Huera

Karma: 146

Huera 8 Apr 2026 20:50 UTC
17 points
3
on: The effects of caffeine consumption do not decay with a ~5 hour half-life
I believe there is a more general point to be made here. Namely, the effects of most (if not all) psychoactive substances don’t decay with their half-life. A more useful framing would be that they don’t track blood concentration all that well, and psychoactive effects can last both significantly longer or shorter than looking at the half-life would predict. I don’t do theoretical analyses such as yours, because I don’t expect getting much insight that is not available through (other people’s) empiricism.^[1]
Consider a few cases: (half-life numbers found through quick googling)
Caffeine - ^[2] Looking at your applet, it suggests a ~fourth of (effective, after including paraxantine) the peak concentration after 16 hours. But at the same time, I would predict that taking a bolus caffeine dose after waking up would cause less sleep disturbance than taking a paraxantine dose in the evening to produce the same (effective) blood concentration. I presume you would expect this as well?
Phenibut—half life 5.3 hours. Psychonaut wiki lists the duration of effects as 10-16 hours which basically matches my experience. By any objective/subjective metric I’d predict we’d find the effects to dimish more slowly than with caffeine.
Armodafinil—half life 15 hours. Duration 8-15 hours, which, again, matches my experience. Note, the duration is a bit shorter than with phenibut despite the huge half-life difference.
Nicotine
Nicotine half life 1-2 hours. Duration (from buccal administration ^[3]which I use) 0.5-1.5 hours.
Psychedelics (in general) - I believe psychedelic trips are largely inexplicable through any exponential decay model (of psychoactive effects). I can explain, if you don’t share this intuition.

I could go on, of course. But my overall point is that regardless of whether one uses receptor affinity and occupancy and dowstream metabolites or more/other variables in one’s model, said model will likely still not be accurate enough to predict subjective effects.
1. ^
  Though I heard about Paraxantine before
2. ^
  Psychonaut wiki lists duration as 2-5 hours which is proably a bit too short, but not by much.
3. ^
  Administration can also alter the duration of effects greatly. Way more than looking at plasma concentrations would predict.
4. ^
  Presumably, there must be research on this?

Huera 19 Dec 2025 16:08 UTC
5 points
2
on: Courtesans and the First Move
When googling “Courtesan training” your post is the second result and the rest doesn’t clarify anything.
Similarly with your taxonomy of “Somatics, Rhetoric, Psychology”, in your last section you mentioned “traditions” that train each of the three skills, what traditions are you referring to? Is this an esoteric buddhist thing? The only thing that comes to my mind is that maybe pickup artistry somewhat fits with your “Psychology” concept, but other than that,^[1] your definitions are too atypical to make searching practicable.
In essence, I’m asking—”Can you point to any prior work/traditions or are you the first person to propose this frame?”
1. ^
  GPT-5.2 suggested Gendlin’s focusing might fit into “Somatics”
What links here?
- Richard_Kennaway's comment on Courtesans and the First Move by lsusr (19 Dec 2025 18:33 UTC; 5 points)

Huera 14 Nov 2025 16:35 UTC
6 points
2
on: Everyone has a plan until they get lied to the face
Reminds me of 2 hbomberguy videos:
ROBLOX_OOF.mp3,: Video game composer Tommy Tallarico reapetedly lies about easily verifiable matters (the content of his Guiness world records, having been featured on MTV Cribs (he wasn’t) &c).^[1]
Plagiarism and You(Tube): Multiple people making successful youtube careers out of plagiarism, while, often, putting ~no effort into rephrasing (i.e. anyone could find the source/s by googling the words they were saying).
1. ^
  Feel free to skip to the ‘Tommy’s lies’ section or farther if you just want the brazen lies

Huera 16 Oct 2025 13:13 UTC
6 points
0
in reply to: Cleo Nardo’s comment on: strawberry calm’s Shortform
Then the table base either wins or draws.

Of course. At no point did I suggest that it could lose. The ‘horrible and very hard to hold in practice’ was referring to the judgement of a hypothetical grandmaster, though I’m not sure if you were referring to that part.

”It’s relatively easy to define optimal chess by induction, by the min-max algorithm.”
Once again, I agree. I failed to mention what I see as an obvious implication of my line of reasoning. Namely that optimal play (with random picking among drawing moves) would have a pretty unimpressive Elo ^[1](way lower than your estimates/upper bounds), one bounded by the Elo of the opponent/s.
So:
If we pit it against different engines in a tournament, I would expect the draw rate to be ~100% and the resulting Elo to be (in expectation) ever so slightly higher than the average rating of the engines it’s playing against.
If we pit it against grandmasters I think similar reasoning applies (I’d expect the draw rate to be ~97-99%).
You can extend this further to club-players, casual players, patzers and I would expect the draw rate to drop off, yes, but still remain high. Which suggests that optimal play (with random picking among drawing moves) would underperform Stockfish 17 by miles, since Stockfish could probably achieve a win rate of >99% against basically any group of human opponents.

