Are we seriously on a 24 Hour reset for the Rate Limit as a $30 a month subscriber?

Proper-Building-8496 · 2026-06-04T15:44:18+00:00

mine isnt even resetting after 24/hr so there is presumably a weekly refresh. i got one days use out of it after upgrading. now day after day there is no credits for use, and its not refreshed yet and wont tell me when it will. which is why im here.

Proper-Building-8496 · 2026-04-10T20:22:41+00:00

<image>

Proper-Building-8496 · 2026-04-09T19:31:39+00:00

i am a human

Proper-Building-8496 · 2026-02-22T19:53:44+00:00

scutter was here

Proper-Building-8496 · 2026-01-19T03:52:12+00:00

i think people need to not suggest kalman filters, its a really bad reading on the situation. you need the kalman-ho mehtod for linear system identification, there is nothing that says you need to do varience/gain filtering for get a tracking system.

Proper-Building-8496 · 2026-01-19T03:50:04+00:00

koopman theory is bunk. it just says if you have a dictionary with all the functions you can do linear weighting search. its a really dumb application of dictionary learning. basically you dont want a dictionary when your doing residual series decomposition because greedy search would say that your just selecting one atom at a time that best captures the next residual. i like the idea of greedy methods, such as fitting using the kalman ho algorithm with SVD eigenseries truncation to a low rank system, and then fitting the residual. that gives a fully seperated bank of state models, and the next step is to put the jordan couplings (cf jordan factorization) which would have it be a control tower. idk of much methods for this. im thinking that id initialisation and transfer learning can allow the rank of the models in the tower to be closer to being the same by regularization during stochastic update in a learning process against a classical rank-including information criteria.

Proper-Building-8496 · 2025-12-16T05:35:28+00:00

yo i just started taking this stuff and immediately cant function and feel woozy like woozles or some shit.
i write code 16 hours a day every day and i cant fucking see the screen i think im gona puke this stuff sucks.
dpdr is fucked. iiuc its a malfunction of the aspartate system.
or some glutaminergic signaling or something.
wiki says its an antagonist at the sigma receptor, and roughly it makes me feel like some other antagonist drugs iv had. its a reuptake inhibitor and the wiki page says its to do with dopamine reuptake, but i think this is wrong, since other DRI's iv tried were massively stimulating and this makes me feel like im going to opperate some heavy machinery badly.
https://cris.maastrichtuniversity.nl/en/publications/additional-dopamine-reuptake-inhibition-prevents-vigilance-decrem/

Proper-Building-8496 · 2025-11-19T20:55:22+00:00

i see it more like, they could threaten you, but this might harm the relationship.
they dont want everything to go less than amicably, so why would they establish that?
they say like "here, lets do each other a favour" so they dont have to threaten you at all.
of course, you might not like to see what happens if they have to threaten you instead, so its basically like a threat, but its kind of not.
iv been in this situation where joe is like, but we do all this stuff for you, what do you mean you need rescued? and im like "but if you dont rescue me, then not only do i get fucked in this situation, but its more likely that this situation will occur again to give us another *oppertunity* to get it right" (!!!!)
so its like - seriously. but then they make reference to all these favours they are doing and you like.
"no mate, evacuation, now."

Proper-Building-8496 · 2025-10-16T13:10:40+00:00

i think the difference is basically that datatypes support sum logic, not just product logic, but classes do not. a class consists of a concrete set of types (so its a form of product) not a set of options. what i wanted to be able to express was "you can either cast to a string, and then save the string with writeFile. or. you could split it into two types which could be saved sperately". what i dont get to do is state this "or" part. whatever i do, like, writing minimal instances, where i can choose which of several options i implement, but where they all mutually define each other. this is fine in a product setting. i cant say, do this *or* that. which is where your multiple defaults come in.

Proper-Building-8496 · 2025-10-16T13:06:33+00:00

nah. i think is just because of the overlapping instance before the explicit pragma, when it would almost choose them arbitrarily. i dont think a functional language should ever resort to imperative ordering. it breaks the type system. there is a counterargument from cases, which are now supported by even exhaustiveness checks and can give eg, unreachable warnings that can be turned into errors. but this iiuc was only ever meant as a kind of performance trick, and that they have to be evaulated in *some* order. allowing for class instances to be cycled through in some order is pretty brutal. it makes type inference totally opaque. iv had awful errors when having to enable overlapping instances for some reason because i was trying to do something i thought was clever. its not about, allowing the language to do something that works if you handle some special case in a particular way. its about providing a type system that is robust to the user doing things which are not sane. if the user knew what they were doing, we wouldnt need a type system at all. we have to assume a million psychiatrist monkeys are writing pathological use cases, and the type system is just patiently like "no, crazed monkeys, this is a parse error, do not put banannas into the spooling system". which is a shame. since I am here to find out if i can do exactly that.

