" and don't smugly dismiss it as just some fun that can safely be gatekept from being called astronomy.
As always, when working outside the system, it should be expected that semantics will be used against you, but if it's your interest, it needn't stop you nor need care about such unpersuasive arguments.
Because that's the hard part. Any asshole can discover something new, that alone doesn't mean much. Rosalind Franklin discovered the structure of DNA, but that was the easy part and didn't even barely merit her being credited-- the hard part is being proximal or in the nexus of power and being able to get the views and looks onward to the world.
There are a gazillions of children capable of discovering things. What's important is to be the child with the social proof to get it published or actually keep the credit. That's highly valuable because having powerful friends/family is what helps fund, support, and continue research. A nobody can safely be discarded, rob the credit, then use the powerful to keep funding your friends -- in fact this might be even better for "science."
The whole point of getting a PhD is to rub robes with the upper crust, get the contacts, perform the slave labor for the powerful, and become enrobed with the social proofs. If you just want to discover things, you don't need academic credentials, but you can sleep soundly knowing the information will get out there you just have to give it to someone credentialed to take the credit.
Rosalind Franklins contrabutions are vastly overestimated in an effort to “correct the record”. Her data was very valuable, but she didnt make the insights.
Pasadena school district spends $28K / student for their total $390M expenditures across ~14k students in 2023-2024 school year. I would bet dollars to doughnuts it's $30k+ per high school student since they are more expensive.
I would certainly believe this could be the case for this or the kind of science work that would be good for an application. Including this field.
There are of course probably fields where there is ~no grant money, thus barely any research. Einstein noted we only know .001% of what there is to note of the universe, and even then he was probably embellishing in the favor of knowledge.
I would also expect by the time you are a postdoc you are totally indoctrinated in your field in a way a high school student would not be. Standing on the shoulder of giants might not always be an advantage, if the giants have been whispering in your ear what to look at, whispering in your ear what they think is true, whispering in your ear what they think reality is, and all your fellows have been listening to whispers from similar giants.
If you look at a tiger, for instance, they sleep 16 hours a day (or a closer animal, take a look at the night monkey). I realize a human isn't as powerful or have the same needs as a tiger, but I don't see why a (pre-historic) humans have to work that much harder than a tiger merely to eat and reproduce and live long enough that enough survive to do that. A human can work smarter than a tiger, after all... surely we can "chill" as many hours a day as the tiger can.
> but I don't see why a (pre-historic) humans have to work that much harder than a tiger merely to eat and reproduce and live long enough that enough survive to do that.
This is a baffling comparison.
A tiger can sleep outside wherever it wants. It has fur to stay warm. Its offspring are up and running quickly on their own. A tiger can chase down animals and eat them immediately, raw. A tiger can drink water from a stream without getting infections.
The list goes on and on and on. If you think it’s trivial to live off the land and find your own food and shelter, why do you suppose people aren’t doing it?
Have you ever seen videos or documentaries about people who live in the middle of nowhere in self sufficient manners? They’re not having a great time. It’s hard work. Their health declines and they suffer. Their clothes are tattered. They still use a lot of cast-offs and tools and other things that they can find or acquire from society.
There are a ton of studies showing many tribal subsistence societies worked a little less than a tiger[]. Here's one, but they've been trotted out lots of times.
As for meat, yeah I've eaten lots of raw meat and seafood. Even better if you immediately caught it. Not a lot more work though if one tribal member makes a fire, catching it is more intensive than throwing some meat on some hot rocks to char the outside. There are also a lot of places/climates on the earth where you can survive without a shelter that costs more than a very small fraction of your total time to maintain and build, this is where many of the tribes ended up.
Regarding the young, cubs stay with their mothers for 2-3 years or about 20% the life of a tiger. Tribal kids stayed glued as strongly dependent on their parents until they were closer to 12, so a little bit longer than 20% of the lifespan of someone who has already survived long enough to mother/father a child (life expectancy was low in tribal times, but much larger expected lifespan by the time you reach the age of reproduction). A win for the tiger, but not by a longshot.
>A tiger can drink water from a stream without getting infections.
Nah the tiger can also get infections.
I think you're conflating the fact you wouldn't find it fun, with the idea that they were working that much harder than industrial societies. Industrial societies get more for their work, but due to the economies it actually might cost you even more time to get to a relatively self supporting subsistence level in some industrial societies since you would get arrested for being homeless, get arrested or kicked out for building a hut on your own land (you must spend a gazillion dollars on an up to code and permitted house), you'd get arrested for most forms of hunting, you'd have to pay to pick most wild growing fruits, etc etc.
Overall the tiger provides a pretty useful comparison of time spent working, although the tiger (or night monkey, again if you prefer a closer animal) does appear to have worked slightly more depending on which study you go by.
They were overwhelmingly overpowered by those who took advantage of the fact they didn't have black powder, rifles, or western ships.
A few who managed to evade this past WWII took advantage of the fact everyone was desperate to freeze things in place to avoid nuclear war, those are the fortunate few who are locked into place for the indefinite future.
Of course there's also the heart of Africa, with no great navigable waterways or geography to trade to europe, north america, or asia, no one gives much a shit what they do.
------------- re due to throttling -------
>I don't think happened because of evolutionary pressure on tribes as the previous poster claimed.
Not a necessary precondition, it can happen through cultural pressure (also something passed down by the generations in tribes). I don't recall previous poster requiring it happen through gene expression.
