glue_snorter
@glue_snorter@lemmy.sdfeu.org
- Comment on What does cigarette smoking do for people? 1 year ago:
I did not find that at all.
I’m sorry you have that - I didn’t. I was quit with no cravings for five years, what got me back in was spliffs with tobacco. (Now I vape, because I do intend to occasionally smoke weed with tobacco.)
The reason you still have cravings is because you never deprogrammed yourself. You still associate gaspers with relief, relaxation, pleasure.
If you can reframe the sensation of smoking as the tense tickly feeling of “god I could use a fag”, which no-one would claim to enjoy, the rest is plain sailing, and within a few weeks you’ll be past any cravings. The bulk of the cravings are done within a few days.
I don’t mean to suggest that it’s easy to quit - most people fail. But the trick is not too withstand cravings for the rest of your life, it’s too break the paradoxical association of fags with pleasure, which is a one-time thing.
- Comment on PSA: the largest piracy community is blocked from lemmy.world 1 year ago:
The content is still on Reddit.
- Comment on The 26-year-old Quake 2 just got the remaster of my dreams, plus a big expansion 1 year ago:
Check out Asahi Linux on mac. Your mac is likely a better gaming machine.
- Comment on The 26-year-old Quake 2 just got the remaster of my dreams, plus a big expansion 1 year ago:
If you haven’t already, you might also consider a vertical mouse. That fixed my capital tunnel, trackball didn’t help for me
- Comment on Environmental protester halt the world championship in cycling... one of the best alternatives to fuel driven transportation.... 1 year ago:
Yes it is a theory about a conspiracy. However, it’s not a “conspiracy theory”.
A “conspiracy theory” is, by definition, lunatic - e.g. chemtrails, fake moon landing, vaccine microchips
A plausible theory about a conspiracy is not a “conspiracy theory” - e.g. Epstein didn’t kill himself, environmentalists protesting a cycling event are a false flag op. These may be wrong; they may be ardently believed without sufficient evidence; but they are reasonable explanations for the given facts.