Give it a few undocumented updates that change your settings in the background, and come back to give us an update. Even my Win10 extended support is getting CoPilot shoved down the pipeline silently.
I’m not this person, but I installed win11 a month or two after launch and have lived through many many updates.
I’ve never had a single setting switched from what I set it to. Nor have I had AI shoved down my throat. My guess is that since I set it up with a local account originally and have never added a MSFT account, that insulates me from a lot of the issues others have seen.
I really hate what they've done to notepad. The entire point of the program was that it was extremely basic. There's zero reason to use it now over something much better like notepad++
The absolutely insane addition of the Copilot button aside, new Notepad did have some improvements that I liked. Tabs are one, but another overlooked feature is that it now keeps track of its state and maintains all the unsaved files that are open in it, allowing me to use it as a momentary place to jot down things that I want to remember but that I don't want to save in a txt file. Basically, like more full-fledged and convenient sticky notes.
> another overlooked feature is that it now keeps track of its state and maintains all the unsaved files that are open in it, allowing me to use it as a momentary place to jot down things that I want to remember but that I don't want to save in a txt file.
There are plenty of apps that do exactly this. Sublime was the best of them that I know.
Notepad was great for the opposite reason. It is ephemeral. I can use it as a scratch pad for passwords and what not, with the comfortable knowledge that it’s all cleared away next reboot.
You can bring classic notepad back, it’s still there, so that’s what I do.
I’ve been using Windows 11 constantly since release over multiple machines after decades with Ubuntu as my primary OS. In that time, I’ve had a number of undocumented updates and found a few settings that changed, but it wasn’t a very big deal or maybe I’m just significantly better at error handling than the average user. I choose not to follow the herd and in this case, the herd is angrier than need be.
Granted, I’ve never released perfect software in my life, have no intention of starting and tend to be sympathetic towards others who share my flaws. Maybe that’s a sign that I’m actually better at handling errors than the average person.
"... I have a rough idea of" and "look into AI-powered ... design tools" is a sad sentence to come across. This young individual spent time to learn complex things and implemented it into an actual useful physical thing. Why give this advice in the first place? To stop them from learning?
Time and time again large competing forces in the market are found to have colluded instead of directly competing with each other to drive price/cost down. What is it that still makes you believe that two (or n-number) of providers won't collude to charge an astronomical amount for a life-saving treatment?
> Time and time again large competing forces in the market are found to have colluded instead of directly competing with each other to drive price/cost down.
Collusion and cartels never work on the long run. It's an unstable equilibrium, the incentive to reduce prices to capture more market is too great.
> What is it that still makes you believe
Competition. It's the only force keeping humans honest. That's why we must treat any barriers of entry in a market with extreme care. The only "failed" or "captured" market is a strongly regulated one.
Markets can remain irrational, or colluding, far longer than you can stay solvent (or even alive).
For example, while the Phoebus cartel only really lasted from 1925 through to 1939, 1000hr incandescent light bulbs remain the standard offering till present day. Profitable market manipulations are sticky.
The whole notion that markets are efficient is just a mathematical construct that has become very dogmatic for people. But if you look into the details, markets are efficient under the assumptions of perfect information and infinite time. Neither of those conditions are present in the real world: we neither have perfect information nor infinite time.
> 1000hr incandescent light bulbs remain the standard offering till present day
This proves in fact that all the cartel did was establish a standard, an optimal average between various tradeoffs when building an incandescent lightbulb: brightness, cost, efficiency and life span. Yes, the cartel behaved anti-competitively. The effect on the market? Nil.
> perfect information and infinite time
There is absolutely no requirement for this for markets to work. Markets work just fine with partial information and just-in time. When new information and new market participants appear, markets will self-correct. The only way to prevent markets from working is through government intervention.
In facts, free markets are the only system we have that works with incomplete info and reacts in real-time. Central planning will happily decide on incomplete info then never adapt. We saw that during communism when the Party decided allocate X resources for production of Y and it always resulted in a glut or shortages. Central planning doesn't work.
It's the obvious reality around me here in Eastern Europe. We were starving under communism before 1990 but are now enjoying the amazing wealth capitalism brought.
Because if something sucks, someone comes up with something better and sells it for a profit. This is the history of pretty much every other good or service that is not heavily influenced by regulation and artificial barriers to entry
> Because if something sucks, someone comes up with something better and sells it for a profit.
This is basically a religious belief at this point. It's how a perfectly ideal free market might work, but we don't have any of these, especially in healthcare.
Do you not use private businesses or something? Do you not shop at a private grocer or order things from Amazon or use a private search engine?
Probably 99% of what I consume comes from private companies and the services generally get better over time, with some exceptions. Compare that to an experience with the TSA.
