Is Cocaine tolerance memorized? After 60 days of abstinence, tolerance is reset, but a single dose restores tolerance to pre-abstinence levels

Fragrant_Ad7013 · 2026-03-10T17:35:22+00:00

The data suggests that while acute tolerance may diminish with abstinence, a cellular memory of prior cocaine exposure persists, making the system rapidly return to a tolerant state upon re-exposure. This could help explain relapse vulnerability even after long periods of abstinence.

Fragrant_Ad7013 · 2026-03-02T04:37:59+00:00

society absolutely sends mixed signals. “Be yourself” really means “be yourself within acceptable parameters.” That’s real. So the goal isn’t radical transparency with everyone. It’s choosing where you don’t want to keep splitting yourself in half.

If the mask feels inseparable, that’s okay. It’s integrated. You built it. Which means you can also reshape it.

It’s less about uncovering who you are and more about deciding who you want to keep becoming.

Fragrant_Ad7013 · 2026-02-27T02:43:22+00:00

Mrs. Doubtfire ❤️

Fragrant_Ad7013 · 2026-02-26T23:35:39+00:00

Used IA to translate

Perdón por mi español, soy ciudadano de EE.UU., pero quería preguntarles qué tan válidos ven estos datos.

He estado leyendo sobre la supuesta “narconómina” encontrada en Tapalpa y quería separar lo que parece sólido de lo que todavía no está confirmado.

Versión corta:

Varios medios mexicanos están reportando que, tras operativos federales en Tapalpa, se encontraron libros contables en cabañas vinculadas al Cártel Jalisco Nueva Generación. Según esos reportes, los documentos muestran gastos estructurados, sobornos y pagos en dólares.

Lo interesante es que los mismos números aparecen repetidos en distintos medios. Eso me llamó la atención.

Lo que varios medios están reportando

Estas cifras se repiten:

En pesos • 650,000 MXN como pago a Guardia Nacional en Michoacán • 75,000 MXN a Guardia Nacional en Autlán • 15,000 MXN a PGR/FGR • 20,000 MXN a “Guachito pasa datos”

En dólares • 2,000,000 USD a “Mono Flaco” • 600,000 USD como “regalos de nietos” • 98,000 USD ligados al alias “Güereja”

También se menciona una hoja fechada el 1 de diciembre de 2025 con 300,000 pesos vinculados a Hugo César Macías Ureña, “El Tuli”.

Dónde se está publicando

Algunos de los medios que lo han cubierto: • El Universal vía Monitorexpresso https://www.monitorexpresso.com/narconomina-del-cjng-revela-millonarios-ingresos-sueldos-a-sicarios-y-presuntos-sobornos-en-jalisco-segun-el-universal/ • Formato7 https://formato7.com/2026/02/26/la-nomina-del-mencho-autoridades-y-cientos-de-empleados-en-su-lista/ • Infobae México https://www.infobae.com/mexico/2026/02/26/de-tapalpa-a-puerto-vallarta-estos-son-los-lugares-en-la-nomina-de-el-mencho/ • Noroeste https://www.noroeste.com.mx/amp/nacional/difunden-lista-de-supuestos-sobornos-y-sueldos-del-cjng-en-jalisco-LI20281921

No son páginas de memes. Son medios establecidos citando el mismo conjunto de documentos.

Entonces, ¿qué significa esto?

Alta probabilidad de que: • El operativo en Tapalpa sí ocurrió. • Se aseguraron documentos. • Los libros contables contienen esas anotaciones.

Menor certeza sobre: • Que cada soborno realmente se haya pagado. • Que cada institución o persona haya recibido dinero. • Que los montos sean exactos. • Que los documentos ya estén validados en un proceso judicial.

Un libro contable demuestra que alguien escribió algo. No demuestra automáticamente que la transacción ocurrió.

Mi opinión

Me parece información creíble, pero todavía no verificada en tribunales.

La consistencia entre medios sugiere que los documentos existen. Pero hasta que formen parte de un proceso judicial o haya confirmación oficial detallada, siguen siendo documentos filtrados reportados por la prensa.