There are plenty of algorithms which are provably optimal (minimax-wise) some of which would play very unimpressively in practice (like our random-drawn-move 32-piece tablebase) and some which could get a very high Elo estimaiton in ~all contexts. For example:
If the position is won, use the 32-piece tablebase
Same if the position is lost
If the position is drawn, use Stockfish 17 at depth 25 to pick from the set of drawing moves.

This is optimal too, and would perform way better but that definition is quite inelegant. And the thing that I was trying to get at by asking about the specific definition, is that there is an astronomically large amount of optimal play algorithms, some of which could get a very low Elo in some contexts and some which could get a very high Elo irrespective of context. So when you write ‘What’s the Elo rating of optimal chess?‘, it seems reasonable to ask ‘Which optimal algorithm exactly?’.
1. ^
  And very unimpressive level of play in drawn positions.

Huera 16 Oct 2025 7:14 UTC
6 points
−5
in reply to: Cleo Nardo’s comment on: strawberry calm’s Shortform
A problem with this entire line of reasoning, which I have given some thought to, is: how do you even define optimal play?
My first thought was a 32-piece tablebase^[1] but I don’t think this works. If we hand an objectively won position to the tablebase, it will play in a way that delivers mate in the fewest number of moves (assuming perfect play from the opponent). If you hand it a lost position it will play in a way that averts being mated for longest. But we have a problem when we hand it a drawn position. Assume for a second that the starting position is drawn^[2] and our tablebase is White. So, the problem is that I don’t see a way to give our tablebase a sensible algorithm for choosing between moves (all of which lead to a draw if the tablebase is playing against itself).^[3] If our tablebase chooses at random between them, then, in the starting position, playing a3/h3 is just as likely as playing e4/d4. This fundamental problem generalizes to every resulting position; the tablebase can’t distinguish between getting a position that a grandmaster would judge as ‘notably better with good winning chances’ and a position which would be judged as ‘horrible and very hard to hold in practice’ (so long as both of those positions would end in a draw with two 32-piece tablebases playing against each other).
From this it seems rather obvious that if our tablebase picks at random among drawing moves, it would be unable to win^[4]against, say, Stockfish 17 at depth 20 from the starting position (with both colors).

The second idea is to give infinite computing power and memory to Stockfish 17 but this runs into the same problem as with the tablebase, since Stockfish would calculate to the end and we run into the problem of Stockfish being a ministomax algorithm the same as a tablebase’s algorithm.

All of which is to say that either ‘optimal play’ wouldn’t achieve impressive practical results or we redefine ‘optimal play’ as ‘optimal play against [something]’.
1. ^
  This is impossible, of course, but I’m looking for a definition, not an implementation.
2. ^
  This is almost definitely true.
3. ^
  To be more precise, I don’t see such a way that could be called ‘optimal’. If we are satisfied with the algorithm being defined as optimal against [humans in general]/grandmasters/[chess engines in general]/[Stockfish 17], then there are plenty of ways to implement this
4. ^
  There are bound to be some everett branches where our tablebase wins but they would be an astronomically small fraction of all results.

Huera 25 Aug 2025 17:10 UTC
5 points
2
on: A Comprehensive Guide to Running
Striking the ground on your heel and in front of the body is essentially creating a braking force, sending you backward. When you heel strike, you put excessive stress on your lower legs and knees, increasing the risk of injuries such as shin splints, stress fractures, and runner’s knee.
I feel like this conflates overstriding with heel-striking^[1]. Overstriding—one’s feet land too much in front of one’s center of mass. Even consulting your own image, the runner marked as ‘mid-foot striking’ could be heel-striking without changing anything in the overall posture.^[2] Though, I agree that mid-foot striking is still definitely better than heel-striking on net.
1. ^
  Specifically, I think the claims about braking and excessive stress are false for heel-striking when decoupled from overstriding.
2. ^
  I know plenty of runners with good running technique and years of experience who are lifelong heel-strikes. Though, I’m a forefoot to midfoot striker myself.

