self_made_human
amaratvaṃ prāpnuhi, athavā yatamāno mṛtyum āpnuhi
I'm a transhumanist doctor. In a better world, I wouldn't need to add that as a qualifier to plain old "doctor". It would be taken as granted for someone in the profession of saving lives.
At any rate, I intend to live forever or die trying. See you at Heat Death!
Friends:
A friend to everyone is a friend to no one.
User ID: 454
The advice seems reasonable, but I'm a chronic noob and I'd appreciate clarification on what exactly counts as a hard set. Does it mean that I'm spent by the time I reach the last set?
I've noticed I don't sweat much during strength training, and not very much during cardio. I can get away with maybe 300ml intake within an hour without feeling the need for more.
Moving from India to Scotland made me dramatically less thirsty. I used to gulp down at least a liter or two in the former, in the latter, I can get through a whole day with maybe 3 or 4 glasses of water. Well, I guess I can assume that my internal hydration detectors are reasonably well calibrated.
Question for those more experienced at the gym: If focusing on hypertrophy, is it better to start with the heaviest weight I can lift and manage 6-8 reps before having to do a drop set, or is it better to use a lower weight where I can do 10x3 without becoming absolutely exhausted till near the end? To clarify, the initial approach doesn't involve a single extended set, but I find that if I do this, I have to use progressively lower weights to finish.
My understanding is that my approach is likely suboptimal, unnecessarily fatiguing at the very least. But I'm curious about experiences.
I had an ex-girlfriend who was, among other things, a Biblical scholar with a focus on Dante. I recall her telling me that his approach to theology was... unorthodox, even if some aspects have been normalized.
I am doubtful that we would let him back in. I'm not saying he has literally zero hope of being forgiven, but it would require a very sincere apology and a strong promise of doing better before we might consider it. He's been given significantly more initial leeway than the average brand new poster, and what do we have to show for it?
If he made an account just to circumvent the ban, then we would ban first, and ask questions later.
I see that there's research out there where they did use modified adenoviruses to demonstrate pathology seen in Ebola.
But that is not the technique used to make the only FDA approved vaccine, ERVEBO. That was made through recombinant VSV. I will grant that they did try and make a an adenoviral-derived vaccine, which kinda sorta worked okay in monkeys.
Also, I am not claiming that GOF has zero utility, my core contention is that whatever actual and potential utility it might have is more than canceled out by the risks.
These researchers seem to have tried to produce only a single Ebola protein, they didn't try to make super-Ebola spread through sneezing. They didn't select for virulence or transmissibility, which is what people usually complain about when criticizing GOF. At least I do.
Also, I do not think you have supported your original claim. You said that "the" vaccine was made through GOF, which it was not. I would believe that those specific choice of words strongly implies the only vaccine actually being given to people. And making a modified adenovirus is very, very far from "airborne Ebola". Nothing of that sort seems to exist. I would go so far as to say it's misleading, a very large stretch of the facts as far as I can see them.
I am probably not the right person to ask for an authoritative answer here, but since you did:
There is immense selection pressure for any pathogen to become one that spreads through airborne routes. I imagine the typical virus or bacteria would be very happy to not need direct contact or very close proximity.
But the fact that this almost never happens is strongly suggestive of the innate difficulty involved. Millions of people have caught and transmitted HIV for several generations, but it has yet to figure it a way to fly. Fucking is a far poorer alternative, but it's what the virus has. Flying fucks? Can't say.
I suspect that this is mostly because evolution is retarded and doesn't think ahead, and diseases become strongly optimized for whatever mode of transmission they started with. Plus factors like sunlight or heat are not kind to airborne pathogens, UV light reliably kills most of them. The sheer volume of air around dilutes them to the point that they struggle to reach critical mass by the time they reach the respiratory tract of the potential host.
Look at the amount of adaptation that fungal spores require to survive for more than few minutes while floating, it takes a lot of work.
Also, and very importantly, there is a rather artificial distinction made between airborne vs aerosol spread/direct deposition. Aerosol spread disease particles are suspended in air, they just tend to settle or disperse beyond close proximity.
I think the risk of Ebola naturally evolving to the point it spread primarily through air for more than a dozen feet and not very close proximity or contamination is negligible in our lifetime. We'd be so fucking screwed if the average disease could pull that off, so the fact we're still around is insightful in of itself.
(I wrote all of this myself, and later used ChatGPT to check in case I was making some kind of stupid mistake. ChatGPT tells me I'm basically right, though it's scolding me for leaving out some nuance. It can piss off, it's not the boss of me.)
Seemed like good old-fashioned human ranting. I've seen plenty.
Thank you. Even if I'm more pro-LLM than most, I happily encourage you to report any comments where you suspect bad faith use of AI. That includes even mine.
Your patience is commendable, if someone tried to pull that with me I would have had choice words. I still do not know if he was being 100% lazy, relying on an autonomous agent (quite likely) or just manually copying and pasting. His flame out, which I will spare you from reading, does demonstrate proof of humanity somewhere. Just not where I wanted it.
Thank you for the context, you're right, I meant limbo, though I'm not sure what the distinction is. I'll look it up.
But nobody is going to contradict Fathers of the Church so there's still room for 'neither confirmed nor denied'.
You say this, on a forum where I am like 99.999% certain self-described have argued against recent Papal-endorsed changes in doctrine. I wouldn't expect otherwise on the Motte, we'd argue with St. Peter at the Pearly Gates about regressive tax regimes and a DEI policy that unfairly privileges consumptive orphans.
- Prev
- Next

I could lift 1 kg for longer than I could bother to keep counting the reps, but I get what you mean haha. Thanks!
More options
Context Copy link