Why have academic intellectuals of our day deemed abstract thinkers worthy of a lesser merit? Is it because we’re more fun at parties? Or merely the jealousy over the modern academics inability to create anything profoundly original? Or most likely of the three: that I myself have grown bitter over my current favorite writers (Dostoevsky and Bakunin) being labeled as too abstract for relevance.
In spite of criticism I find them to be more relevant in a manner so practically profound yet dualistically simple that what is to be gained from reading such a variety is often overlooked. Let’s look at Dostoevsky for example, any one of his works that I have thus far picked up, has contained so much information that I could read the same passages for weeks on end and get new and unique lessons (not unlike reading a religious work) picking up informational tidbits about everything from the art of literature, psychology, metaphysics, epistemology, politics, Russian history sociology, and above all ethics.
Likewise with Bakunin, I first took to him for his rants about anarchism and radical political philosophy, but found myself being schooled on almost everything else under the sun in the process, as a result I see it more due to call these abstract thinkers vastly paradigmatic rather than irrelevant to their respective fields, and that again their is much more to learn from these types of thinkers than first meets the eye.
The rumor mill has yet to cease churning with word of AMD’s upcoming RX 590 graphics card, based on GlobalFoundries’ 12LP process. The RX 590 is said to utilize a respin of the aging Polaris chip, known as Polaris 30, shrunk down to the 12nm node from 14nm. This may give AMD another ~200MHz of headroom to work with, but is it enough to make a dent in NVIDIA’s share of the market?
For background, AMD initially launched the Polaris architecture with the RX 480, using the 14nm Polaris 10 GPU in 2016. An optimization, known as Polaris 20 and released as the RX 580, was released in 2017, providing slightly higher clock speed headroom on the 14nm process at the expense of power consumption. Polaris 30 marks the third refresh of the Polaris architecture for AMD, two years later, while NVIDIA has already moved on from Pascal to Turing. However, Turing is currently limited to the ultra-high end (>$500) market. As a result, the RX 590 will be going up against the same GTX 1060 that the RX 480 battled two years ago, and that the RX 580 is still in a dead heat against. The specifications of these three cards are not substantially different:
Radeon RX 480
Radeon RX 580
Radeon RX 590 (TBC)
14nm Polaris 10 XT
14nm Polaris 20 XT
12nm Polaris 30 XT
2304 SP, 144 TMU, 32 ROP
2304 SP, 144 TMU, 32 ROP
2304 SP, 144 TMU, 32 ROP
8GB 256-bit GDDR5-8000MHz
8GB 256-bit GDDR5-8000MHz
8GB 256-bit GDDR5-8000MHz
Thermal Design Power
The rumored 15% clock bump, given linear scaling, would put the RX 590 decidedly ahead of the RX 480/580 and GTX 1060, but still closer to 1060 levels of performance than 1070 (much less 2070). But can we expect linear scaling?
The main issue I see with Polaris 30 is that, according to rumors, it’ll be using the same memory controller and the same 8Gbps GDDR5 as the previous Polaris cards. The problem is that Polaris is moreso limited by memory bandwidth than it is by raw shading, texturing, or rasterization performance. To a certain point, depending on game/workload, overclocking the memory is more beneficial than overclocking the core. AMD’s equally-performing card from the previous generation, the R9 390X (Hawaii), utilized a 512-bit bus with 6Gbps GDDR5, delivering 50% greater bandwidth than Polaris. More efficient compression algorithms (36% more, to be precise, not 50%) and other optimizations led to this bandwidth deficiency being negligible at the original 1266MHz stock clock, but how far can AMD push the envelope before it becomes pointless?
And moreover, it being two and a half years since Polaris launched, how did AMD lack the foresight to anticipate this refresh and the need for faster memory? 8Gbps may be the limit for stock GDDR5, but NVIDIA (or their board partners) utilized factory-overclocked 9Gbps GDDR5 for certain 1060 models. Given that AMD will presumably be launching a cut-down variant of this GPU, it would make sense for them to use binned chips to deliver higher bandwidth on the 590, then use the low bins for the cut-down card. However, according to current rumors, this will not be the case.
Another option AMD could have gone with would be to redesign, if nothing else (they didn’t redesign anything at all apparently), the memory controller. A 384-bit memory controller could provide for 384GB/s of bandwidth at 8Gbps, the same offered by a stock R9 390X. This seems a bit excessive for Polaris, so they could instead use 7Gbps GDDR5 and yield 336GB/s, which is more than enough, and offset the added cost and power consumption of the larger memory controller. Normally, this would also mean having to increase the rasterizer (ROP) count to 48, though if this were cost prohibitive AMD could have stuck with 32 on 384-bit as they did with Tahiti. A 384-bit, 48 ROP Polaris at 1600MHz though? Would that not be a 1070 competitor?
