Is it normal for a young child to not want to share anything—toys, food, outerwear?
#
Yes, completely normal. Young children are egocentric by design. Their brains are still developing the capacity for perspective-taking, impulse control, and emotional regulation. True perspective-taking doesn’t emerge until around ages four to six. Children may eventually outgrow selfishness, but waiting for that to happen is a missed opportunity. The brain is also highly plastic at this age. Parents have enormous power to foster generosity, and the earlier they start, the better.
Most cannabis formulations, built around just THC and CBD, can work for intimacy—but they require a certain amount of mental effort to stay in a good headspace. That’s the kind of effort you don’t need to be making.
Adding a third cannabinoid—CBN (cannabinol)—to the THC+CBD combination creates something noticeably more stable. In a 1:1:1 ratio of Δ9-THC, CBD, and CBN, the experience is self-regulating. You don’t need to steer your mood. The blend handles that, freeing your attention for your partner, your body, and the moment.
A parent hands their child an apple-shaped token. The deal: bring me this token and you can tell me anything—no punishment, no consequences. The video spread because it feels like a breakthrough. Parents watching think, why didn’t I think of that?
Internal Family Systems (IFS) therapy holds that the mind is made up of parts with distinct roles. When a child hides something, a part is at work whose job is to keep the secret—call it Keeper. Keeper fears the parent’s reaction: anger, punishment, shame, withdrawal of love. That fear may be justified by past experience or purely anticipatory. Either way, Keeper concluded that honesty with this parent is too risky.
I recently tried 5-MAPB (5-(2-methylaminopropyl)benzofuran) at 80mg on a single occasion—my first experience with an MDMA-like compound. This gave me a useful point of comparison with psilomethoxin (Pm).
In my judgment, Pm at 0.5–1g most closely resembles 5-MAPB. Below that range, Pm is too subtle; above it, the experience pulls inward too firmly in a way that diverges from the 5-MAPB character.
The comparison confirmed differences I had suspected. 5-MAPB is a stimulant—sleep on the day of administration was a challenge. Pm is not a stimulant; as noted in the original case report, falling asleep at the peak is possible.
This is my remix of Vitalik’s Dec 30 essay of the same title.
Modern civilization depends on powerful institutions—corporations, governments, and mass movements—to drive progress, yet these same forces threaten freedom and flourishing as they concentrate power. This essay examines how Big Business, Big Government, and Big Mob each become dangerous through specific mechanisms: corporations through profit optimization that diverges from social welfare and through homogenization driven by scale; governments when they shift from neutral frameworks to active agents pursuing their own agendas; civil society when diverse institutions collapse into unified mobs.
I am writing as your constituent in [City], Oregon, to express my concerns about HB 3000’s ban on synthetically derived cannabinoids by the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission (OLCC).
The Current Problem
The OLCC has banned all artificially derived cannabinoids based on health concerns, specifically worries over consumers ingesting or inhaling the residue of chemicals used to process CBD into other cannabinoids. While I understand the intent to protect consumers, this blanket prohibition creates several significant issues:
I am writing to urge you to consider the full legalization of drugs in Oregon—not merely decriminalization, but a comprehensive shift away from criminal enforcement and toward a public health approach. The current strategy of criminalizing drug use continues to waste valuable police resources, fails to address the root causes of addiction, and diverts funding from effective solutions.
Despite years of debate and reform, Oregon continues to allocate significant law enforcement resources to the policing of drug possession and use[1]. Even after the partial decriminalization under Measure 110, recent legislative changes have returned us to a system where police are once again tasked with arresting individuals for minor drug offenses[3]. This approach has proven ineffective at reducing drug use or overdoses, and it diverts officers from addressing violent crime and other public safety priorities.
Becky Kennedy’s approach to parenting has resonated with countless families seeking connection-based strategies that honor both parent authority and children’s emotional experiences. Her book presents a thoughtful framework centered on seeing children as “good inside” while offering practical strategies for common parenting challenges. However, when viewed through the lens of Patty Wipfler’s Hand in Hand Parenting, several significant limitations emerge in Kennedy’s methodology that merit careful examination.
Kennedy’s work has gained particular traction within the Internal Family Systems (IFS) community due to her innovative application of IFS concepts to everyday parenting challenges. Her framework extends Richard Schwartz’s pioneering model into parenting, discussing how parents can recognize and respond to different parts of their children’s emotional experiences. This adaptation of IFS principles to parenting has earned Kennedy significant recognition, including a formal endorsement from Schwartz himself, who praised her ability to translate complex therapeutic concepts into accessible parenting strategies.
The judge’s approach to religious sincerity in the Jensen case provides a practical example that aligns with Carse’s understanding of religion.
The Judge’s Determination of Religious Sincerity
#
In the court document, the judge states: “At the hearing, Plaintiffs presented the testimony of several witnesses to establish the sincerity of their religion. The court found the witnesses credible and ruled that Plaintiffs had shown a likelihood of success on their claim under the Utah RFRA.”
June 18, 2026