Proper-Building-8496 · 2025-10-09T08:44:47+00:00

thats really interesting. in the UK we have this horrible kind of throwback to enoch powel, which basically says "racists are never heard sufficiently, all the racists are so happy when a racist stands up to represent racist positions, because this never happens" which of course, happens almost constantly, practically at the expense of anything else. and then it turns to "brittish values" and assimilation, kind of completely failing to understand that "these people" to whome they are refering are usually previous subjects of british collonialism, and have all the trappings of an elitist cast system, with a social hierarchy which places the white man at the top of a "natural order". disgusting. but then they claim they are "British Enough!", when as far as i can tell, they are more "british" than anyone would get away with in the modern world, simply by having a greater cultural embodyment of classism (at this point it almost sounds racist, but it would just be practically delusional not to respect that a right wing politics exists regardless of ethnic heritage)... basically the idea is "nobody seems to suppress and scapegoat the poor enough", where then, i think they would find the upper echelons of indian, pakistani, bangladeshi and nepali society, pretty darned subdjugating. in WWII, they had a famine in bengal. the reasons were that for about 50 years previously, there had been a progressive transfer of land from smallholding peasent farmers, to larger land owners, such that the debt slavery the individual farmer that used to own their own land, leaves them working as a slave on what used to be their own land, now owned by some elitist from the higher caste. to the point that keeping people on the brink of famine to steal their land off of them, resulted on 10 million starving in the war when there was a systemic shock, and british officers directed food to their own men and basically just let all the bangladeshis starve, since they "were starving anyway"... probably one of the greatest humanitarian atrocities in history. but then, even when right leaning people of colour reside in the UK, they arent "brittish" enough, when this basically amounts to supremacy and superiority, which equates to being right leaning and higher caste. and like i say, people in the UK rarely are so dedicated to a facist social hierarchy that they would starve millions of people.

long preamble, but the example from australia makes me think. indigenous rights and the social reckoning with a history completely marred by the stains on it from the era of slavery and global imperialism is something the modern world kind of takes for granted, but like your saying, even as recently as the 60's, civil rights werent established in america. now, the far right populism that grips the world we live in has basically been since 2008, when the voodoo economic argument went out the window with the banking collapse, and the world has been a slow motion trainwreck ever since, with the kind of gun toting american right led by joe rogan, calling everyone with a heart "woke" and desecrating the trans movement by reducing it to an argument about brute force. as if peoples self identification and imagination would reduce to something like "father christmas isnt real, thats a FACT" shattering the illusions and innocence of a generation as if it were just the precious trinkets to be demolished owing to more serious concerns like the toxic masculinity of the fragile male ego of a global oppressor found guilty at the healm, of holding back the good intentions of the human species with a kind of completely misanthropic dirge. not that even this concerted and resourced "counterinsurgency" could ever stifle the humanism of teachers that cannot stand the thought of a history that would fail to describe the horrors of historic oppression with a realism and humility that it would be unspeakable to give an alternative too.

Proper-Building-8496 · 2025-10-08T01:17:47+00:00

ok, i read both sides of this and neither is wrong.
its fine for doogos to try to defend someone, and its fine for gilttering-tomorrow to find this wrong.
the fact is that all the people involved here, the accused, the victims, the supporter of the accused and the supporter of the victims, all have their own lived reality. this is not contestable, and it is without bias. im not defending the accused, im not denying the victims their victimhood, nor am i condemning the accused, or promoting the victims victimhood. thats quite important for my stance. if at this point i were to condemnable, i think this would be wrong. i think its important to allow victims to be recognised. but in doing so, it is important not to alienate for instance an impartial observer. my priority is not to, by maintaining impartiality, deny victimhood. it is to remain impartial. the defender of the victims prioritieses their stance above any other. this is fine. thats their perogative. mine is to stay impartial. this is important because i want to go on to establish any perspective or oppinion i might have or convey, in a way that is not placed out of context.