Practically coinciding with the launch of Polaris, NVIDIA launched Pascal with GDDR5X, which provided a bump to a ~10-11Gbps out-of-the-box data rate. Turing, launched this summer, uses GDDR6 running at 14Gbps. Across a 256-bit bus, 10Gbps delivers 320GB/s, and 14Gbps delivers 448GB/s — the same as the GTX 1080 and RTX 2080, respectively. If AMD could have simply redesigned the memory controller with the node shrink, instead of absolutely nothing at all, even 10Gbps GDDR5X would alleviate the bandwidth bottleneck, delivering a 25% increase in bandwidth versus 15% for the core clock. The main problem here is that memory is expensive, and neither of the newer memory technologies are being produced in particularly large quantities.
This is not to say that the RX 590 will be a particularly bad card for the price when it launches. It’s expected to perform perhaps 10% better than the GTX 1060 at approximately the same retail price. But the 1060 is a 2 year old card, consumes far less electricity, is about to be refreshed with GDDR5X memory itself, and is likely to be replaced by a 2060 in a few months. AMD shouldn’t be refreshing Polaris a second time to edge past it, they should have an all-new chip that decidedly beats it after all this time.
Ultimately, what it comes down to is that AMD is designing the RX 590 as cheaply as they possibly can. Their R&D budget is evidently minimal. From what we’ve seen so far, this card will not deliver a single change except moving to the 12nm node and taking the ~10-15% extra frequency that comes along with it. If it’s similar to the 12nm shrink they did for Zen, they won’t even increase the density of the design, they’ll just increase the space between die elements to improve heat dissipation and frequency potential. After two years, this is the best they can do, finally beating the 1060 when NVIDIA is already starting to roll out 2000-series graphics cards. Now that their GPU division has gotten an overhaul with the departure of Raja Koduri, it’s about time their GPU architecture gets one too — they need it, fast.
Debates are being sparked across the country over what, if anything, the government should do in response to the recent surge in popularity of the psychoactive herb known as kratom. Hailed by its proponents as a miracle drug, kratom is a tropical evergreen tree in the coffee family that grows in the rainforests of Southeast Asia. In the West, it is typically sold in the form of finely ground leaf powder, which is then brewed into tea or made into capsules. A typical dose can cost less than 50 cents. Kratom contains a medley of psychoactive and medicinal alkaloids, the primary effects of which include pain relief, muscle relaxation, and mild paradoxical stimulating/sedating effects on the central nervous system. Users claim it to be the most effective solution available for pain relief, without the severe side effects of opioid painkillers or even those of over-the-counter drugs like acetaminophen. Additionally, since its mechanism of action in the brain is somewhat similar to that of opioids, it has been widely used with great success for the treatment of opioid withdrawal. Many believe it holds the key to solving the opioid crisis, freeing addicts from the withdrawal symptoms that keep them stuck and providing a far less risky alternative to prescription painkillers for those who need them.
Despite this, many government agencies have expressed concern about kratom as a drug of abuse and have moved to ban it. In 2016, the United States DEA announced its intention to place kratom in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, the same class as heroin and LSD. After a massive public and scholarly outcry, the DEA rescinded its plans. However, since then, many state government bodies have moved to ban the drug, and it is currently illegal in Alabama, Arkansas, Wisconsin, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Indiana. Furthermore, the FDA under Commissioner Scott Gottlieb has been pushing the DEA to act on a federal level. This has been accompanied by misleading and sensationalist claims, such as when the Ohio Board of Pharmacy said that most users are injecting the herb (which is impossible), or when the FDA released a list of “kratom deaths” in which every single individual minus one had another easily identifiable cause of death listed (the kratom in their system was coincidental). The misinformation, fear-mongering, and brash, hasty reactions calling for a flat-out ban are eerily reminiscent of the 20th century “reefer madness”; ironic considering that the US is just finally emerging from that misstep now. Stay tuned for more in-depth write-ups on the subject, but here’s the quick run-down on why the feds are dead wrong:
Kratom isn’t a gateway to drugs — it’s a gateway to sobriety. People don’t use kratom to get high; more often they’re using kratom to stop getting high. If someone is looking to abuse a drug, kratom is not a very good option. It can only be taken orally, is very unpleasant to consume in excessive amounts, and produces effects that are mild and take time to set in. The vast majority of people using kratom, whether they’re using it to treat pain or addiction, are using it in order to get away from opioids. With that taken into account, why on earth would you ban it, unless you want those people back on opioids? Banning kratom would worsen the quality of life of millions of Americans, prevent patients from receiving a potential breakthrough treatment, and lead countless people back into opioid addiction — likely to result in their deaths.
Kratom has a low, but not zero, dependence liability. Unlike prescription opioids or anti-anxiety medications, which can addict a user in 4 days, one has to take kratom non-stop throughout the day for months in order to become dependent on it. Dependency is more mild than that of anti-depressants, antipsychotics, or muscle relaxers (which are not controlled substances), let alone opioids or benzodiazepines. In fact, the most common treatment for opioid addiction in the US today is Suboxone, which is itself an opioid far more addictive than kratom. Withdrawal symptoms from kratom typically only include a runny nose, insomnia, diarrhea, and soreness. Compare to the absolute horror of opioid withdrawal, or to alcohol and benzodiazepine withdrawal which can often cause seizures, delirium, and even death. Also consider that the vast majority of those who are dependent on kratom were previously addicted to something that is infinitely more dangerous, whether under the supervision of a doctor or not.
