Reddit is astroturfed to hell, I prefer my posts to come from humans rather than companies trying to game system for financial benefit.

Truth isn’t different between serious and casual discussion and this is a serious topic.

If you want to cite a scientific paper then do it yourself and don’t ask others to fish them out of blogs you link to because too many times I’ve seen none included and nobody got time for that on a casual forum.

As to actual sources, I assumed I wouldn’t have to make as much of a strong point when talking about something that’s pretty much a scientific consensus. Where I live doctors won’t prescribe you medicinal weed if you’re under 25 usually too.

Going by casual wisdom, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence so I would expect the burden to be on the ones claiming that what I’m saying is bs but I guess it’s on me to bring back some reason here.

• Effects of Cannabis Use on Human Behavior, Including Cognition, Motivation, and Psychosis: A Review (closed access, SciDB mirror)
• Age-related differences in the impact of cannabis use on the brain and cognition: a systematic review
• Longitudinal study of risk factors predicting cannabis use disorder in UK young adults and adolescents
• The Effect of Age of Initiation of Cannabis Use on Psychosis, Depression, and Anxiety among Youth under 25 Years

I’d rather add meta-comment in an effort to preserve quality of discussion. I’m seeing this everywhere - making a point by linking to a blog pretending to be a scientific paper. It has about as much value as a comment by anyone here. If I understand correctly it’s an attempt to add some kind of authority to your opinion but it’s just harmful to the way establishing truth works.

Please stop using blog posts pretending to be scientific research.

Where are you getting your numbers on % of population at risk of psychosis and schizophrenia to call them unknown small sliver? Cannabis being harmful to people under 25 is well studied. Most neurodivergent folk are at risk and both things compound enough so that having this kind of legal age just make sense.

I consume plenty of weed myself but I’m for responsible and controlled use. I’m glad to piss off liberals and conservatives alike since I’m a leftie.

Some of us are more prone to mental health issues. Cannabis is a strong trigger. It is possible to go through life without triggers. THC is not something you need in your life unless prescribed for specific conditions.

I’m all for full legalisation but legal age for most substances should be simply higher because it’s way too risky and damaging before your brain fully develops, as evidenced by the this paper.

That’s still the case so automation + multiple providers is still the way to go. This guy here makes Usenet provider maps so that you can figure out what combination will work the best for you: https://gnu.gl/users/rexum/statuses/114789594488827582

I assumed OP is after some kind of media manager with integrated download capabilities and Zlib doesn’t have anything similar as far as I know.

• Couch Potato is pretty much dead, Radarr is the way to go.

• Back in the day Sabnzbd was considered slow and inefficient so Nzbget was usually recommended. These days both are pretty much indistinguishable performance-wise and Sabnzbd seems to get more active development.

For plain ebooks there’s a Calibre plugin that integrates Anna’s Archive as a store. Requires a paid account but works okay in my limited experience.

Not going to argue with that, but it does pose challenging questions on how to govern digital archival so that certain lines are not crossed. Current restrictive laws push archival into the grey zone where it’s hard to effectively enforce privacy protections.

Web browsers are the most resource intensive apps these days. Dedicated app doesn’t have to run JavaScript or ask for UI elements over network so it’s better for both battery and bandwidth.