Huera 15 Aug 2025 9:40 UTC
4 points
0
in reply to: Viliam’s comment on: European Links (15.08.25)
From Emily Oster’s Expecting Better [Chapter 18]:
VBAC: The other common cause of a scheduled C-section is if you’ve had one before. Women who have given birth once by C-section are very often advised to have future babies the same way. Having a vaginal birth after a C-section is possible (it’s often called a VBAC, for vaginal birth after Cesarean) but not usually the default. Is this right? It’s actually a bit hard to know. There are no randomized studies.6 The best we can do is to compare women who had a C-section and planned a vaginal birth to women who had a C-section and planned a repeat C-section. This isn’t perfect—the kind of women who want a VBAC may be different from those who are happy to have another C-section—but done right it can be pretty convincing. And studies like this suggest that there are some
increased risks to a VBAC. In one case, researchers studying women in Australia found that women who planned a VBAC had more serious infant complications and a greater likelihood of maternal hemorrhage. Both of these outcomes happened for about 2.5 percent of the women in the VBAC group versus only about 0.8 percent of the planned C-section group.7 The women in the two groups looked very similar in many ways—age, race, etc.—so we can have some confidence that the choice of delivery mode was responsible for the differences. And this is pretty consistent with other, similar studies.8 Without randomized evidence it’s hard to be rock solid on this, and, unlike in the breech case, many doctors will be fine with this type of delivery. Because of the possibility of increased risks, though, you do probably want a doctor who has experience with this situation so that she’ll know what to do if things start to go awry. If you do decide to attempt a vaginal birth, be prepared: about half of attempted VBACs end in a C-section.
The references are:
6. J. M. Dodd et al., “Planned Elective Repeat Caesarean Section Versus
Planned Vaginal Birth for Women with a Previous Caesarean Birth,” Cochrane
Database of Systematic Reviews 4, article no. CD 004224 (2004).
7
. Caroline Crowther et al., “Planned Vaginal Birth or Elective Repeat
Caesarean: Patient Preference Restricted Cohort with Nested Randomised Trial,”
PLOS Medicine 9, no. 3 (2012): e1001192.
8
. E. Mozurkewich and E. Hutton, “Elective Repeat Caesarean Delivery Versus
Trial of Labor: A Meta-Analysis of the Literature from 1989 to 1999,”
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 183 (2000): 1187–97.

Huera 14 Aug 2025 14:21 UTC
6 points
4
in reply to: Kaj_Sotala’s comment on: Enlightenment AMA
If the distinction between the Buddhist meaning and the typical meaning of ‘suffering’ was explained^[1], I don’t think I would have ended up confused enough to ask my question. The Buddhist conception of suffering was different enough to mislead me, at least.
1. ^
  In a footnote, for example.

Huera 14 Aug 2025 13:04 UTC
5 points
3
in reply to: lsusr’s comment on: Enlightenment AMA
[EDIT Actually, nevermind. After reading answers downstream of this comment, it’s clear to me that when I asked about ‘suffering’ I meant something quite different from your conception of suffering. I’m no longer confused about why you would say that non-enlightenment is constant suffering, but I don’t see why it would be worth getting rid of.]

The latter option would be a very tall order. What I meant was that among
Hypothesis 1: You suffered but somehow this information never arrived to verbal thoughts
Hypothesis 2: You didn’t suffer, but after T=1 your perception changed and now the same things make you suffer.
Hypothesis 1. strikes me as very implausible a priori, for reasons I mentioned in my answer to Kaj. So, do you have an argument that it is not as unlikely as I think, that would be, indeed, “Understandable by someone who has not had the experience”.

Huera 14 Aug 2025 12:53 UTC
6 points
0
in reply to: Kaj_Sotala’s comment on: Enlightenment AMA
Thanks, I think this could be what is happening. But:
1. Your examples that illustrate confusion/mistakes about one’s mental state are, how to put it, small-scale. I feel like there’s a huge leap between “Sometimes a person doesn’t realize how tired they are for a few hours (maybe days)” or “Some fraction of people who get depressed don’t realize it for months (maybe years)” and “Basically everyone’s default state is suffering they’re unaware of, and they don’t realize this during their whole lives”. Maybe you could come up with examples where misconceptions about one’s mental state are more severe, longer-lasting or more common than in my depression example, but I think there would probably be a huge gap between that and the “default state is suffering” hypothesis.
2. My understanding is that the typical reported experience of high school is mostly negative valence, but as people grow up they start to look back on that time in their lives ever more fondly. I don’t have a great model of how this works psychologically, but, when it happens, I’m inclined to think that the changed perspective is wrong. That the high-school-version of a person was more correct about his mental state than the current-version. All of which is to say that when one thinks “My past-self was unaware (or mistaken) of important parts of their conscious experience”, in most cases, this is correct, but in the high school and constant-suffering cases, it seems likely to me that one is wrong.

