h a l f b a k e r yI heartily endorse this product and/or service.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Alarmingly, it turns out that 50% of people have below-
average
intelligence. Even more alarmingly, those with above-
average
intelligence are not really **that** much smarter. Clearly,
something needs to be done about smartness.
To the extent that smartness depends on the number of and
interconnections betwixt brain cells, it's going to be tough to
engineer it. We really don't know how the brain decides
how
many cells to have, or how to interconnect them. We have
a
few vague ideas about intelligence-related genes, but
improving the brain's architecture is going to be decades
down
the line.
Howevertheless, if you can't redesign a computer, you can at
least overclock it a bit. Most of the time spent in having a
thought is actually all about impulses travelling along axons.
This happens about 100m/s. So, if we guesstimate that the
average transmission distance is 5cm (a lot less than the size
of your brain, but then again neurons are somewhat
clustered
by function for this very reason), then the brain's clock
speed
is something like 2kHz. A thought that involves a mere 100
consecutive signals will take a whopping 50ms.
Now, nerve conduction is pretty well understood. The ion
channels in one piece of the axon pop open, allowing a flow
of
ions which creates a voltage change. This change, in turn,
triggers nearby ion channels to pop open, thereby
propagating
the wave. We know the relevant proteins down to atomic
detail.
So, how do we speed this up? Well, one of the great things
about cells is that they are pretty much transparent, which
means we can use optical transmission to carry nerve
impulses. First, we need to create a hybrid protein
comprising
the regular voltage-sensitive ion channel and luciferase.
This
will need a bit of tinkering, because we want the luciferase
domain to be active only when the channel is open. Once
we've done this, and bunged the new gene into someone,
we'll
have a brain that literally lights up while it's thinking*.
Next, we need to further engineer the protein so that it is
light-sensitive. This shouldn't be so hard, since we can start
with things like bacteriorhodopsin, and splice them into the
protein. Again, it'll need a bit of tinkering, but what are
protein engineers for?
Once we've done this, the whole process of transmitting
nerve
impulses will become a lot faster. As soon as an impulse
starts, it will create a little burst of light. That light will
tend
to propagate down the axon, fibreoptically, at least for a
few
millimetres. And wherever the light goes, it will trigger the
activation of more of the light-sensitive, light-emitting ion
channel. The result will be that most of the transmission
distance will be covered at 3x10^9 m/s instead of 100m/s.
There will still be delays (assuming that the optical signal
can't
travel the whole axon in one go), but we might well expect
the speed of thinking to increase by 10 or 100-fold.
[*This will, in itself, be a boon to psychiatrists, neurologists
and brain surgeons - a gentle glow should be visible through
the skull in a dark room, and with the skull opened you
should see precisely which bits of grey goo are active at any
one moment]
Luciferase kinetics
https://pubs.acs.or...10.1021/bi00702a015
[bs0u0155, Mar 04 2019]
The hipster effect: Why anti-conformists always end up looking the same
https://phys.org/ne...ti-conformists.html
Mentioned in my anno. Mathematical model of conformism and anti-conformism [notexactly, Mar 08 2019]
Inadvertent confirmation of the above result
https://petapixel.c...-different-hipster/
A hipster got mad that his photo was used in an article about the above science, but it turned out he'd mis-recognized another hipster as himself! [notexactly, Mar 08 2019]
[link]
|
| |
//great things about cells is that they are pretty much
transparent,// |
|
| |
Brain can be annoyingly opaque, but pick the right
frequency and it's a valid point. One feature of the
existing electrical system is that it operates in an
environment of extraordinarily non-uniform electrical
transparency. Neurons are conductive for metres
lengthwise and nm radially. So, in an optically
transparent environment, how do you stop cell 1 tripping
the adjacent receptors in cell 2 rather than the more
distant node in cell 1? |
|
| |
//Alarmingly, it turns out that 50% of people have below-
average intelligence// |
|
| |
[+] Priceless, consider me tickled ;D |
|
| |
//So, in an optically transparent environment, how do you
stop cell 1 tripping the adjacent receptors in cell 2 rather
than the more distant node in cell 1?// I'm relying to some
extent on axons behaving a bit like fibreoptics. I'm also
counting on glial cells and other bits of gubbins to attenuate
signals leaving the axon. If it becomes an issue, we just
arrange for melanin to be expressed in glial cells, or stick a
light-absorbing protein domain onto the external side of an
abundant transmembrane protein. |
|
| |
//One of the interesting things about the brain is that it is
effectively a big sheet, screwed up into a ball // Well, my
brain is certainly screwed up. |
|
| |
overclocking a 286 Processor does not give you a Pentium
chip. Or whatever their current generation thingy is. |
|
| |
is the goal doing arithmetic faster or being able to process
