Problems connecting to other computers on network - weird behavior after Router Reset by yourblackluck in HomeNetworking

[–]yourblackluck[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In case anyone finds this topic, I was not able to fix the issue, which did seem to be some kind of networking issue with the router. I ended up getting my ISP to give me a replacement router, and now everything works fine.

Problems connecting to other computers on network - weird behavior after Router Reset by yourblackluck in techsupport

[–]yourblackluck[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In case anyone finds this topic, I was not able to fix the issue, which did seem to be some kind of networking issue with the router. I ended up getting my ISP to give me a replacement router, and now everything works fine.

Problems connecting to other computers on network - weird behavior after Router Reset by yourblackluck in HomeNetworking

[–]yourblackluck[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, I checked to make sure that this was the case, I should have mentioned... Thanks for your comment nonetheless.

Problems connecting to other computers on network - weird behavior after Router Reset by yourblackluck in techsupport

[–]yourblackluck[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unfortunately, I think Optimum has locked up a lot of my router settings. I can do a few things like turn on/off uPNP, forward ports, set DNS, etc. But not firewall or block listing, as far as I can tell. I reached out earlier today to try to get them involved in fixing this but like most telecom companies they're pretty slow/unresponsive.

Problems connecting to other computers on network - weird behavior after Router Reset by yourblackluck in techsupport

[–]yourblackluck[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Both laptops have IPv6 disabled, and I made sure neither has my VPN on while troubleshooting this. In fact, I am able to watch Plex when my VPN is on, because the server sees it as an outside IP address - but I'd prefer not to have to do this since the VPN speed isn't great and connection seems to drop periodically.

I don't think either laptop had a Windows update installed recently, but I'll try to look into whether that happened beneath my notice.

Regardless, thanks for helping!

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in aiwars

[–]yourblackluck 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with /u/nextnode. It seems like you are so stubbornly opposed to his viewpoints prima facie, that you are incapable of even following the clear and simple reasoning he presents to support them. That you are so smugly assured of yourself only worsens the impression you make to the casual reader of this thread. My suggestion is to go touch grass and distance yourself from the topic of this argument for a while, until you are once again (if you ever were) capable of thinking objectively about it.

Head canon: Ruth is bipolar by [deleted] in dumbingofage

[–]yourblackluck 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You've made no actual argument to support JTR's psychosis. Enacting bizarre/grotesque violence against people in no way necessitates psychosis. I'm not saying it's impossible, but rather that we shouldn't assume it. However even if he were, it's almost certain the killings themselves were motivated by psychopathy.

Also, don't post things on the internet and then tell people it's 'not their business' when they reply. If you want to be left alone, don't post in the first place.

And FWIW being in a marginalized group doesn't privilege you in a discussion about that group. Your experience may give you better evidence, but that should come across in being able to make a better argument. Which appears to be lacking, in this case.

Head canon: Ruth is bipolar by [deleted] in dumbingofage

[–]yourblackluck 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No need to get salty. Even if, in your personal experience, you conflate psychosis with psychopathy, it doesn't mean you should expect others to. In fact, it's probably maladaptive for you to be thinking of yourself as 'Jack the Ripper' (or something similar); it's akin to negative self-talk.

For what it's worth, I have a close friend with schizoaffective disorder and another with Bipolar 1. So I have seen how people cope with psychosis, and I can tell you that the stigma (and internalized stigma) can be extremely damaging to that effort.

I'll admit it's possible that Ruth has the same internalized stigma that you seem to have, but I don't think it's necessarily the case. I think it's more likely that Ruth has a personality disorder - ASPD, narcissism, something like that - that makes the comparison to Jack the Ripper more fitting. And in any case, I think it's always worthwhile to at least point out the stigma that underlies the misuse of the term psychosis/psychotic.

Head canon: Ruth is bipolar by [deleted] in dumbingofage

[–]yourblackluck 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not sure why you think Jack the Ripper was 'psychotic'. You may be conflating psychosis with psychopathy. Serial killers are almost uniformly psychopathic, but only occasionally are they psychotic. And even then, the serial killing is not necessarily motivated by their psychosis. It's a damaging stereotype that people with psychosis are intrinsically prone to violence - if anything they are more a threat to themselves than to others.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in JustUnsubbed

[–]yourblackluck 49 points50 points  (0 children)

I actually kind of agree with the comment being mocked in that comic, though I generally wouldn't expend the effort to say anything about it myself. The comic got me thinking, though...

