In article <86y1imbopb.fsf@linuxsc.com>,
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>> In article <86a5vq1s8y.fsf@linuxsc.com>,
>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
>>
>>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>>>
>>>> In article <86v8i54yk5.fsf@linuxsc.com>,
>>>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think you misunderstood my comment. I didn't mean to say
>>>>> anything about what the authors say about the evolution of
>>>>> realloc(). I meant only that the code they gave works just fine
>>>>> (not counting the problem when 'sizeof (int) == 1' that Ben B
>>>>> pointed out) -- importantly, under the assumptions that the
>>>>> authors explicitly stated -- and that they didn't say anything
>>>>> about whether the code is portable or well-defined if considered
>>>>> outside of those assumptions. The authors may have some opinions
>>>>> about whether the code /should/ work in general, but they don't
>>>>> make any claims about whether it /does/ work in general, and that
>>>>> point is the only one I mean to address.
>>>>
>>>> No, I understood that, but I disagree: I believe that they were
>>>> trying to make a more general statement, beyond simply the
>>>> circumstances they outlined.
>>>
>>> Then I think that either you are misreading what they say
>>> or you are seeing something that isn't there. I went back
>>> and thoroughly reviewed the paper, carefully reading each
>>> sentence. In no case did any statement fall outside the
>>> bounds I outlined above.
>>
>> Maybe I am; truthfully, I haven't given it (the article) much
>> thought since it came up months ago now.
>>
>> Let's look at the relevant section of the article (thankfully it
>> has been edited since initially published to remove some of the
>> more offensive language: the slur about "neurodivergent ideas"
>> is gone), with some commentary about where I'm coming from
>> interspersed:
>
>I appreciate you making an effort to write a thoughtful reply. I
>will try to respond in kind.

Certainly. But I confess that I find it very hard to have this
conversation (or any, really) with spans of weeks or months
between posts.

>> |The C89 and C99 standards committees strongly recommended that
>> |allocation interfaces malloc, calloc, and realloc return a null
>> |pointer in response to zero-byte requests.3,6 This implies that
>> |realloc(p,0) should unconditionally free(p) and return NULL: No
>> |new allocation happens in this case, so there's no possibility
>> |of an allocation failure. For brevity, let "zero-null" denote
>> |allocator implementations that comply with the C89/C99
>> |guidance.
>>
>> Ok. Here the author suggests that the C89 and C99 standards
>> suggest that `malloc(0)` really ought to return NULL.
>
>Note that he doesn't say the C89/C99 standards but the standards
>committees. The comments he's talking about are given in the C
>Rationale documents (and so indicated by the footnote numbers),
>which of course were written by committee members. You might
>want to take a look at those documents, or at least the later
>one, C99 Rationale V5 (dated April 2003); there are five or six
>paragraphs talking about this question.

I did when this discucussion first came up, but I don't see that
being particularly relevant here. In particular, it's not clear
that they're referring to the rationale, and if they were, they
could have simply stated that.

>> |The Swiss-Army-knife aspect of realloc is daunting at first,
>> |but this interface rewards patient study. Soon you realize that
>> |zero-null realloc was thoughtfully designed to enable elegant
>> |dynamic arrays that do exactly the right thing under all
>> |circumstances, obviating the need for clunky and error-prone
>> |code to handle grow-from-zero and shrink-to-zero as special
>> |cases.
>>
>> This seems specious, at best. Doug McIlroy implemented realloc
>> and this is the opposite of what he requested when it was
>> standardized:
>> https://www.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/2015-September/007452.html
>>
>> Note that the original author of `realloc` requested that
>> `realloc(0)` retun something other than NULL. That directly
>> contradicts the author's suggestion that `realloc` was
>> "thoughtfully designed to enable elegant dynamic arrays".
>
>The paper does not say that. What it does say (with my emphasis
>added) is that "_zero-null_ realloc was thoughtfully designed" to
>have the mentioned property, which I believe it was.

I see no basis to believe that. Of course you may choose to,
and there's certainly nothing wrong with that, but I find it
hard to believe that it was anything other than an in-situ
interpretation made by an implementor somewhere.

Thsi is similar to how filenames starting with a '.' are
ommitted from the default output of the Unix `ls` command not
because of a conscious design decision, but because of a bug
that was simply codified over time.

A fact I have learned is that very often systems just evolve
with no clear defining principles behind that evolution. For
example, the group at Bell Labs has acknowledged that much of
what makes up the "standard C library" is simply the set of
functions that were found useful by the maintainers of 7th
Edition Unix.

