sunshine

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Two pills of 50mg will double compared to the one 50mg....of that active drug. That number doesn't translate over the same to a different active drug. Just look at LD50s for that concept.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't live in the UK, would you be willing to give an example of what the yearly lump sum is vs the monthly fee? I'm genuinely curious!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fair opinion, it can be a little rough to follow along if you're not in the mood for comedy. Rating things as cringe is so dead tho.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Super neat!! Thanks for the link. :) If anyone likes the style of writing, go look at the Discworld community. These books are great.

I'm hoping this quote can drive some critical thinking about sustainability, and maybe some discussion about how to better what people CAN afford/already have.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Here's my example: Nice Hoka shoes are typically 100$+, but Sketcher's Work Sneakers are ~40$. The Hokas would last a lot longer and be more ergonomic, but that price is way out of my reach. The Sketchers get disintegrated by a year of use.

What I do is add arch supports and gel shoe inserts (9$ iirc) into the Sketchers, and replace those when they wear. It adds about two years of life to the shoes! :)

45
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

Based on the excerpt from this Discworld book, what other items do you use regularly that would fit in this theory? (Boots and shoes are fair game!)

Text transcript for people who want it:

[The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

This was Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.]

Bonus: suggest ways you can repair/restore your item/other people's items.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Home-raised meat sounds like the best option for people who like to or have to eat meat. Without any interest in discussing veganism or not, I think that raising meat hens, meat rabbits, or any other healthy, sustainable meat source is good. I think I saw someone discussing meat rabbits over on /animal_husbandry?

The meat industry itself is incredibly suspect, and being able to provide your animals with a healthy, enriched life before they provide you with nutrients in turn seems perfectly solarpunk and sustainable to me.

The hardest part of backyard livestock is humane euthanasia. In some states and cities, dressing your birds in your own yard may be illegal (due to coyotes or health concerns) Have you looked into a butcher who can humanely kill & dress the birds for you? There are plenty that will do that service for larger animals (sheep, cattle, any wild game carcass you bring in) for a small fee. My local butcher will do birds in small batches, too.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Hi! First off, I am not a medical doctor nor am I a licensed psychiatrist, so please supercede any of my information with what your personal doctor/care team says.

Second, when considering the therapeutic range of medication you cannot just look at increasing the mgs. The way you've calculated these trial dosages are following a raw formula (base starting dose multiplied by some number) and that isn't taking in account the efficacy curve. That's a really wordy way to put it, sorry. Consider that 100mg is around a 33% increase from the 50-200 range. You'd be looking for a similar 33% increase in the 20-40 range (27ish mg).

Basically, just because 100mg Zoloft was your starting dosage, you'd more realistically be looking at a dosage of 25-35mg Citalopram.

And depending on what the medication you're looking at is made of, dosages can get wild and may not compare using the efficacy curve or my i-just-woke-up math. If you're already looking at papers to determine personal dosages, try following along with the lowest dosage, see if it has effect, then take the next dosage up. Starting right at the 40mg may be too intense for your system overall, and could make your body intolerant of Citalopram if you go too hard. It's much, much better to start lower than you think you need and work up. Best of luck!

Source: I have experience in drug research and development. Pictured below is my scratch math. +50 for each 33% increase on Zoloft, +7ish for each 33% increase on Citalopram. If anyone catches a mathematical error please lmk! :)