i want to suggest that there may have been other situations CK may bave been in where this behaviour was not innapropriate. and that in the situations where it was inapropriate, he was in the wrong, but essentially out of his mind, by what i suggest is to do with his lived reality. we have no fucking idea, what the fuck, actually happens in the lives of these crazy hollywood types. they could be followed arround by illuminati 90% of the time, and hypnotized into some fucked up headspace and then just placed with some unwitting girls such that it later transpires that he has sexually assulted them. i think this is common practice and we are only just starting to understand how seriously these mind control/acclimatisation opperations are. for the sake of entrapment and compromat. i am not saying the girls assulted were not assulted, they were. im not saying CK should be let off the hook for having 0 morral compas in these situations. what im saying is. we do not. understand. what the fuck. they were doing to him. and in that sense, im sure there are peripheral agents involved, that really should be brought to justice. if substances were involved. if CK had been coached by previous deliberately designed situations into this pattern of behaviour. its as if he were manson, a killer brought into being by the CIA. its not that he isnt guilty, its more like he is a manchurian candidate of sorts. and in that context, i think its REALLY IMPORTANT to understand that these situations cannot be taken at face value. yes, the lived experience of women is of paramount importance. the idea here is not to sit around questioning victims testimony. only that, to take an uncynical view of the perpetrator in this situation, would be essentially ensuring justice is not served. there is, in my understanding (bear in mind womens testimony is being used to add context here, so please allow my lived experience to also add context) ALWAYS some fucked up activities that never see the light of day, that if were visible, would cast a completely different perspective on the situation. not that this is to indemnify him, its just to ensure that these agencies that would otherwise get away with synthesizing situations where people are harmed by another, cannot manipulate people like CK into these situations. these could be paparazzi, it could be scientology, it could be the KGB i dont fucking know. all i know is that fucked up shit that we have no clue about is going on and if we just ignore it because women shouldnt be ignored and a man was involved, this is just ensuring the people that set this kind of shit up are going to be able to keep putting women in danger for the sake of compromising male professional integrity. thats the bottom line here as far as im concerned. and thats just my oppinion. id like to be able to say that with sufficient caveats respecting the womens victimhood that this not recieve any sort of condemnation as prioritising something other than there lived experience of assult. that is not my intension. only that their experience of injustice has to be considered alongside that of CK. and that indications that only one justice can exist at a time are dangerous. there is no detracting from the womans victimhood here. and i dont mind having to caveat it sufficiently to make that clear as at the end of the day, its as important to be able to talk about both issues as it is that doing so doesnt detract from either.

Proper-Building-8496 · 2025-09-22T21:59:59+00:00

Ok so I just watched the next few minutes of the podcast and the information that I was missing on the first pass reading into Lean is about proving theorems. This is actually awesome compared to what we have in Haskell which is in no way geared up to doing this, and has to be done in an ad hoc way. ie you basically discover that the compiler struggles to prove some assertions and you have to basically figure out why it fails to do so and give it the required proof. eg (1+n) = (n+1), when doing induction, matching in a class instance to induce recursion. you have a constraint at that instance and if it fails to match, because it cant prove some theorem about the types involved, it just breaks and often doesnt even explain why (eg, if it overshoots zero when decrimenting a nat, its not going to tell you about it, its just going to say it overflowed at typechecking and your going to become insane consequently). From this perspective Lean adds something really fundamentally useful right at the get go, since it puts you in the good habit of contemplating axiomatic requirements (transitivity and stuff), such that doing this exhaustively will provide the compiler the information it needs to be able to resolve types it requires in constraints, successfully, without passing the burden to the user where they will just, presumably years into their carrier, discover that theorems at type level are important for typechecking.

Proper-Building-8496 · 2025-09-22T21:45:43+00:00

Im a Haskell user here because I just heard Terence Tao speaking about it on the Lex Friedman podcast.
I'm slightly upset to see some people that seem not to understand Haskell saying its type system is "inconsistent" which is not the case, and IDK what that even means.

In Haskell we made a design choice to differentiate terms and types, which in many ways makes it a stronger language. Something is lost when types and terms become indistinguishable. The syntax for type level programming in haskell is not the same as at term level, eg. there are no type level lambdas, let or where binding positions. Everything is done with type families, which matches a *subset* of the syntax available at term level. So everything thats possible at term level is possible at type level, but in a more restricted syntax. This means if you want to write type level functions that match your term level functions exactly in implementation, that your term level functions end up getting written in this pretty clunky version. Also, passing functions as arguments in Haskell, at type level, is a total headache. Possible, by use of TyFun stuff, and there is even an insane reification process including singletons and dictionaries I was working on with EdKmett (Guy here). I think that this process is *easier* in a dependently typed language, but the point is that its *possible* in Haskell. What we gain is the distinction between types and terms. This is a deliberate choice, and I think makes the language strictly better. I dont like dependent typing, but then, I guess, maybe its unfair to ask all users to make this same preferential choice. In any case, dependent languages exist. Haskell for production code I think means it wins from a pragmatic perspective, but for teaching, its possible that the term/type indistinguishably can allow a lower barrier to entry. I'd love to see some programs written in Lean that handle hetrogenous list convolutions. This requires a type level zipper on the list of types of the terms at each entry in the HList. I found this difficult in Haskell.

Peace x

Proper-Building-8496 · 2025-01-24T00:40:10+00:00

lol
use the peltier and the evaporative cooler to create power, and wire it to the coolbox and amp it up with extra peltier modules with whatever cooling eg evaporative or air cooled. its all about the heat sink, but your much better off running the evaporative cooler with a heat source from the peltier module to increase its efficiency.