>Personally
>I find dynamic arrays done using zero-null realloc semantics to
>be cleaner than those using McIlroy-style semantics (and also
>cleaner than those that have to work with both). The paper does
>not make any statement that I can see about the design process
>of zero-nonnull realloc; clearly that version of realloc is
>considered worse, in the paper's view, than zero-null realloc,
>but it doesn't say anything about how that version was designed.
>
>> Moreover, the `realloc0` function that was discussed here does
>> not strike me as either "clunky" or "error-prone", and makes the
>> authors' code well-defined on any implementation. Given their
>> noxious code style, it's litearlly a one-line fix. Sure, I
>> suppose it's subjective?
>
>You are offering a different comparison than what he is talking
>about.

Am I? Absent the author chiming in here, that's speculation.

>There is no question that having to write an extra
>function (whether realloc0 or a similar one) takes more effort
>and is more likely to cause error than simply layering on top of
>a zero-null realloc (which always does a free and returns null
>for a requested size of zero). The sentence you quote is talking
>about the zero-null style of realloc, and nothing more than that.

Then let's modify their code without a new function.

static int resize(const size_t nu) {
int *t = NULL;
if (nu > SIZE_MAX / sizeof *S) return TOOBIG;
if (nu && ((t = realloc(S, nu * sizeof *S)) == NULL) return ALLOCFAIL;
S = t;
N = nu; return 0;
}

Again, it's subjective (and honestly, that style, copied from
the authors, is beyond hideous...), but this really isn't much
different from the original, and doesn't involve an extra
function at all and once again, sidesteps the entire problem.

>> |Figure 1 illustrates idiomatic realloc via a simple stack that
>> |grows with every push() and shrinks with every pop(). Pointer S
>> |and counter N (lines 1 and 2) represent the stack: S points to
>> |an array of N strictly positive ints. Because they are
>> |statically allocated, initially the pointer is NULL and the
>> |counter is zero, indicating an empty stack. Function resize
>> |(lines 4-10) resizes the stack to a given new capacity,
>> |checking for arithmetic overflow (line 6) before calling
>> |realloc and checking the return value for memory exhaustion
>> |(line 8). Allocation failure is inferred when a nonzero new
>> |size is requested but NULL is returned; zero-null realloc also
>> |returns NULL when the second argument is zero, but this does
>> |not indicate an allocation failure because no allocation was
>> |attempted. (Checking errno doesn't enable portable code to
>> |detect allocation failure because the C standards don't say
>> |how out-of-memory affects errno.) Thanks to zero-null realloc's
>> |versatility, the resize function need not consider whether the
>> |stack is growing from zero or shrinking to zero or re-sizing in
>> |some other way; everything Just Works regardless.
>>
>> This paragraph is the root of my objection; particularly the
>> first sentence. This code is described as "idiomatic", but
>> according to whom?
>
>I believe you are misunderstanding the author's intent. He means
>the usage of realloc() is idiomatic, not that the example code is
>idiomatic.

cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:

I have read through your comments. There are just a few points
where I have a response, plus at the end a more overall reaction.

> [...] I confess that I find it very hard to have this
> conversation (or any, really) with spans of weeks or months
> between posts.

Yes, I'm really sorry about that. I'm trying to do better.

> Except that the zero-length allocation _did_ cause production
> failures, [...]
>
> See https://twitter.com/__phantomderp/status/1643674954750197760
> and
> https://awakened1712.github.io/hacking/hacking-whatsapp-gif-rce/

AFAICT the twitter link is just a reference to the second URL.

The paper at the second link is not concerned with what we are
discussing; it doesn't mention using realloc(). The problem
does concern "re-allocation" but the paper says this:

Re-allocation is a combination of free and malloc. If the
size of the re-allocation is 0, it is simply a free.

Any questions about realloc() don't come into the picture here.

> Then let's modify their code without a new function.
>
> static int resize(const size_t nu) {
> int *t = NULL;
> if (nu > SIZE_MAX / sizeof *S) return TOOBIG;
> if (nu && ((t = realloc(S, nu * sizeof *S)) == NULL) return ALLOCFAIL;
> S = t;
> N = nu; return 0;
> }
>
> Again, it's subjective (and honestly, that style, copied from
> the authors, is beyond hideous...), but this really isn't much
> different from the original, and doesn't involve an extra
> function at all and once again, sidesteps the entire problem.