more complex problems? I mean yes brute force speed up is
useful for certain algorithms, but not for making a good
choice in the election booth, is it. |
|
| |
Overclocking won't address all areas of cognition, but it would
get you to an answer a lot faster. Overclocking a computer
does let it do stuff faster, albeit not as fast as one with a
greatly improved architecture. |
|
| |
Moreovermore, the effect would not be confined to neurons in
the brain. Sensory and motor inputs would likewise be
accelerated. Imagine a tennis player whose reaction time was
a few milliseconds instead of 100ms. |
|
| |
//but not for making a good choice in the election booth, is
it.// |
|
| |
Personally I'm increasingly persuaded the only good choice in
the election booth is the postal ballot.. but they tend to look
askance at you at those events if you bring a pump action
shotgun, wouldn't let me in last time. |
|
| |
// people are more than 98% water, most of which is dissipated through the top of the head // |
|
| |
Yes, I've seen this happening too. |
|
| |
Incidentally, there is an inherited disorder that leads to the
accumulation of copper in various sites around the body (for
example, around the iris). If this could be manipulated, you
could gradually lay down copper cores in all your axons, which
would mean that (a) you could think and react faster and (b)
you'd make pretty green flames when cremated. |
|
| |
//there is an inherited disorder that leads to
the accumulation of copper in various sites around the body
(for example, around the iris)/// |
|
| |
Or rather than using it to think faster it could just be used
to solve the great copper shortage of 2107. |
|
| |
Selectively bred humans that lay down lots of copper in the
eye, which makes them blind, which is good really, because
then they
won't complain so much about having their eyes dug out for
the
copper. |
|
| |
Mind racing -> overstimulation + indecision -> palpitations +
creeping existential horror -> a brisk walk -> a nice glass of pale
ale + a biryani -> gulab jamun + Irish coffee |
|
| |
Actually that ended quite well, but I'm tempted to skip straight to
the later stages without dazzling my axons. Point being that
those above average intelligence are often blessed with
unhappiness and craziness too. So they tell me. |
|
| |
OTOH, //we want the luciferase domain to be active// has a nice
gothic ring to it. Gonna need a bigger pentagram for that sort of
thing. |
|
| |
As I understand it, overclocking a computer tends to result
in ventilation issues. It may be that we will need to address
a similar problem with the overclocked brain. Trepanation
would seem to be the most conveniently mechanical
solution. The added bonus is that the head becomes a sort
of disco light. The potential drawback is that the increased
consciousness, coupled with the increased uh computational
power could result in ill-directed galaxy braining. |
|
| |
But if this is essentially replacing one biochemical pathway with another, and the end result is a dramatic increase in signal processing and reaction times, why hasn't evolution by natural selection already got to this solution? Would it use more energy, or have some other concomitant evolutionary disadvantage which would cause it not to be selected? |
|
| |
//ventilation issues// Yes and no. |
|
| |
//why hasn't evolution by natural selection already got to this
solution// Evolution is a slattern and a layabout. Also, we've
only had brains for a few hundred million years, so she may
just not have thought of it yet. As far as I know, luciferase
vanished from our lineage long before we were playing tennis
or trying to solve differential equations, so evolution hasn't
really had the raw materials to work with. |
|
| |
that's the typical anti-telepathy and other psychic powers
refrain isn't it. If it was possible it'd have evolved. |
|
| |
Telepathy _has_ been evolved, it's just that we call it radio. |
|
| |
Brain-to-brain telepathy is trickier. However, there are
plenty of fish that can both detect and send out electric fields
to help them navigate and find prey, and I wouldn't be
surprised if they also use them as part of a mating ritual,
which would be a sort of telepathy. |
|
| |
I reckon that for most of the last few million years, there hasn't been enough evolutionary advantage in brain-to-brain telepathy to warrant the 'cost' in energy and raw materials to produce, and the 'opportunity cost' in terms of what would have to be ditched to make way for it. |
|
| |
If you wore an airtight helmet with a slightly reduced air pressure, would this not make your brain work faster? |
|
| |
// Trepanation would seem to be the most conveniently
mechanical solution. The added bonus is that the head
becomes a sort of disco light. The potential drawback // |
|
| |
…is that, like a Trisolaran, your thoughts can be literally
seen by those around you. |
|
| |
//an airtight helmet with a slightly reduced air pressure//
Hmm. Not sure. Give it go, [xen], and let us know if it
works. |
|
| |
Regarding telepathy, apart from radios we also have speech
and arm-waving. Both of them can carry over considerable
distances and require less power than a likely telepathic
mechanism. |
|
| |
//As I understand it, overclocking a computer tends to
result in ventilation issues.// |
|
| |
The brain is a big energy-hog, normally that means lots of
mitochondria which would bring a heat burden.