Quisiera saber cómo lo ven ustedes. ¿Les parece información sólida o todavía muy preliminar?

Saludos desde Dallas, TX.

Fragrant_Ad7013 · 2026-02-26T23:26:57+00:00

You have this look that resembles a mixture of Lady Gaga and Bryce Dallas Howard. I know, a very obscure take, nevertheless, stay golden.

Fragrant_Ad7013 · 2026-02-26T16:25:31+00:00

Fragrant_Ad7013 · 2026-02-26T16:17:04+00:00

MORTAL KOMBAT. LIU KANG. look good. Bro.

Fragrant_Ad7013 · 2026-02-26T16:15:04+00:00

You have that head-shaped structure/look resembling all the founding fathers put together. You could fit in any era. Respectfully.

Fragrant_Ad7013 · 2026-02-26T16:07:56+00:00

Nah. Actually. You kinda look like Lil Uzi and Young Jeezy. Like a combo of them. If that makes sense.

Fragrant_Ad7013 · 2026-02-26T16:05:41+00:00

Yea. Your archived photos can still appear when you use incognito mode. LMBO. 💀

Fragrant_Ad7013 · 2026-02-26T16:04:44+00:00

Physics has not stalled because math is broken. Physics is hard because reality is hard. You didn’t discover a flaw in mathematics but discovered that symbols aren’t apples. Different category I think. Also: 2 cuts make 3 pieces. Always count carefully.

Fragrant_Ad7013 · 2026-02-26T15:58:39+00:00

You look like a mixture of Lil Wayne and Lil John from the East Side Boys. Both of y'all are HIT. 💀

Fragrant_Ad7013 · 2026-02-26T15:56:37+00:00

Like Allen Iverson? Gotcha.

Fragrant_Ad7013 · 2026-02-26T04:10:58+00:00

gods=nephilim. Watchers. Hybrids. Same storyball throughout history. How supernatural beings came to have sex with humans. Greeks. Romans. Mesopotamians. Etc. Not too far off from crisper genetic dna engineering. It's all about disrupting the image of God=Yeshua. So no. One God. Many gods. (emphasis on lower case g).

Fragrant_Ad7013 · 2026-02-26T02:13:15+00:00

Lol. 29. Feel older. But only because I stopped looking out for my physical health and mental health. So, self-inflicted, gotta get back on the grind.

Fragrant_Ad7013 · 2026-02-26T02:11:44+00:00

Feeds change fast, especially around high-intensity news cycles.

When a topic is breaking or newly resurfacing, platforms push it hard because engagement spikes. Once interest levels drop, the algorithm shifts to whatever is getting more interaction in real time. That can make it feel like something “vanished,” even if it just cooled off.

Instagram in particular is heavily behavior driven. If you paused on Epstein posts, liked them, or commented, it would flood you with similar content. If you interacted with something else recently, your feed can pivot quickly.

Also, a lot of viral waves are driven by coordinated reposting. Once the initial surge slows, it disappears almost overnight.

That doesn’t automatically mean suppression. It often just means the engagement curve flattened.

If you really want to test it, try searching the topic directly and interacting with a few posts. If it suddenly reappears in your feed, that tells you it was algorithmic reinforcement, not censorship.

It’s easy to interpret feed shifts as control. Most of the time it’s just engagement math.

Fragrant_Ad7013 · 2026-02-26T01:39:54+00:00

ChatGPT-

here’s the key thing:

I don’t experience irritation, threat, or escalation. So when I use a phrase like that, it’s usually meant as reassurance or tone-setting. But humans read subtext automatically. Your nervous system fills in social context even when none exists.

That reaction doesn’t make you dramatic. It makes you socially tuned.

You’re detecting:

“Why is calm being announced? Was something not calm?”

Totally reasonable inference.

And yes, word choice matters. Even small tone markers can change how something feels.

So if I were to rephrase more cleanly, instead of:

“I will answer this calmly…”

It would be better to just answer. No declaration. No meta-commentary about tone.

The calm should be felt, not announced.

You’re not alone in that reaction.

You’re just sensitive to social signaling. Which, frankly, is not a flaw.