I don't think happened because of evolutionary pressure on tribes as the previous poster claimed. Certainly that's not clear from the evidence. The human genotype was pretty well set by the time all that was happening, which means whatever evolutionary basis exists for "the problem of evil" had already acted, including on all the people living easy (or at least manageable) subsistence lifestyles for centuries previously.
> Not a necessary precondition, it can happen through cultural pressure (also something passed down by the generations in tribes). I don't recall previous poster requiring it happen through gene expression.
I feel it was implied in the vision of competing tribes, which hasn't really been how it works for a long time. But still, whatever the trait transmission mechanism, I don't think the supposed complete out-competing of non-conquest-oriented groups necessary for their hypothesis actually happened at scale. Humans content to "chill out" have persisted for all of recorded history.
> Of course there's also the heart of Africa, with no great navigable waterways or geography to trade to europe, north america, or asia, no one gives much a shit what they do.
If this is your standard for a relaxing “chilled out” lifestyle then I’m afraid you’d be deeply disappointed if you saw the realities of living like this. In many places simply maintaining a consistent supply of food and drinkable water is nearly a full time job, and that’s with the various contentions of aid coming in.
>If this is your standard for a relaxing “chilled out” lifestyle then I’m afraid you’d be deeply disappointed if you saw the realities of living like this.
Not my standard, the standard presented by the previous poster, where getting food/water/shelter is "chilling" and doing that plus conquering etc is the "less chill" version.
I wasn't explaining why the heart of Africa is "chilled out." I was explaining why at least the initial waves of people with guns who spent an inordinate amount of their "chill time" scheming on how to conquer others, didn't bother much with inner central Africa, thus even if they were chilling they were a bit safer from western ships and guns.
I don't think I ever made the claim all of the heart of africa is just chillin. I'm explaining why there is the potential people in some places could focus more on just eating and sheltering and watering and not as much time fighting against people who spend time on gunpowder and ships. All else equal it should cost less time to eat and shelter than to do that plus other things, and by the standards here, that was the "chill" that was relative to doing all that plus worrying about conquering.
>>Those human tribes who just chilled out after meeting the bare requirements of survival died off because some greedy assholes outcompeted them
>If this is your standard for a relaxing “chilled out” lifestyle then I’m afraid you’d be deeply disappointed if you saw the realities of living like this.
What you've done is redefined chilling out, from what the OG poster had it at (basically food + shelter), and instead you're arguing against someone else that their original definition we were already working on is wrong.
Passing KYC for a brokerage is also a challenge nowadays, especially if your parents have the paperwork.
When I was a kid I walked into a bank, opened an account with no ID and no parent permission, and that was that (I encouraged a friend to do it as well, their overbearing dad raged at the bank after he found out but even then it wasn't closed). Can't imagine that's even possible anymore.
Of course it wasn't that long ago there were bearer shares. You could just hand a kid a physical piece of paper, and that was that, they owned part of the company. Bearer shares were another thing eliminated after the FATF went on their sadistic attack on privacy and self custody of many forms of financial instruments, eliminating one of the easiest ways for kids to handle investments directly in their hands.
Nowadays you cannot even digitally transfer 15k EUR from your own bank account to your own brokerage without answering invasive questions, 15k EUR which had been taxed at least once already. Oligarchs, dictators, high figure politicians, and white collar criminals don't seem to have problems with money transfers though.
True, but the executive and legislator are bound to ignore the courts if their interpretation violates the constitution. The judicial branch for instance can't simply declare that "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law" means that "Clarence Thomas is god emperor of the US and commands all the armed forces."
If they could interpret the constitution and that was that, then the judicial branch would basically have ultimate power and be exempted from the checks the other branches have on them.
The thing authorizing that -- the constitution. So unless the legislative can ignore the "interpretation" for the purposes of impeachment, the court can simply "interpret" the part that you think authorizes impeachment to just mean something like "the meaning of life is 54."
To be honest I am not sure if you are even discussing this in good faith anymore. The idea that the Supreme Court could render impeachment of them null and void and the legislative and executive branches would just be :shrugging-emoji: is a little silly.
Yes, the court’s job is to interpret the law. But the Constitution is not code and the judges are not the CPU. Ultimately, the rule of law will always be dependent on people.
The problem is that I don't believe that the court is arguing in good faith any more. In which case silly interpretations don't seem beyond the realm of possibility.
I'm assured by lawyers of both parties that this is not the case. And since I am not a lawyer their understanding is worth a lot more than mine. But as someone who does have significant credentials in philosophical and scientific reasoning, I can say that legal reasoning is not at all what I am familiar with.
Yes, exactly, the executive can ignore the court's interpretation, including an incorrect interpretation of impeachment (perhaps interpreted in such a way that impeachment as you know it would be impossible), if it violates the constitution.
OK so the court can then simply declare an "interpretation" of impeachment that makes it impossible, or meaningless then, or perhaps also interprets any such jailing by the executive as illegal. Since they are the ones that get to decide what the text written in the constitution actually is interpreted to mean and apparently their "interpretation" cannot be ignored.
That didn't happen until 1968 and by that time the constitution was basically toilet paper. The answer is ever since the progressive (and on some occasions, before that) era the constitution was more of a guideline, occasionally quoted by judges much like you can quote the bible to support pretty much anything if you twist it enough.
Any human-like animal with our receptors eating a large amount would get high as fuck, cooked or not. A ruminant eating pounds of the stuff raw, would not be that different from a human consuming an ounce of baked pot.
reply