(The line with the complicated if() has an extra left parenthesis
but that is easily remedied.)

This code leaks memory, for reasons having nothing to do with
using realloc(). Ironically it illustrates a point given in the
Kelly/Pan paper about zero-null realloc().

> [...]

Reading through your comments was disappointing. In your earlier
posting I had the impression that you were largely reacting to the
tone of the original paper. Here it seems like you were still
doing that even while you were responding to my remarks. The
tone of my remarks is not at all like that of the paper.

Your comments haven't given me any reason to think the points in
the Kelly/Pan paper are off base. If anything, just the opposite.

In article <86r0nmwzn2.fsf@linuxsc.com>,
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>
>I have read through your comments. There are just a few points
>where I have a response, plus at the end a more overall reaction.
>
>> [...] I confess that I find it very hard to have this
>> conversation (or any, really) with spans of weeks or months
>> between posts.
>
>Yes, I'm really sorry about that. I'm trying to do better.

I'm sorry, but it's been nearly two weeks and this was almost
missed under a deluge of spam. Following this discussion is
simply too difficult given the amounts of time between your
responses.

Tim, I have a lot of respect for you, I really do (perhaps you
don't recall but we've corresponded several times), but without
more timely interaction this conversation is impossible for me
to maintain. I appreciate that you are trying to do better, but
it's just too awkward and honestly slightly irksome that you
would respond after so much time has elapsed.

>> Except that the zero-length allocation _did_ cause production
>> failures, [...]
>>
>> See https://twitter.com/__phantomderp/status/1643674954750197760
>> and
>> https://awakened1712.github.io/hacking/hacking-whatsapp-gif-rce/
>
>AFAICT the twitter link is just a reference to the second URL.

The twitter thread is from the co-chair of the C23 committee
when asked about the realloc(..., 0)-is-UB change.

>The paper at the second link is not concerned with what we are
>discussing; it doesn't mention using realloc(). The problem
>does concern "re-allocation" but the paper says this:
>
> Re-allocation is a combination of free and malloc. If the
> size of the re-allocation is 0, it is simply a free.
>
>Any questions about realloc() don't come into the picture here.

I think the committee cochair, and the person who wrote the
paper suggesting that realloc(..., 0), become UB, would find
that surprising as that was the example they cited when asked
about this issue. (Note that JeanHyde and Seacord both weighed
in on that Twitter thread. Of course, Twitter seems to be
broken at the moment, so I find it hard to see.

>> Then let's modify their code without a new function.
>>
>> static int resize(const size_t nu) {
>> int *t = NULL;
>> if (nu > SIZE_MAX / sizeof *S) return TOOBIG;
>> if (nu && ((t = realloc(S, nu * sizeof *S)) == NULL) return ALLOCFAIL;
>> S = t;
>> N = nu; return 0;
>> }
>>
>> Again, it's subjective (and honestly, that style, copied from
>> the authors, is beyond hideous...), but this really isn't much
>> different from the original, and doesn't involve an extra
>> function at all and once again, sidesteps the entire problem.
>
>(The line with the complicated if() has an extra left parenthesis
>but that is easily remedied.)
>
>This code leaks memory, for reasons having nothing to do with
>using realloc().

Indeed it does. Easily remedied.

// Why is this style so ugly?
static int resize(const size_t nu) {
int *t = NULL;
if (nu > SIZE_MAX / sizeof *S) return TOOBIG;
if (nu) { if ((t = realloc(S, nu * sizeof *S)) == NULL) return ALLOCFAIL; }
else free(S);
S = t;
N = nu; return 0;
}

>Ironically it illustrates a point given in the
>Kelly/Pan paper about zero-null realloc().

The Queue article potentially leaked memory (if a zero-length
allocation failed), which is a pattern that has led to
production failures, so I respectfully disagree.

I'd suggest it says more about trying to respond quickly in an
informal manner, and while mantaining this hideous style.

If it were me, I'd probably write this as:

static int
resize(const size_t nu)
{ int *t;

if (nu > SIZE_MAX / sizeof(*S))
return TOOBIG;
if (nu == 0) {
free(S);
S = NULL;
N = 0;
return 0;
}

t = realloc(S, nu * sizeof(*S));
if (t == NULL)
return ALLOCFAIL;
S = t;
N = nu;

return 0;
}

Handling the exceptional cases explicitly up front, a la
Dijkstra's guarded clauses.