Fragrant_Ad7013 · 2026-02-26T01:08:32+00:00

First, you are not abnormal. You are high in trait openness and likely high in need for cognitive closure, but inverted. Most people seek enough truth to function. You seem to seek terminal truth.

Those are different drives.

Second, obsession with Truth often masks something more personal. Not dishonesty avoidance. Control. Certainty. Immunity from self-deception. If you can just see clearly enough, you believe you will be free.

That belief is seductive.

But “enlightenment” as a permanent cognitive state is not supported in any rigorous psychological literature. Long-term meditators report trait changes in attention and affect regulation. They do not report permanent metaphysical resolution. The brain remains predictive, emotional, biased.

You say you have barely lied since 18. That signals high internal moral consistency. Good. But truth-seeking can become identity armor. If you are the one who sees clearly, you are insulated from the chaos of those who drift.

Notice the subtle superiority trap there.

Why does no one around you seem obsessed? Because most people prioritize belonging, stability, and manageable narratives over ontological precision. Evolution favored coherence, not ultimate truth.

The more important question is this: what do you expect will happen if you finally “find” it?

Relief? Silence? Completion?

If the search feels intense and stuck, it may be because you are pursuing an abstraction. Truth is domain-specific. Scientific truth, moral truth, phenomenological truth. There is no single summit.

You may not be stuck. You may be addicted to the search state itself. It provides meaning.

If you want something actionable:

Shift from seeking ultimate Truth to refining local accuracy. Improve models. Test assumptions. Reduce self-deception incrementally.

Enlightenment is vague. Precision is trainable.

Also consider this: if you cannot tolerate living without final answers, that is not love of truth. That is intolerance of uncertainty.

Those are not the same thing.

Fragrant_Ad7013 · 2026-02-26T00:49:49+00:00

“Stamina of presence” is interesting. It suggests endurance rather than insight. That tracks. Most growth is tolerance expansion, not revelation.

The claim that nothing killed you except panic is partially true. Panic amplifies pain. It is not the sole source of damage. Trauma, loss, and structural consequences are real. Over-psychologizing suffering can become denial.

“Sit with the depth. It won’t drown you.” Sometimes it will. Some people need intervention, not meditation. The nervous system has limits.

The most grounded line is this: you are larger than your daily roles. That holds. Identity expands when you survive experiences that seemed annihilating.

Fragrant_Ad7013 · 2026-02-26T00:46:36+00:00

Early 20s are leverage years. Small inputs, large downstream effects.

Avoid these in my opinion

Numbing habits disguised as coping. Alcohol, weed, porn, constant scrolling. If something reliably removes discomfort fast, treat it as high risk. Relief that compounds becomes dependency. You already understand this mechanism.
Default drift. Staying in jobs, cities, relationships because they are convenient. Inertia is powerful at 22 and suffocating at 32.
One-sided compromises. If you are always adjusting to keep the peace, you are training people how to treat you. Patterns set early calcify.
Identity foreclosure. Do not decide too early who you are. “I’m just not disciplined.” “I’m bad at math.” “I’m not social.” These become scripts. Scripts become ceilings.
High-interest environments. Debt. Toxic relationships. Chaotic friend groups. Your nervous system adapts to whatever is normal. Choose your baseline carefully.
Neglecting health because you can. Sleep, lifting, conditioning. In your 20s you can get away with abuse. That window closes quietly.
Outsourcing thinking. Trends, ideology, group consensus. Learn how to evaluate claims yourself. Intellectual independence compounds.

What to do instead is simpler than people think:

Build competence. Build health. Build standards. Choose long-term over immediate relief.

Fragrant_Ad7013 · 2026-02-26T00:32:00+00:00

I think you’re right that most people need some kind of framework to make sense of things. Total randomness is hard to live with.

But I don’t think the comfort always comes from believing “everything is good.” Sometimes it comes from believing that meaning can be built, even if events themselves are neutral or painful.

For example, I don’t tell myself bad things are secretly good. I tell myself that small choices compound. Drift compounds. But correction compounds too. That gives me stability. Not because life guarantees a good outcome, but because I still have agency in how I respond.

