Depression is a side effect of Ketamine abuse.
Small doses are, under controlled by a doctor circumstances and monitoring. Also they use a nose spray to spray you and you need to return a while later with the visits getting sparser each time.
Abuse is hitting horse tranqs for the high.
They do have a nasal option that’s not very strong, but they also can do IV ketamine which is a bit more powerful. And you’re absolutely right about it being controlled and monitored, as well as expensive.
It’s IV ketamine use which has shown to rewire the connections between nodes in the brain. These old connections have triggers for depression baked in more or less. So in rewiring the nodes, the baked in depression can be circumvented. The nasal spray then reenforces these new pathways which were created via IV treatment to help ensure the old ones aren’t used again by the brain. It’s a delicate process and abusing the drug definitely only makes assessing the process much more difficult.
This constitutes a legal binding contract. No I will not be taking corrections.
You say that jokingly, but it absolutely does. There are likely other claim holders who have a stronger claim that would superceded this one, but in and of itself this absolutely is a legal binding contact. This is exactly the kind of nonsense he spouts that put him in a position where he legally had to buy twitter even though he didn’t actually want to
but it absolutely does
I get why you would say that, because verbal contracts are definitely a real thing that can be binding, and this basically takes the form of a verbal contract, with the added advantage of being written down so it’s easy to prove what was said.
But I don’t think any court would ever find that this constituted a binding contract. No reasonable person would believe that this was intended to be taken seriously, and an offer made in jest does not constitute a binding contract. See Leonard v Pepsico.
edit: With Twitter, as far as we know, he had actually signed a more standard contract in which he waived his right to due diligence. It was rash and stupid, but not really comparable to this at all.
Good clarification from someone who sounds like they know what they’re talking about, thanks. But i see no clear indication that it was said in jest. I mean if i had to guess i would say it was in jest, but i also can very easily see elon saying this in earnest because he’s done so many rash enormous decisions in the past. I feel like at a bare minimum it’s got enough validity that a lawsuit about it would become a real case and might make elon’s estate want to give a cash settlement to avoid the litigation
That’s a funny court case. Pepsi releases an ad where someone gets a fighter jet for 7,000,000 pepsi points. Someone finds they can be bought for $0.10 each, so buys that many pepsi points and asks for the jet. The court sides with Pepsi, because it’s ridiculous to think you’re getting a fighter jet for that, and afterwards Pepsi edits the commercial to make it 700,000,000 pepsi points instead.
Also Pepsi never cashed the check for the points, and they did add a “Just Kidding” disclaimer, but that wasn’t in the synopsis on Wikipedia. 700,000,000 pepsi points would cost almost double what the jet is valued at, so if someone did try the stunt again, they’d theoretically be able to get the jet to them. However, the Pentagon stated that the jet would have to be demilitarized, which includes removing its advertised feature of vertical takeoff and landing.
There’s no consideration specified, so it’s not really a contract in normal terms.
It is however a last will and testament for disposal of his asset(s).
Drama Queelon
Next MrBeast video.
“First person who follows me and gets rid of Elon gets $1,000,000.”
Can we get him to say something about the 737 max?