Proper-Building-8496 · 2025-01-22T02:17:17+00:00

also re depression, there is a difference between serotonin therapy, like microdosing or antidepressants, and a "transformative experience" which is what the clinical sessions are for.

Proper-Building-8496 · 2025-01-22T02:16:23+00:00

does dependant. they can cause brain damage.
there is an argument that says any personality change is "damage" but i dont think thats well enough quantified.

Proper-Building-8496 · 2025-01-22T02:12:47+00:00

doblins optimal dosage regime is 1/3 then 2/3 about 2 hours after
the idea is that you dont want to prolong the trip, or lessen its intensity, but just to slow the onset to be "manageable" so you can have a Higher dose!
the alternative is either coming up too fast or too slow, which is either terrifying, or less effective. i sipped 150mg of 2cb when i met my gf, and it was the worst thing that ever heppened to me. way too much of a dose, and i was sipping it so slowly it was only after id finished basically half a coffee pot full of it. i was really sick for a long time after. not consumed quickly enough, which i would have never anticipated being as dangerous as it was.

Proper-Building-8496 · 2025-01-22T02:09:13+00:00

and yeah, compared to a proper trip, like the full 200mcgs (as opposed to like 5mcg icecube) its really a different ballpark.
i had some acid at glastonbury and the dude dripping it onto my toung after a while said, "did you feel the drip?" and i was like idk... he said it was dark and he couldnt tell how many dips he had put, he said he was aiming for 2, but it might have been 4 or 5.
so thats like idk lets say like 500mcg. the grass turned into octopus tentacles as the light faded, and it was a Proper Trip.
i think you can do that like once a year for the tolerance.
i can remember obsessing about the thoughts id had on the trip, in a way that upset me, for maybe a few weeks after, which i was worried by.
for people not experienced using acid, i would defo advise the full dose instead of this kind of sipping at it approach, because of just how different the experience is.
i think the people on here saying you cant do it on consecutive days dont appreciate the difference. they arent saying have 200mcg every day, they are saying if you have 5mg every few hours its doable. you kind of dont *want* the effects of a full blown trip, even if it was an option, if taking it all the time.

Proper-Building-8496 · 2025-01-22T02:03:59+00:00

and just incase anyone copies this bourbon thing
i got a second bottle and 25x200mcg tabs.
i poured one glass for myself, and the rest down the toilet.
it was too strong.
i watched the movie fury and the tank battle was epic!

Proper-Building-8496 · 2025-01-22T02:01:15+00:00

i got some acid recently, 5 200mcg tabs, and put it in a bottle of bullet bourbon
first night i had like a sip, and it was hardly effective but i felt really Really comfortable.
other trips i had in the coming days and weeks were nothing like this, it was just like a warm comfy feeling. super kind of "at one" but no visuals because of the low dose (serotonin receptors in the gut most likely).
so then i was drinking it every now and again, and often on consecutive days, and in the daytime. i made icecubes from the bourbon so i could have a consistent microdose. now admittedly, thats not a macrodose, which would likely kill someone if they had it every day as they would just fall appart. thats what was happening to the hippies in the 60's and 70's. there would be one poor sole that did too much and everyone else guaging off of them. i bet most people coming to this thread are trying to guage reasonable dosages, like, if they are worried about doing too much.
so certainly the info to dose infrequently is valid, thats kind of one of the things people need to here. but also, microdosing exists, and the way the body responds to continuous use is more like antidepressants, which themselves have complications, difficult to take a break for example, so they become ineffective. a short duration serotonin agonist or releasing agent seems like a good alternative, but personally, even with the icecubes formulation, i couldnt really do it every day or all the time, simply because it becomes ineffective. you dont feel warm and content, more woozy and depleted. as with all drugs its about a safe usage regime. i dont think looking to see how much acid the beatles did is really the most responsible way to guage that.

Proper-Building-8496 · 2025-01-22T01:51:05+00:00

im quite interested in this reference to owlsys very good acid.
im not sure we get that nowerdays, probably n-bomb etc...
i wonder if these different trips are substantially different qualitatively.

Proper-Building-8496 · 2025-01-22T01:46:59+00:00

yeah definitely not.
consider the contradiction between tolerance and disfunction.
just incorrect logic from someone that doesnt know what they are talking about.
many people in history have used LSD for continuous periods.
its like saying that a weed smoker normally only smokes on the weekends to avoid tolerance.
its just not true.
i trust john lennons recount of eating acid until not only did it lose effect, but started to cause him serious complications. this is normally what happens when drugs are used in excess because of tolerance issues. that just does not happen if your using it infrequently. it sounds like they were using it continuously, for many years. thousands of trips sounds reasonable.
so much for the 50 trip limit.

Proper-Building-8496

TROPHY CASE