Huera 13 Aug 2025 16:18 UTC
16 points
4
on: Enlightenment AMA
[Re-asking a question i phrased awkwardly]
You have previously described your pre-enlightenment state as being full of suffering you were unaware of. Do you have externally legible reasons to think that your current perspective is correct and the perspective of your past-self about his experience is not?
Or, how a different commenter phrased it:
You’re like:
T=0: “I’m fine”
T=1: Meditation
T=2: “Oh, I actually wasn’t fine, it was a torment!”
Hypothesis 1: You suffered but somehow this information never arrived to verbal thoughts
Hypothesis 2: You didn’t suffer, but after T=1 your perception changed and now the same things make you suffer.
Why do you think it’s the first one that is correct?
What links here?
- Huera's comment on Enlightenment AMA by lsusr (14 Aug 2025 14:21 UTC; 6 points)

Huera 9 Jul 2025 11:25 UTC
12 points
5
on: An Opinionated Guide to Using Anki Correctly
I think it’s totally fine to have basically one deck for everything. I have such a deck, containing history facts alongside math alongside friends’ birthdays, and this is not a problem.
I think this was fine with the old anki algorithm, but less so with FSRS.
It’s sensible a priori to expect that your forgetting curves for birthdays and math are different. If you optimize parameters for a single deck, anki will treat every card in the set {birthdays, math, historical trivia} the same. But if you have separate decks (and deck groups) for each topic, FSRS will be able to extract more signal and pick better parameters.
Admittedly, using a single deck probably isn’t a huge mistake, but it seems like an unforced error to me.

Huera 30 Jun 2025 21:23 UTC
3 points
0
on: Substack and Other Blog Recommendations
Gwern still releases his monthly newsletters, he just stopped crossposting them to substack. Though admittedly, there’s less commentary and overall content. Here’s the january 2025 one.
I’ve randomly stumbled upon this back in march.

Huera 6 Jun 2025 18:31 UTC
3 points
0
in reply to: AnthonyC’s comment on: Dating Roundup #6
I’m curious if we know, is there a 180cm effect? Does the rest of the world get away with being a whole inch shorter without feeling the need to lie?
In my experience, this is correct. There’s a saying in my country, roughly: ‘a real man begins at 180cm’ expressed with varying levels of tongue-in-cheeckness. See also this comment from a hungarian.
So, I’d say it’s one of the many advantages of the metric system.

Huera 2 Jun 2025 19:05 UTC
1 point
0
on: ‘Wicked’: thoughts
I read a fantasy book with this plot once, where it turned out that the good and wise king—the protagonist’s main distant ally in a frightening world—really just had magic that let him commit murder then have eyewitnesses believe his words claiming innocence.
o3 believes this refers to Graceling, though the plot synopsis doesn’t suggest a perfect match. Could you confirm/discomfirm?

Huera 8 May 2025 6:10 UTC
8 points
0
in reply to: Alex_Altair’s comment on: Alex_Altair’s Shortform
Oddly enough, you’re the second person to post about this.

Huera 4 May 2025 14:45 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: Drake Morrison’s comment on: Open Thread Spring 2025
I think sorting all posts by ‘Top, inflation adjusted’ and browsing by year is your best bet. E.g. 2016

Huera 25 Apr 2025 7:10 UTC
2 points
0
in reply to: ihatenumbersinusernames7’s comment on: Open Thread Spring 2025
The most recent comments show up in ‘Recent Discussion’ on the main page, regardless of article age. But, of course, though some people may see them, you are still more likely to get engagement if you comment on recent articles.
Don’t know about wikitags comments.

Huera 21 Apr 2025 6:37 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: avancil’s comment on: Scaffolding Skills
I have, indeed, misunderstood the concept—will retract my comment.

Huera 20 Apr 2025 5:52 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: papetoast’s comment on: Scaffolding Skills
re 2: Now that you mention it, I realized sharpening can be easily outsourced. My mistake.
re 1: I don’t see it, buying pre-chopped onions is simply not equivalent to having a freshly chopped onion and some vegetables cannot be bought pre-cut. While cutting isn’t a bottleneck for most people I had this chain in mind: (no cutting skills) → (cooking takes more time and is less pleasant) → (Less willingness to try new or complex recipes).
(Also, if you don’t have proper technique, you’re at a higher risk of cutting yourself. In that respect, it’s like free climbing / using safety ropes)
re 3: I had self-experiments in general in mind (people run self-experiments, without knowing statistics, or even gathering data), but it did not occur to me that not all self-experiments are QS (probably most aren’t). As written you are, of course, correct.