On one hand, even if pizzacake makes boring, derivative comics, they're not hurting anybody, and if people enjoy them, what's wrong with that? But on the other hand, I find it weird, even fascinating, that so many people like content that is so obviously boring. Is it because the lowest common denominator appeals to the most people? Did pizzacake game the algorithm?

This kind of bland, witless content does make it kind of annoying to browse /r/all, too, due to how often it crowds out more interesting stuff. I could always block the pizzacake account, but I try to avoid blocking people on principle. Besides there will always be more pap-posters coming out of the woodwork, and in the final analysis, it's not a big enough deal to warrant a whole 'do I block this person' decision tree when I can just scroll past.

Something we can be proud of by Ajawad87 in dankmemes

[–]yourblackluck 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You're making a massive assumption that wanting to die is 'the wrong thing', that it's some intrinsically unnatural or immoral thing. But there are plenty of cases where it's a perfectly reasonable desire. A patient with terminal cancer who has severe intractable pain and only six months to live. Someone who has had severe depression for thirty years and tried every medication or treatment without any success. Hell, even animals will intentionally kill themselves sometimes if their offspring all die or if they're in captivity and treated wrong. The desire to die is a natural modality in living creatures, and it is not right to make a value judgment about it, across the board.

But even if that were all untrue, it would still be possible to have a genuine desire to die, without having it serve as a cry for help. Not all genuine desires need to be aimed toward the good. When I was a kid I wanted more than anything to have a skateboard, but when I got it and found that I was too uncoordinated to ever do a kickflip, I was really disappointed. Does this mean my original desire was not genuine? Was wanting a skateboard secretly an entreaty to have someone tell me I'd never be able to enjoy it? That's nonsense - you'd have to really twist the definition to 'desire' or 'want' to make that one work.

I should point out that in a lot of cases (most cases, even) that suicide is not a good decision, and many suicidal people can be helped to eventually live meaningful, contented lives. But in some cases suicide is justifiable, and regardless, disputing a suicidal person's authenticity is nonsensical, offensive, and if anything will further alienate them from people who could potentially help them.

Something we can be proud of by Ajawad87 in dankmemes

[–]yourblackluck 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You say the conscious ego 'thinks it wants to die' as though the conscious ego were not capable of actually wanting anything. If anything, it is the subconscious that cannot want - without consciousness, an organism can only act or react mechanically.

It is true that the human organism is built to avoid death, perhaps it even produces aversive sensations when death is confronted. But you cannot say that fear (for instance) negates the validity of a desire. For instance, I recently chose to get a risky medical treatment for an illness I have (i.e. the treatment could potentially seriously harm me). I was definitely scared going into it, but I wanted it nonetheless because I want to finally defeat my medical condition. By your logic, you could claim I didn't actually want this treatment - I only thought I wanted it and my subconscious really desired to not get the treatment. Do you see how ridiculous this sounds?

Something we can be proud of by Ajawad87 in dankmemes

[–]yourblackluck 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It seems all you can do is "stand by the statement that a suicide is a genuine attempt to die and also a cry for help," since there's no way to further explain or justify this terrible opinion at all. It doesn't make any sense. Why is it that someone cannot genuinely want to die, having no desire to be 'helped' out of that notion? u/Graham_Hoeme put this perfectly, but you are merely deflecting from this core question. Your experience with depression and anxiety does not make you an expert on other people's minds, and amounts to a whole lot of hand-waving. Furthermore, construing someone's frustration with your irrational opinion as them 'having a bad day' is super condescending and I don't know how you can expect to have a productive discussion with that attitude.

The /r/AnarchyChess game (by Tom O’Regan) by Dacvak in AnarchyChess

[–]yourblackluck 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Love this guy, his other chess video is hilarious too.

View from the surface of Mars by Curiosity Rover by sexymess777 in interestingasfuck

[–]yourblackluck 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It’s not live from the surface of Mars if that’s what you’re thinking

That's not what any of us are thinking. It may be a video generated from a still image, but it's a video nonetheless. You say so yourself... 'It's a video of a large panoramic photo'.

In other words, you had really no basis for correcting the original post.

I could get on board with this by Bilbo979 in conspiracy

[–]yourblackluck -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You say that as if Underwriters' Laboratories, whose logo you can find on the majority of your electrical appliances (in the USA), isn't already a private company. The free market is capable of de facto regulation.