Unfortunately, the extreme shapes neurons make
themselves mean that getting enough mitochondria in the
right places isn't easy. So neurons prefer cooler-running
glucose, which ultimately off-loads the heat burden on
the liver. |
|
| |
//Brain-to-brain telepathy is trickier. However, there are
plenty of fish that can both detect and send out electric
fields// |
|
| |
I've heard that humans can detect local oscillations in
atmospheric pressure using an organ that functions as a
brain-pressure interface. Perhaps by careful manipulation
of air pressure, we could achieve wireless brain-brain
communication. |
|
| |
//those above average intelligence are often blessed with
unhappiness and craziness too// |
|
| |
I don't actually believe that. Dumb people can be miserable
and loopy. |
|
| |
[Max] Please draw your imagined intelligence curve with ascii characters so I can better understand you thoughts on the subject. eg
ooooooooo/'"''ooo.
__----- V ----/ooooo
oooooooooooooo.
|
|
| |
In my mind there are three parts to this human thing. Evolutionary speaking. |
|
| |
//Please draw your imagined intelligence curve with ascii
characters// n is a reasonable approximation. |
|
| |
The problem with thinking faster just means there is more chance the subconscious won't catch the dumb ideas. On the good side, truely good ideas will come from anyone because the subconscious will miss stopping the good ideas. |
|
| |
//there is more chance the subconscious won't catch the
dumb ideas// What do you run your subconscious on, [wjt]?
I use neurons for mine. |
|
| |
On the other hand, [Ian], Twitter is only representative of the kind
if people who have Twitter accounts - viz., celebrities, journalists
and those who get a kick out if teasing them (notably Trump). |
|
| |
////To the extent that smartness depends on the number of and interconnections betwixt brain cells, it's going to be tough to engineer it.//// |
|
| |
//This is actually observed in two types of brains - autism spectrum and PTSD. It's like the brain doubles down on interconnectivity to ensure survival over wider knowledge. It's your tunnel vision thing that often occurs after early or later trauma.// |
|
| |
Interesting.
Are you saying that post traumatic stress can increase brain function? |
|
| |
[Max]Neurons are the hardware grouped into functions. Activity bit is the semantics. It is going to be hard to speed processing up, in the different areas of neurons, with the same ratio as the normal operating speed without the subconscious levels altering the thought orchestration. |
|
| |
// I'm relying to some extent on axons behaving a bit like
fibreoptics. I'm also counting on glial cells and other bits of gubbins
to attenuate signals leaving the axon. |
|
| |
Perhaps you wouldn't need to express the transgenes in EVERY
cell, in exchange for a more modest gain in thought processing.
Maybe just 1 in 100, and the other 99 unmodified neurons will
figure out how to deal with the superneuron. The brain is rather
plastic, after all. |
|
| |
Alternatively, do you think it would be possible to overclock the
brain by tinkering with axon myelination? Either by modifying the
resistance of the membrane or the number or distance between the
nodes of Ranvier? |
|
| |
//overclock the brain by tinkering with axon myelination// Possibly, and I
originally thought of just making the existing mechanism faster. But that's the
sort of incremental thing evolution would have already come up with, if
improvement were possible by such means. Optical transmission, though, is
different enough that it may just not have had time to evolve since we first
had brainz. |
|
| |
I did wonder if we should take another look at bioluminescent deep sea
creatures. For instance, if you're a metre-long anglerfish, the quickest way to
know what's happening to your tail is probably to look for any bioluminescent
signals it might be emitting. |
|
| |
In fact, that does suggest an evolutionary pathway to an optical nerve system.