>> [...]
>
>Reading through your comments was disappointing. In your earlier
>posting I had the impression that you were largely reacting to the
>tone of the original paper. Here it seems like you were still
>doing that even while you were responding to my remarks. The
>tone of my remarks is not at all like that of the paper.

I'm sorry if you feel that I was responding to your tone (which
I agree was totally unlike the Queue article); that was not my
intention, so please accept my apologies if that's how it came
across.

>Your comments haven't given me any reason to think the points in
>the Kelly/Pan paper are off base. If anything, just the opposite.

The point I have tried repeatedly to make here is that
reasonable readers can come away with different interpretations
of the Queue article.

You evidently have an interpretation that you have come to
regarding its points and validity. While I maintain that much
of that is based on speculation, I'm really not trying to
change your mind: merely explain the reasoning behind _my_
interpretation.

I do maintain that the tone and some of the content of the
Queue article is objectively offensive (particularly before the
slur about neurodivergence was removed), and I would advise
caution before we disparage those on the committee as being
either uninformed or unwise. Consider that they may be privy
to a lot of things that we, here, are not.

- Dan C.

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 23:42:28 -0000 (UTC)
cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) wrote:
> In article <86r0nmwzn2.fsf@linuxsc.com>,
> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
> >cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
> >> See https://twitter.com/__phantomderp/status/1643674954750197760
> >> and
> >> https://awakened1712.github.io/hacking/hacking-whatsapp-gif-rce/
> >
> >AFAICT the twitter link is just a reference to the second URL.
>
> The twitter thread is from the co-chair of the C23 committee
> when asked about the realloc(..., 0)-is-UB change.
>
> >The paper at the second link is not concerned with what we are
> >discussing; it doesn't mention using realloc(). The problem
> >does concern "re-allocation" but the paper says this:
> >
> > Re-allocation is a combination of free and malloc. If the
> > size of the re-allocation is 0, it is simply a free.
> >
> >Any questions about realloc() don't come into the picture here.
>
> I think the committee cochair, and the person who wrote the
> paper suggesting that realloc(..., 0), become UB, would find
> that surprising as that was the example they cited when asked
> about this issue. (Note that JeanHyde and Seacord both weighed
> in on that Twitter thread. Of course, Twitter seems to be
> broken at the moment, so I find it hard to see.

So members of the C standard committee are discussing issues of the standard
on twitter ? Now *that's* scary.

In article <Y6Oy4M3MEjvyiR0tr@bongo-ra.co>,
Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 23:42:28 -0000 (UTC)
>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) wrote:
>> In article <86r0nmwzn2.fsf@linuxsc.com>,
>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
>> >cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>> >> See https://twitter.com/__phantomderp/status/1643674954750197760
>> >> and
>> >> https://awakened1712.github.io/hacking/hacking-whatsapp-gif-rce/
>> >
>> >AFAICT the twitter link is just a reference to the second URL.
>>
>> The twitter thread is from the co-chair of the C23 committee
>> when asked about the realloc(..., 0)-is-UB change.
>>
>> >The paper at the second link is not concerned with what we are
>> >discussing; it doesn't mention using realloc(). The problem
>> >does concern "re-allocation" but the paper says this:
>> >
>> > Re-allocation is a combination of free and malloc. If the
>> > size of the re-allocation is 0, it is simply a free.
>> >
>> >Any questions about realloc() don't come into the picture here.
>>
>> I think the committee cochair, and the person who wrote the
>> paper suggesting that realloc(..., 0), become UB, would find
>> that surprising as that was the example they cited when asked
>> about this issue. (Note that JeanHyde and Seacord both weighed
>> in on that Twitter thread. Of course, Twitter seems to be
>> broken at the moment, so I find it hard to see.
>
>So members of the C standard committee are discussing issues of the standard
>on twitter ? Now *that's* scary.

More like responding to questions about this particular issue,
mostly because it was easy for me to contact JeanHyde there.

