←back to thread

Bill Atkinson's psychedelic user interface

(patternproject.substack.com)
436 points cainxinth | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.513s | source
Show context
demiters ◴[] No.44531227[source]
Not a big fan of the ongoing productisation of transcendental, possibly brain-scrambling experiences. Keeping them somewhat less accessible tends to filter out people who don't do their homework to understand the substance and who consider it just another novel experience to try on a whim, which increases the risk of negative outcomes.
replies(14): >>44531266 #>>44531301 #>>44531309 #>>44531336 #>>44531403 #>>44532013 #>>44532020 #>>44532191 #>>44533028 #>>44533191 #>>44533451 #>>44533539 #>>44534271 #>>44536123 #
zeta0134 ◴[] No.44531309[source]
I suppose this is a dangerous counterargument to make, especially as I'm not a substance user at all myself, but... what's wrong with wanting to seek out novel experiences? I'd much rather folks who wish to do this be able to do so safely, with good sources of information about those risks and with a support network that is allowed to talk about it. I feel like the taboo nature of substances in general causes folks with this interest to hide it from their peers, exactly the people who would otherwise be first in line to spot problems and offer assistance. Shouldn't it be okay to talk about it?
replies(2): >>44531962 #>>44533484 #
lostmsu ◴[] No.44531962[source]
They are totally OK as long as healthcare is not socialized.
replies(2): >>44532032 #>>44532075 #
dtj1123 ◴[] No.44532075[source]
Does that line of reasoning extend to things like fast food and motorcycles in your eyes? Not trying to undermine your point, just genuinely curious.
replies(3): >>44532280 #>>44532452 #>>44534908 #
1. patcon ◴[] No.44532280[source]
> things like fast food and motorcycles in your eyes?

motorcycles...? in... my eyes?

What wizardry is this? First "computers in my brain", now this. I'll have the singularity that you're smoking pls :)

EDIT: was at first genuinely confused, and then tickled by my own misunderstanding

replies(1): >>44539988 #
2. dtj1123 ◴[] No.44539988[source]
'in your view' would probably have been a better choice of words.