Suppose you start with an organism whose skin bioluminesces when prodded.
Suppose also that, like many deep-see creatures, its body is largely
transparent. In that case, prodding the creature behind its head would result
in a flash of light reaching its retinas (from behind), much more quickly than it
would detect the prod via nervous conduction (which can be as slow as 1m/s in
cold-blooded animals). Over evolutionary time, the transparency of a path
from back-of-head to back-of-retina would increase, and perhaps it would
develop fibre-optic properties for greater efficiency. Meanwhile, the retina
would grow larger, with portions of it dedicated to receiving these internally-
generated light signals from different parts of the body. |
|
| |
Point being, maybe some deep-sea beasties already use this mechanism. |
|
| |
Is it that depolarization will be optically accelerated, while return to the resting
potential will still proceed at the usual clip (because this optical system still triggers
the endogenous ionic system)? Thus, the stretch of inversely polarized neuron
will be much longer than wild-typical. |
|
| |
Also, how are you going to prevent back-propagation of the optical signal? Or
even self-activation, since these ion channels are now sensitive to the signal they
emit, if I'm reading this right? This seems prone to positive feedback. |
|
| |
In order to make the neuron more fiberopticky so that light-escape (and therefore,
crosstalk) is lessened, I wonder if crystallins or other proteins that increase the
refractive index of the intercellular millieu could be expressed. |
|
| |
//Meanwhile, the retina would grow larger, with portions
of it dedicated to receiving these internally- generated
light signals from different parts of the body.// |
|
| |
I think Jellyfish might be a good place to look. They're
already into the whole bioluminescence game, including
damage sensing <link> and they have 24 eyes of 4 types.
Well, optical sensors, eyes is a stretch. It makes sense for
them, the default "off" is energy efficient and speed
doesn't matter so much when you can't act quickly. |
|
| |
Corals are clearly up to something with all their
fluorescence, which is even lower energy. There's a
suggestion they're using it to optimize light spectra for
their algae, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was some
serious signaling going on. |
|
| |
//the stretch of inversely polarized neuron// |
|
| |
This is an issue. Inverse membrane polarity is both energy
storage and a robust way of preventing firing. You can't
have negative ATP/luciferin. |
|
| |
//how are you going to prevent back-propagation... Or
even self-activation, ...This seems prone to positive
feedback// |
|
| |
The inverse polarity, or "hyperpolarization" as it is
stupidly called, provides directionality and further
activation. Self-activation and positive feedback are
central features of the action potential, they just need
the directionality and to not TRANS activate adjacent
neurons. |
|
| |
//develop fibre-optic properties for greater efficiency// |
|
| |
That's what you need. That and a replacement for
luciferase. The kinetics are junk. It has an activation
delay of 25ms, then it takes almost 1/3rd of a second to
get its act together. The off kinetics are worse <link>.
Using the central energy currency in signaling is also
unwise. Cells avoid it, they run parallel systems like
GTP/Ca2+ to stop energetic cross talk. Like how you
wouldn't power a low-fuel warning light off fuel pressure. |
|
| |
If you wanted to speed up the current* system you could
swap out your ions. Na+ is the lazy one, ~40% slower than
K+, and that's super lazy compared to H+ which is 5-fold
faster than K+. H+ is even faster when you consider the
way OH- interacts and diffuses. There are Voltage gated
H+ channels as proof-of-principle, but they're weird. |
|
| |
So an H+/K+ system would be super fast, and it is,
mitochondria are already doing it. |
|
| |
*some say its a Voltage system, but they're only getting
part of it. |
|
| |
//Alarmingly, it turns out that 50% of people have
below- average intelligence.// |
|
| |
Somebody needs to invent a diet suppliment or
government program that will
turn this around and get 50% of the population into
the ABOVE average IQ range. |
|
| |
//invent a diet suppliment or government program that// |
|
| |
I will need significant funding, but I'm confident it can be
done... |
|
| |
//into the ABOVE average IQ range// |
|
| |
Sadly, in practice "average" is a RANGE, it's the meaty 70%
or so of the curve. To be in the above average range,
meaningfully at least, you need to be in the ~16% that's
more than 1 SD away from the strict mean. IQ is the
sharpest of a lot of very blunt tools, sadly it's difficult and
expensive to do properly. |
|
| |
//I will need significant funding, but I'm
confident it can be done...// |
|
| |
If taxes need to be raised, so be it, we'll all have to
pitch in. By "all" I mean everybody but me. I came up
with the idea so I've done my part. |
|
| |
Explains a lot. Fuck. What are the odds eh? (that was a rhetorical question) |
|
| |
There's gotta be easier ways. |
|
| |
Hmm. I'm not sure about the autism "overconnectivity"
idea,
but would be interested to see any references that point to
it.