- Dan C.

nothing

Description

Purchase DMT powder online

Buy DMT powder online is an effective hallucinogen, as well as a kind of tryptamine alkaloid. It is a normally happening material, discovered in various plants and also pets, and also in small quantities in the human mind, where its function is unidentified. DMT is famous for its power, though the psychedelic trip it creates only lasts 5 to half an hour when smoked. The impact is extensive and also remarkable, with the sensation that the user is transferred to a completely various location, submersed in kaleidoscopic noises as well as pictures. In its pure kind, the medication is a white to yellow crystalline strong.

https://methamphetaminebox.com/product/buy-dmt-crystal-online/
https://methamphetaminebox.com/product/buy-dmt-crystal-online/

Acquire DMT powder online has been taken in throughout history and into prehistory by aboriginal individuals, specifically in South America, where it is taken in throughout shamanic routines and called ayhuasca. This is done by combining plant product that contains it with a monoamine oxide inhibitor, an unique chemical that permits the medication to prevent digestion by the tummy and also get to the bloodstream. Proof of DMT consumption by aboriginal peoples in South America stretches back to a minimum of 2130 BC. A pipeline made from puma bone of that age was checked favorable for the material. Smoking it would give the individuals visions and feelings that they connected with magical sources, placing them into contact with “spirits” they can seek advice from on issues of plants, illness, and so on.

A few of the most unusual psychedelic trip reports originate from customers of DMT, who report “rotating quadrate vortices,” discussions with intelligent alien-type animals, and so forth. These reports are uncommon because of their strength and also the sensation of meeting smart beings, which is evocative what happens to lots of people each night in desires. Though clinical examination of the results of the medication has actually been restricted, cognitive scientific research may be able to find out more concerning the human mind by seeing just how it transforms its procedure in feedback to tryptamines. Spiritualists might be inclined to believe that the beings that individuals “fulfill” intoxicated might in fact feed on identical aircrafts, which has actually introduced alternating religion systems or worldviews based on the experience.

DMT is a powerful hallucinogen, suggested to be thoroughly administered in a tranquil setting to somebody who has prior experience with various other psychedelic drugs. The medicine is relatively uncommon because of the lack of industrial demand as well as the shortage of individuals with the understanding and also motivation to separate it from plants. Still, as a molecule, it appears like a terrain ripe for exploration. Untried conjectures have actually suggested that the DMT located normally in the mind may be implicated in specific neurological states, and if it is synthetically provided, it may pull these “switches as well as bars” in manner ins which can be extra exactly defined and studied. As the human brain is the most complicated well-known things in the universe, identifying the specific way in which it engages with complicated particles like this may be just one of the biggest clinical obstacles of all time.

Get DMT powder online is a white crystalline powder that is stemmed from specific plants discovered in Mexico, South America as well as parts of Asia.

It is usually evaporated or smoked in a pipeline, or eaten by mouth in brews like ayahuasca. Sometimes, DMT is grunted or injected.

Acquire DMT powder online’s chemical root structure is similar to the anti-migraine medicine sumatriptan, and it functions as a non-selective agonist at most or all of the serotonin receptors. Serotonin is a neurotransmitter that widely affects most of our body’s mind cells.

When smoked, the ordinary dose of DMT is 30-150 mg, and also the start of action can be really felt virtually promptly. The results peak and also plateau for 3-5 minutes, and slowly leave with the duration of impact totaling 30-45 mins.

When eaten as a brew, the dose is in between 35-75 mg. Effects begin after 30-45 mins, optimal at 2-3 hours and are resolved in 4-6 hours.
Road names of Buy DMT powder online

Dmitri
Businessman’s journey
Businessman’s unique
Fantasia
Forty-five-minute psychosis.

Degree of DMT use

Purchase DMT powder online has no approved medical use in the US however can be made use of by researchers under a Schedule I study registration that requires authorization from both the DEA as well as the Fda (FDA).

DMT is utilized illicitly for its psychoactive, hallucinogenic impacts. Customers report “spiritual understanding” as one of the most commonly reported favorable impacts of the drug.

The vast bulk of new DMT individuals are already experienced with making use of hallucinogens, and also as holds true with other unlawful hallucinogens, customers acquire the drug through the Internet.

Use DMT has actually enhanced in recent years, suggesting that the medicine might be obtaining in popularity. The National Study on Drug Use and Health and wellness disclosed that the number of individuals in the United States that reported making use of some kind of DMT had actually increased from 688,000 individuals in 2006 to 1,475,000 in 2012.
Adverse effects of Buy DMT powder online

A person is having a surreal hallucination with clocks.

The primary result of DMT is the experience of intense hallucinations that change the individual’s assumption of the globe around them.

The main effect of DMT is mental, with extreme visual as well as acoustic hallucinations, ecstasy and also a modified feeling of space, body as well as time. Several individuals explain profound, life-changing experiences such as going to other worlds, chatting with alien entities as well as full changes in the assumption of identification and also fact.