Thank you for providing this valuable context. I am hoping to advocate for OSS transition in my workplace and these examples go a long way to help make my case.
I am thinking about opening my own shop, distinguished by digitally sovereign offerings, for instance, Stormshield over Cisco, Proxmox over VMware, Matrix/Element over Microsoft Teams, Nextcloud over SharePoint...
I've been doing m365 and azure for more than three years by now and I just feel terrible. Especially regarding some of our customers, which are small gGmbH (kind of NGO). Instead of making a secure, privacy focused offering we just sell them the usual m365 package. We basically push them into the data industrial complex just to get some collab tools and mail.
Stormshield is a very good product but it's mainly designed for industrial scenarios and lacks some features that are essential for an enterprise NGFW (i.e. the protocol inspection covers very few protocols compared to PA/Checkpoint/etc). Unfortunately the enterprise NGFW scenario is dominated by US or Israeli companies, even if some niches brands like Stormshield for OT and Clavister for telcos are Europeans
Stormshield firewalls offer a plethora of IPS protections and signatures, not just OT related ones. There are different licenses, offering varying protections and signatures.
Stormshield firewalls can certainly be used in enterprise settings. OT environments are an added bonus where Stormshield firewalls can be used as a protective layer.
Stormshield's IPS is its major strength, being very well integrated in the overall firewall design. The whole firewall rulebase is designed in terms of its IPS; I am not aware of any firewall on the market that has such a nicely integrated IPS.
Also, at the point where one runs out of IPS options to configure, whereby I'm not referring to signatures in the general sense of the term, and one also has adapted all of Stormshield's available signatures to the needs of the particular environment, the real fun of creating new custom IPS signatures begins.
Stormshield's roots date back to 1998's NETASQ, and so I would say they are of a similar pedigree as Check Point, in terms of their history.
Disclaimer: I'm a Stormshield Platinum Partner and hold a CSNTS.
TBH there will likely be a _huge_ demand for "digital sovereignty consulting" over the next while, especially in the EU (and maybe also Canada).
Here in Denmark, the previously unthinkable is happening: because of Schleswig-Holstein's leadership in moving to OSS, the Danes are now seeking to learn from the Germans (or at least, that particular set of Germans) about digitalisation! That trend, plus the Danish government's all-in-on-vendors/consultants approach to digitalisation, will likely open a sizeable market - and the traditional vendors like Netcompany have taken a large beating in public opinion themselves, so it's a good time to start something in this direction.
And at the Digital Tech Summit in Copenhagen this year, digital sovereignty (and the lack thereof) was a very prominent theme across both public and private sector talks. As was the comparative advantage the EU has in _trust_, and how that helps e.g. businesses around cybersecurity, privacy-oriented SaaS, and data management expand even outside the EU - which makes it extra infuriating to see continued political interest in things like Chat Control and cracking down on GrapheneOS. This trust is IMHO pretty much the only advantage the EU has in the global tech marketplace, and we're busy throwing it away.
StormShield are a French company, and a subsidiary of Airbus.
So I guess "digitally sovereign" in the European Union could mean using a combination of GPL style free, open source (BSD and other similar licences), proprietary European "homegrown" products.
I guess Genua is another good contender in this market.
Check out "Europe as a Software Colony" [1], it's an excellent documentary including about the Munich case specifically.
Then watch the Scale 22x talk of the former Mexican CTO, because those stories are so close to industrial espionage it's absurd what kind of influence Microsoft has over diplomats and ambassadors. [2]
Vendor risk management. It's the process of identifying, assessing, and mitigating the risks associated with engaging third-party vendors or suppliers.
On chronic coffee consumption: "One meta-analysis found that RR coffee 0.757, RR caffeine 0.721 (12). Another one found RR 0.76, with an optimal protective effect at ∼400 mL/day (13). In comparison to many drug treatments that have an effect size in this range, this is not a small effect size. A risk reduction of 20 to 25% is quite impressive."
One thing I've learned over the years is that specifically setting out to enjoy and appreciate something on a daily basis is beneficial to overall satisfaction with life. And for me, that's my morning cuppa before the rest of the house wakes up. Is it (just) the coffee or is it (also) the rituals surrounding coffee?
Father of three here. I also enjoy very much this moment of the day, the calm before the storm. It was a real motivation to wake up a bit earlier.
One day, I decided to stop coffee for some weeks. My motivation to wake up before my kids vanished in a few days. I was quite surprised since it used to be a real pleasure. I guess the ritual part was much less important than the coffee chemical role.
Did you just remove the warm drink part of the ritual or did you replace the coffee with another warm drink? This could be the big difference you were missing.