My [non-expert] understanding of autism is that those
people
lack the internal model of the world that most of us rely on;
in non-autistic people, our senses and knowledge provide
data
for modelling the world, and it's that model (rather than the
actual world) that we "see". Autists, in contrast, see
something closer to the raw data. |
|
| |
(In support of this idea, there is some evidence that people
with autism are less susceptible to optical illusions, most of
which get their effect from our internal modelling of what
we see.) |
|
| |
I thought autism involved being flooded with detail, and not
being able to extract the meaning? |
|
| |
// [theory of autism being caused by trauma] // |
|
| |
Hmmm. That's interesting. I wonder, if that's true, whether it's the only way of getting autism. If that's the case, I wonder what
the trauma was for me. The only thing I can think of is something that my parents now claim didn't happen. Until I was a
teenager, part of my life story was that as a toddler I was stung by a bee and suffered anaphylaxis. I told my doctor this when I
was a teenager (and also that I had been stung by bees in the intervening years without any serious effects) and she prescribed
me an EpiPen just in case it happened again. When my mom asked why I got one, and I told her, she denied that I'd had
anaphylaxis as a toddler, even though I'm 100% sure that she'd told me multiple times before then that I had had it. Anyway… |
|
| |
// My [non-expert] understanding of autism is that those people lack the internal model of the world that most of us rely on; in
non-autistic people, our senses and knowledge provide data for modelling the world, and it's that model (rather than the actual
world) that we "see". Autists, in contrast, see something closer to the raw data. // |
|
| |
I definitely see a model of the world rather than the raw data. But I'm high-functioning (Asperger syndrome, though the
psychologists decided that doesn't exist anymore), so maybe that's how it works for people with more severe autism. |
|
| |
// (In support of this idea, there is some evidence that people with autism are less susceptible to optical illusions, most of
which get their effect from our internal modelling of what we see.) // |
|
| |
Most optical illusions work for me as they do for neurotypical people. The exceptions are the ones where you're comparing the
lengths of lines, the shapes of tabletops, the shades of checkerboard squares, etc., with different immediate surroundings,
though I think that's maybe just because I've trained myself to evaluate those more critically. The other ones like the grid
illusion and ambiguous drawings generally seem to work normally for me. |
|
| |
// Autistic types often suffer from being unable to regulate e.g. cortisol. // |
|
| |
I think my cortisol works just fine, and probably most/all hormones (though I'm not sure I could easily tell)—but, again, high-
functioning—except maybe melatonin, though that might be unrelated to autism. <digression> My parents have told me (and not
yet denied) that when I was little, they had to move my bedtime earlier by something like five minutes a night to get me to go
to sleep at normal child bedtimes rather than midnight or later. I was too young to remember—I still remember the first time I
stayed up past midnight while old enough to remember (around 10 years old, after having gone to the Calgary Stampede
Grandstand Show & fireworks). I had little trouble with sleep until Grade 11 or so, when I started to have delayed sleep phase
syndrome. During my first two (which became my only two) years of engineering school, I found that I had to skip one night of
sleep a week to stay on a 24-hour schedule the other nights. When I came back home after that, and had a part-time job with
somewhat flexible hours, I smoothed that out to a 28-hour day (like the xkcd comic) or so. More recently, my sleep has been
effectively random, with little ability to predict when I'll be awake or asleep more than two or three days in advance, except
during school, when I can force my sleep schedule to fit into the available times of day that aren't classes, but it's still quite
unpredictable and I can only do that for a few months straight. (This is why I'm avoiding looking for work when I probably
should, because I expect this is incompatible with most jobs.) Lately a big driver of my lack of sleep has been staying up late
(usually all night, actually) to get homework done, due to procrastination mostly by reading about all sorts of interesting stuff
online. (I'm pretty sure I've developed ADD too, but I haven't gotten that diagnosed yet.) </digression> |
|
| |
// I thought autism involved being flooded with detail, and not being able to extract the meaning? // |