Kratom doesn’t cause users to be impaired, detached from reality, fiendish, strung-out, etc. Kratom has paradoxical stimulant effects which are often compared to those of coffee, but without the jitters. Compare to other pain medications and opioid replacement drugs, which are heavily intoxicating. Nobody is strung out because of kratom. Nobody lost their job or their family because of kratom. If anything, it’s the other way around.
It is practically impossible to overdose on kratom. It’s possible in theory, sure — just like overdosing on THC. In practice, it’s not going to happen. Taking too large a dose generally only results in dizziness and vomiting at the worst — compare to Tylenol, which kills thousands in the US each year. However, more research needs to be done into what interactions between kratom and other drugs may exist, as these may (or may not) in rare cases be dangerous.
While the alkaloids in kratom do bind to the brain’s opioid receptors, the mechanism of action is very different from that of opioids. The FDA’s claims otherwise are based on a computer simulation and not actual studies (which contradict them) — in other words, junk science. Kratom also affects a number of other sites in the brain, such as serotonin and noradrenalin receptors, which results in a wide variety of effects including reduced inflammation, blood pressure, and anxiety. Opioids of abuse are selective full agonists of the mu-opioid receptors, which means they specifically seek out that receptor type and fully activate its signalling to other parts of the brain. Kratom, on the other hand, acts as a partial agonist, which results in a more mild effect. The only other partial mu-opioid agonist available on the market is buprenorphine (Suboxone). As a result of this, both buprenorphine and kratom are unable to cause fatal overdose, as there is a “ceiling” to the level of effects that can be achieved with increasing dosages.
However, there is another major difference that makes kratom unique frombuprenorphine/Suboxone and all opioids. The mu-opioid receptor has two different signalling pathways, which result in differing effects. The first one, the G-protein pathway, is responsible for most of the desired effects of opioids — mainly relief from pain, anxiety, and certain gastrointestinal disturbances, as well as slight euphoria. The beta-arrestin pathway, on the other hand, is responsible for the severity of the side effects of opioids — constipation, dizziness, sedation, cognitive impairment, an extremely powerful reinforcing effect, strong addiction with hellish withdrawal symptoms, and, most importantly, respiratory depression — the cause of death in opioid overdose. Opioid drugs, and even buprenorphine/Suboxone, activate both of these pathways indiscriminately. Kratom, on the other hand, only activates the G-protein pathway, and thus does not produce strong euphoric effects or result in severe addiction.
The War on Drugs has been a colossal and deadly failure. Use of controlled substances has skyrocketed since the Controlled Substances Act took effect in 1971. Billions, if not trillions of dollars wasted, millions of people thrown in prison, and innumerable lives ruined, only for it to have the opposite of the intended effect. Crack epidemic, meth epidemic, opioid epidemic — it’s abundantly clear that this does not work! We should not be expanding the War on Drugs, but rather looking towards alternative ways to deal with the drug problem in this country — and kratom is one of those alternatives.
If kratom gets banned, further research into its uses and risk profile will not be able to occur. The government’s argument is that there’s a lack of clinical trials proving that kratom is any safer than opioids in humans, or that it works to treat any condition. They fail to take into consideration that there is no research proving the opposite either. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, and banning the substance would make it impossible for such evidence to ever arise. This is similar to the case of cannabis, where it took decades for its actual medicinal potential to be uncovered due to draconian laws. If these bureaucrats were unbiased, why would they not wait for the research to be done? Based on this, it seems they’re not actually interested in the research — they’re just using this as an argumentative tactic.
Pharmaceutical companies are aware of kratom’s potential and are scared of it cutting into their profits. Under the new Commissioner, Scott Gottlieb, the FDA has been pushing strongly against kratom, advising the DEA to place it in Schedule I. Mr. Gottlieb was previously on the board of the Big Pharma giant GlaxoSmithKline, which acquired two patents for alkaloids derived from kratom. These patents clearly described its low abuse potential, favorable side effect profile, and medicinal applications. Now Mr. Gottlieb wants to claim it’s the opposite, and has even gone as far as to encourage Americans on Twitter who take kratom to switch to the highly-addictive prescription opioid Suboxone instead! These corporations make tens of billions of dollars per year off of people who are addicted to their opioid drugs, funnel massive amounts of money into lobbying the federal government, and have a revolving door between their board rooms and executive positions in bureaucratic agencies tasked with regulating their very industry. In light of all the evidence, there is no alternative explanation that makes sense as to why the government wants to ban kratom — their claims fly in the face of everything we know about the herb, as well as reason and common sense.
Millions of Americans, including this author, have had their lives transformed by kratom. If you’d like to help fight the government’s efforts to ban this gift from Mother Nature, please visit the website of the American Kratom Association and consider making a donation to support their research, lobbying, and awareness efforts. If you have a story regarding kratom or any thoughts you’d like to share, by all means do so in the comments below.