Is it the addictive substance or the ritual I created around it?
I used to think this same thing, that my enjoyment of coffee was largely the ritual. But then I switched to decaf for quite a long time and all my little rituals fell away quite quickly.
I still occasionally drank coffee when I felt like the taste, but I certainly wasn’t performing daily morning ritual.
I’ve switched to decaf full time and a my generalised anxiety basically went away. I love coffee and still drink it ritualistically. I probably drink more coffee now, at all hours of the day (caffeinated coffee after 12 really messed my sleep).
Also once per week I allow myself an espresso, and I get a nice buzz from it that lasts the entire day.
This hits home. For me stopping coffee (and caffeine) consumption was also one building block of taking care of my generalised anxiety disorder. I enjoyed the morning ritual, but it stopped with quitting drinking coffee. Maybe I should give decaf a shot, but I also miss just grabbing a coffee when out with friends (usually tea does not scratch the same itch and is not worth it when everyone else around you is enjoying a great smelling coffee). All I want to say is “Thanks for sharing” I guess. I was able to connect with what you said.
I went to the US recently and was fully prepared to drink caffeine on the trip because of all the cool coffee shops and roasters. But I was amazed that decaf was basically a first-class citizen there. The hotel breakfast had one giant brewer for regular and the same giant brewer for decaf. It was amazing.
And it’s pretty important to realize that well-made decaf doesn’t have to taste worse than regular coffee. James Hoffmanns decaf project proved this for me, and his video about decaf sold me on the idea: decaf drinkers are the OG coffee drinker, drinking it purely for the taste, even without the drug-induced high that caffeine gives you.
That’s cool. I’d like to quit again sometime but right now caffeine staves off migraines for me. And with a baby in the house I really don’t have the resources for that battle.
When(ever) I quit coffee, I got strong migraines after a day or so. However, they subside and go away after a few more days.
I wouldn’t claim it works the same way for everyone, but the difference between coffee being a treatment for migraines and migraines being a symptom of coffee withdrawal may be indistinguishable in immediate term.
My gf has a migraine head and she’s tried going decaf but it just doesn’t work. Apparently caffeine does a lot to reduce the risk of migraines? So I’d probably just try to lower the dose until you find what works for you.
There is an absolutely huge ritual part to it because I have been trying swap out coffee and just take caffeine pills in the morning to be more exact in my caffeine consumption.
I just can not do it. It is just not the same sitting here without the taste, smell and sensory experience completely divorced from the actual caffeine. That is with even taking more caffeine than I would get from my brew coffee.
Addiction to any given substance is highly variable from person to person, and there's a lot of data to back that up.
I recall a friend describing their struggle to quit caffeine, which I mocked at first, until I realized it sounded exactly like my brutal struggle to quit nicotine. Yet, plenty of people quit cigarettes effortlessly. Nicotine is one of the most variable, but caffeine, alcohol and cocaine vary widely too. I imagine we'd find this is the case for most substances if we had the data. In a sane world, we'd give every kid their addiction predisposition profile when they turn 13.
The hardest part of quitting anything is changing the behavioral habits that came with it.
For smoking, I bet you have the urge after a meal to smoke. Maybe you’re triggered when you drive long distances to “calm the nerves”. The issue is those triggers, those behaviors, need to be unlearned before you can attempt to quit. That’s why it’s easy for people who haven’t developed those behavioral habits and hard a hell for those who have. Former smoker myself so I totally get it. I can give that up, but caffeine - coffee? I’ll die with a cup on the counter half full.
The literature on this is clear cut. People absorb, metabolize and experience drugs differently, which has a big impact on how addiction takes hold. It's obviously not the only factor! But it's a big one and somewhat quantifiable.
Personally, I wasn't a "trigger" smoker, I was an "every chance I got smoker". I assume my nicotine metabolism is higher than average, which is linked to frequency of consumption and hence propensity for addiction. I also assume I have fast caffeine metabolism since I consume it at all hours with no consequence, but unlike nicotine that's linked to a lower propensity for addiction, which matches my experience.
That’s the ritalin. Find a healthier alternative like an energy bar with that double espresso. I find if I stack too much at once, I crash. One cup in the morning when I wake up. One before work right before the meetings. One in the afternoon to keep me fueled until dinner where I let myself gorge on protein and sugars until I crash.
suggest many many cups of 1/3 caffeinated and 2/3 decaf. There are some observed health benefits to even decaf coffee... and its got potassium besides. I drink around 10 of these. lower longer peak. Joy!
Ritalin is a chemical relative of amphetamine. In prescribed amounts it's often an effective treatment. In recreational amounts, ask your doctor about ΔFosB:
I don't know enough to ask specific questions. I could consult with an LLM, but if there is some risk or side effect that doctors do not typically mention, I'm all ears.