|
| |
For me, sometimes, I think might be even more than that: to avoid being overwhelmed with detail, my brain ignores it unless
it's sure it's salient, which I guess is what neurotypical brains do too, but mine doesn't always know what's actually salient. It
results in not a situation of not seeing the forest for the trees (though that happens to me too) but not seeing the forest due to
ignoring the trees. Though I have limited introspection in this area, so I can't really be sure about what I just said. |
|
| |
Note to American readers: being bonkers is not the same as
actual bonking. |
|
| |
// How nervous are you in new situations ? // |
|
| |
Nowhere near as much anymore as when I was younger. I
would estimate it's about average now. I think the
main thing that's helped has just been experience with lots of
new situations over the years. Now it's pretty
much only severe when I'm going into a situation without
knowing the structure of it, but even then maybe
only half the time. |
|
| |
// If we start with the premise that a psychologically
impaired individual [oof :)] is basically shutting out
the world and is hard to communicate with, then throughout
life they rely more on their own perception of
reality rather than groupthink. // |
|
| |
That seems to maybe make sense for me. There are of course
many (must be most) areas where I've just
gone with the majority thinking, without even thinking about
it, but it subjectively seems that I have insights
based on my own perception more often than other people
report. But this could just be due to them not
reporting it—I don't usually report it either, and these things
are hard to judge quantitatively from
spontaneous reporting anyway. So I can't be sure either way. |
|
| |
// Groupthink for sociable types is often totally sufficient to
get by in life without analysing the world and
creating a working model. // |
|
| |
And it annoys me that so many people do that to the point of
reliance on it. I wish they would be more
logical, though not in the stereotypical sense of "I want
people to behave in ways that make sense to me",
but in the sense of thinking more logically, because that leads
to better understanding and decisions, which
is a good thing for everyone even if I never meet them.
Fortunately this seems to be something that can be
trained. |
|
| |
// I'll just trot that out again :- By definition, people with
limited communication ability are destined to be
mostly independent creatures who need a thorough model and
understanding of the world to survive as a
lone wolf. // |
|
| |
As I alluded to up top, I certainly do prefer to have a thorough
model of the situations in which I (expect to)
find myself, and I do sometimes avoid situations due to not
having good enough models of them. |
|
| |
// I would argue that some individuals are DNA programmed
e.g. by lack of cortisol re-uptake enzymes to
split from the pack, double up on their synapses and spread
human DNA further afield. Others predisposed
for overconnected brains can be triggered by traumatic events
and become lone wolves. // |
|
| |
Interesting. So having excess cortisol circulating, whether due
to insufficient reuptake or actual stress, is
theorized to be what causes the neurological changes, as a
survival response? |
|
| |
Before she got me diagnosed, my mom briefly thought it was
vaccines that caused it. Fortunately she never
got really into that line of thinking. |
|
| |
// it is frequent to find more than one lone wolf get together
until there’s a whole pack of lone wolves. The entire lone
wolf pack is highly alert to thinking the opposite of
groupthink, and will culturally think the exact opposite all at
the same time. They may even dress in a manner that opposes
fashion. // |
|
| |
Scientifically proven just recently: [link] |
|
| |
I don't think that's the case for me, though, at least at my current level of lack of fame. I see myself as not a deliberate anti-
conformist, trying to make a statement, but just a non-conformist, because conforming is uncomfortable and inconvenient. If
that turns into a statement, that could be a bonus, but I guess if I'm famous enough for that to have any notable effect, that
makes me a trendsetter, which I'm not sure I want to be. |
|
| |
Is there actually a cortisol reuptake pathway? I haven't
encountered one. |
|
| |
//haven't encountered one// |
|
| |
Probably just not frequenting the right clubs [Max], I
recommend Slimelights (if it's still going?) you meet all
sorts there, pretty sure I met a girl by that name there back in
the 90's, if you're lucky she still goes.. if you're really lucky
she doesn't but her daughter does. |
|
| |
[Skewed], you really need to tweak your dosage. |
|
| |
I know, but they won't let me have any more. |
|
| |