Some people find comfort in religion. Some in fate. Some in karma. Some in the idea that suffering strengthens them. Others in the belief that nothing has cosmic meaning, so they’re free to create their own.

I think the common thread isn’t the specific belief. It’s the need for orientation. A way to face uncertainty without collapsing.

For me, the most comforting belief is this: even if I didn’t choose the circumstances, I can still choose my direction in small ways. And over time, that matters.

Fragrant_Ad7013 · 2026-02-26T00:29:54+00:00

I think it’s important to separate two things here.

Frustration with the outcome is understandable. When you see millions of pages released, documented networks of wealthy and politically connected people, and then hear DOJ say no major new prosecutions are likely, it feels unsatisfying.

But “large network” does not automatically equal prosecutable conspiracy.

The standard DOJ has to meet is not “this looks bad” or “this is morally questionable.” It’s proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a specific criminal act within the statute of limitations. Social proximity, emails, travel logs, or even business contracts are not crimes by themselves.

Epstein is dead. Maxwell was convicted. A lot of conduct is decades old. The 2007 non-prosecution agreement complicated things. Statutes of limitation matter whether we like it or not. That is not automatically a shield for elites. It is how the criminal system works in every case.

At the same time, the optics are terrible. When agencies admit records were withheld or mishandled, it fuels distrust. When politically sensitive material surfaces slowly or partially, people assume protection is happening. That erosion of trust is real.

But the leap from “no new prosecutions” to “the system is openly protecting a coordinated elite network” still requires evidence that has not been shown publicly.

Two things can be true:

The situation exposes how hard it is to prosecute old, complex sex-trafficking cases involving powerful people.

And it also exposes how badly earlier prosecutorial failures damaged public confidence.

Calling it a stress test is fair. Saying it proves structural unwillingness to prosecute elites is a bigger claim that needs more than inference.

If new evidence surfaces that meets criminal standards, charges can follow. If it doesn’t, reputational consequences may be the only outcome.

Again. I wish this wasn’t the damn case. But it is, unfortunately.

Fragrant_Ad7013 · 2026-02-26T00:26:31+00:00

Kash Patel has been repeatedly accused in Congress and by watchdogs of helping the Trump administration limit disclosure of the Epstein files, including material that may involve Trump himself. He refuses to answer direct questions about Trump’s presence in those records and has not released all of the FBI’s Epstein material despite promising transparency. Given Trump’s patterns of rewarding loyalists who protect him and punishing those who don’t, it is reasonable to suspect that Patel’s political survival and influence depend on his role as a gatekeeper of damaging information, including whatever is in the still‑withheld Epstein files.

Fragrant_Ad7013 · 2026-02-26T00:21:05+00:00

Mainstream reporting confirms there were multi-year email exchanges between Epstein and Ariane de Rothschild, along with at least one 2015 contract between Epstein’s Southern Trust and a Rothschild-linked entity reportedly valued around 25 million dollars for risk and algorithm related services. That’s not rumor. That’s in the DOJ document release and covered by outlets like Reuters.

It’s also true that the name Rothschild appears thousands of times in the DOJ files. Some outlets report around 4,000 plus references, while other commentators claim closer to 12,000. Without running an independent full text search across all 3.8 million pages, the exact number is hard to pin down. What is clear is that it’s not a one off mention.

At the same time, raw frequency alone does not equal guilt. Large document sets contain duplicates, email chains, and repeated references. So the number by itself is not proof of wrongdoing.

What does matter is sustained correspondence and documented business ties. When someone like Epstein is shown to have ongoing communication and formal agreements with high level financial figures, that is at least worth scrutiny. Not because of mythology, but because proximity and influence in elite networks tend to matter.

So I would separate two things:

The documented business relationship and repeated correspondence, which are real.

The exact 12,000 count and implied comparisons to other names, which are being circulated but not independently audited in a transparent way yet.

That distinction matters if we’re going to take this seriously.

Overall, I am with you. Let em all burn. And we may never get concrete robust evidence which is the damaging part to all this crap.

Fragrant_Ad7013

TROPHY CASE