In contrast to various other psychedelic drugs (LSD, ketamine, magic mushrooms), recreational users of DMT consider it to have the most affordable adverse effects account.
Possible side effects of Buy DMT powder online may include:

Enhanced heart price
Raised high blood pressure
Chest pain or rigidity
Agitation
Dilated students
Quick rhythmic movements of the eye
Wooziness

When taken orally, DMT can cause queasiness, throwing up as well as looseness of the bowels.

Depending upon the specific customer, the DMT experience can be either extremely amazing or overwhelmingly frightening. The experience can be so effective that users might have problem handling as well as integrating the “trip” right into their reality. Mental adverse effects may remain for numerous days or weeks after ingestion of the medicine.
Health threats of DMT

Due to the fact that DMT is structurally related to the natural chemical serotonin, a problem called serotonin syndrome is a possibly dangerous health and wellness threat that can be connected with its use. People taking antidepressants go to greatest risk for this problem.

Serotonin syndrome happens when the body builds up a too much amount of serotonin. The condition is often brought on by taking a mix of different medicines. Way too much serotonin in the body can cause signs and symptoms such as:

Anxiety
Confusion
Hypertension
Loss of muscle coordination
Frustration

At higher dosages, Purchase DMT powder online can create seizures, breathing arrest and coma.

DMT can have significant unfavorable consequences for individuals with pre-existing mental problems or a mental disorder such as schizophrenia.

As a result of limited research data, DMT is not known to create physical reliance or addiction, although frequent recreational customers may create emotional food cravings for the medicine. The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) recommend that, unlike various other hallucinogens, DMT usage does not appear to cause tolerance of the medication.

5-MeO-DMT, additionally called 5-Methoxy-N, N-dimethyltryptamine is a normally occurring psychedelic of the tryptamine class, 5-MeO-DMT exposes structural similarities to N, N-Dimethyltryptamine (DMT), nonetheless studies have actually shown chemical characteristics that may resemble a greater effectiveness than the better recognized substance. It is distributed in a wide range of plant types and also in the venom of a few psychedelic pathogens such as Bufo Alvaris.

PURCHASE 5-MeO-DMT

5-MeO-DMT, additionally referred to as 5-Methoxy-N, N-dimethyltryptamine is a normally occurring psychedelic of the tryptamine class, 5-MeO-DMT bares architectural resemblances to N, N-Dimethyltryptamine (DMT), nevertheless researches have actually revealed chemical features that might appear like a greater strength than the better recognized substance. It is distributed in a wide array of plant types and in the poison of a couple of psychedelic virus such as Bufo Alvaris.

5-MeO-DMT can be located in the milky white venom of the Colorado River Toad. South American medicine men have actually used toad poisonous substance for hundreds of years Today, both the extracts of the toad poisonous substance and the synthetic powder form are examined. Its synthesis as well as outcomes were first documented in Alexander Shulgin’s 1997 book TiHKAL (” Tryptamines I Have Actually Known and Liked”). Recent researches have revealed that it can supply magical end results during research study and has actually expanded in popularity over the past couple of years.

Just how to utilize 5-MeO-DMT?

Buy 5-MeO-DMT in the best quality freebase as well as hydrochloride type. Buy 5-MeO-DMT research chemicals in the quantities 0,25 gr, 0,5 gr, 1gr, 2gr, 5gr, and 10gr. Make certain to keep the 5-MeO-DMT in a completely dry as well as great place for maximum shelf-life. When handling study chemicals ensure to constantly take the appropriate precautions busy like cleaning down surface areas and wearing handwear covers, a mask & protective garments. We advise additional caution with 5-MeO-DMT as a result of its high potency..

cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:

> In article <86r0nmwzn2.fsf@linuxsc.com>,
> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
>
>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>>
>> I have read through your comments. There are just a few points
>> where I have a response, plus at the end a more overall reaction.
>>
>>> [...] I confess that I find it very hard to have this
>>> conversation (or any, really) with spans of weeks or months
>>> between posts.
>>
>> Yes, I'm really sorry about that. I'm trying to do better.
>
> I'm sorry, but it's been nearly two weeks and this was almost
> missed under a deluge of spam. Following this discussion is
> simply too difficult given the amounts of time between your
> responses.
>
> Tim, I have a lot of respect for you, I really do (perhaps you
> don't recall but we've corresponded several times), but without
> more timely interaction this conversation is impossible for me
> to maintain.

Okay. Thank you for your comments.