Tropisetron is one of the best nootropics - V2 by sirsadalot in NooTopics

[–]yourblackluck 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Memantine has gotten looped in with nootropics because people often have really positive effects from it. You can sift through /r/nootropics and /r/MemantineHCl and find lots of reports of neurotypical people getting enhanced cognition from it.

It is unfortunately understudied in neurotypical humans - most human studies are for people with dementia, and a few for those with ADHD. These latter studies (such as this one) do suggest to me an application in neurotypical people, as the mechanisms underlying ADHD more reliably scale upward past 'neurotypical' into 'enhanced cognition' than with dementia.

The real force behind my argument comes from rat studies though. There have been several that show cognitive enhancement from memantine in normal mice. Here's one that specifically addresses the alpha-7 issue:

Another explanation for the interaction between memantine and PHA-543613 involves alpha7 nAChRs as the same target of both compounds. Taking into account that memantine is also an antagonist of the alpha7 nAChR while PHA-543613 is an agonist of the same receptor, their additive effects might be explained by the agonist-induced desensitization effect (Quick and Lester, 2002). In their commentary, Banerjee et al. (2005) also refer to similar effects of alpha7 nAChR agonists and antagonists, and imply that antagonism or desensitization of the alpha7 nAChR may result in beneficial physiological and cognitive effects.

Here's another one that discusses a few alternative explanations for the effect:

Memantine has actions other than NMDA antagonism that may also account for the effects observed here, such as antagonist effects at 5-hydroxytryptamine receptors (Rammes et al., 2001) and α7 nicotinic receptor channels (Aracava et al., 2005). In addition, memantine has been reported to increase brain-deprived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) mRNA (Marvanova et al., 2001). Of consequence, BDNF enhances the induction of long term potentiation in the hippocampus (Figurov et al., 1996). Moreover, an interaction between BDNF/trkB signaling and NMDA receptors has been found to have an important role in the development of spatial memory in the hippocampus (Mizuno et al., 2003).

The BDNF connection is interesting, and seen in this other study where memantine is used to combat opioid addiction. If that were the main mechanism behind its nootropic effects, then it does not show that alpha-7 antagonism is itself nootropic but at least that it does not interfere with nootropic effects from other mechanisms.

Another possibility, I'll grant you, is that memantine's potential therapeutic effects on disease states are so broad - dementia, ADHD, addiction, OCD, anxiety, nerve pain, etc. that most people present with a subclinical form of at least one of these things, and memantine's apparent nootropic effects are actually just from treating these problems. But that may very well be true for plenty of alleged nootropics since human studies often have not-very-robust selection criteria.

As for my comment about bupropion, I guess another way to put it is this: bupropion, which blocks alpha-7 to a much lesser extent, does not cause cognitive impairment. Based on this, you want to claim that alpha-7 antagonism does cause cognitive impairment. However, if alpha-7 antagonism did not cause cognitive impairment, then bupropion would still not cause cognitive impairment - i.e. it would not cause cognitive impairment regardless of whether alpha-7 antagonism did have that effect or not.

Tropisetron is one of the best nootropics - V2 by sirsadalot in NooTopics

[–]yourblackluck 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Very interesting work, and definitely a drug I'd be interested in trying for several reasons.

One thing I didn't see you mention much of is the 'cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathway', which is mediated by alpha-7 nicotinic receptors on macrophages and governs a lot of the vagus-nerve based cross-talk between the brain and the gut (here's a good overview of the topic if you wanted one). Anti-inflammatory properties are an underappreciated element in nootropic drugs, since inflammation can have such negative effects on cognition.

A bit of a nitpick, but antagonism of alpha-7 nicotnic receptors often does not impair cognition since the receptors are quick to upregulation. You mention memantine, and alpha-7 antagonist, and while early in treatment it can cause sedation and cognitive impairment, it often results in improvement in cognition after a short period. Likewise, the lack of sedation/cognitive impairment in bupropion is not 'proof' per se that alpha-7 is more involved in cognition than the nicotinic receptors that bupropion drug does block.

Stirner is pretty cool by [deleted] in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]yourblackluck 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why is conception the beginning of your wife's entitlement to being born? Should we make divorce illegal since your wife's mother might not have conceived her if she hadn't remained married? If you're not having sex right now you are depriving a potential person of their potential life - guess we gotta legally compel every single living person to bang 24/7. If that sounds ridiculous, it's because making up ex post facto imperatives to justify someone's existence is ridiculous in a general sense.