In that case I guess I could caution this: if you have any kind of OCB, our experience is that prolonged exposure to Ritalin will multiply it by at least 10.
Same. During the week on meds I find that drinking more than half a litre just provokes unpleasant sweating and makes me feel frantic, some amount of brain fog and occasionally a mild headache, especially if I haven't been chugging water, which I guess is probably what most normal people get from coffee
but yeah, exercising can be an addiction? as sex. now doing these daily is fine. it turns into addiction when you can't stop or interfere negatively with your routine
Well, that's a bit of an unfair projection; I'm fairly fastidious about keeping my consumption around 2-3 cups a day before 11am and taking occasional tolerance breaks without consequence. But if you feel like your coffee intake is a problem that you have trouble controlling, maybe cut back.
By the way, why does Starbucks make such bad cappuccinos? The milk is foamy instead of creamy. There is no heart shape or any shape really. And the entire beverage is too hot.
Blame the barista. The quality has gone down significantly over the last decade. It’s either a tall in a venti cup. A flat white when it should be a white mocha. Or a mocha. In the end, it’s still a quick service restaurant. Training is an expense. Now they just press buttons. If my local cafe could deliver me coffee that would be great, until then I’m short on time and hit the drive thru.
Say this next time: “Cappuccino, whole milk, no foam” and see what they do.
Caffeine is not chemically addictive. It can lead to depedency but that is not addiction. Motivation and wanting are not altered but unpleasant withdrawl effects can occur.
There is no real importance to the concept of “chemically addictive” and it has largely gone out of favor in psychology. Even physical behaviors like gambling and sex that obviously cannot directly, chemically act on reward system pathways, can still be just as life destroying addictive and challenging to quit as any drug. The dsm now classifies gambling disorder as an addiction.
Caffeine, unlike some drugs and alcohol, doesn't cause severe withdrawal symptoms. Because of that, experts don't label regular caffeine use as an addiction.
There’s so many layers to this. First, there’s history: Coka-cola (originally made from a Kola nut and cocaine) was told they couldn’t put cocaine in their “medicine” anymore so they just sold it as a “soft-drink” without the cocaine.
Then there’s the beverage industry who pointed out there’s caffeine in tea leaves and other plant material and that it’s not a threat: (1) US vs 40 barrels and 20 kegs of Coka-cola. Ultimately reducing the amount of caffeine in soft-drinks.
Round and round we go allowing companies to use chemicals to keep us buying their consumables.
While it is a contributing factor, physical dependence- withdrawal is not anymore considered necessary or sufficient for addiction. The author there is using an outdated pre-DSM5 definition of addiction which failed to recognize that there are two separate but related phenomena here. Things like gambling and sex addiction obviously cause no withdrawal symptoms from chemical dependence at all, but can be almost impossible to quit and serious enough to destroy someone’s life.
Severity of withdrawal symptoms from caffeine also varies substantially from person to person. It’s probably not directly killing anyone, but for some people it can be brutally unpleasant and disabling for at least several days.
That's called chemical dependence and it's the point I'm trying to make. Dependence is not addiction. Addiction means wanting is hijacked, not that stopping is aversive.
Addiction and dependence have real medical meanings and in the context of this discussion and we shouldn't mix them up. See this very short and to the point lancet medical journal summary, https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0...
>Addiction (synonymous with substance use disorder), as defined by the DSM-5, entails compulsive use, craving, and impaired control over drug taking in addition to physical dependence. The vast majority of patients taking medications such as opioids and benzodiazepines are doing so as prescribed by clinicians, with only 1·5% of people taking benzodiazepine being addicted, for example. Physical dependence is much more common than addiction. Importantly, withdrawal effects occur irrespective of whether these drugs are taken as prescribed or misused.
>Failure to distinguish between addiction and physical dependence can have real-life consequences. People who have difficulty stopping their medications because of withdrawal effects can be accused of addiction or misuse. Misdiagnosis of physical dependence as addiction can also lead to inappropriate management, including referral to 12-step addiction-based detoxification and rehabilitation centres, focusing on psychological aspects of harmful use rather than the physiology of withdrawal.
>It should be made clear that dependence is not the same as addiction. The problems with prescribed drug dependence are not restricted to the small minority who are misusing or addicted to these drugs, but to the wider population who are physically dependent on and might not be able easily to stop their medications because of withdrawal effects. Antidepressants (superkuh note: and caffeine) should be categorised with other drugs that cause withdrawal syndromes as dependence-forming medications, while noting that they do not cause addiction.
The explanation for the headaches is that coffee raises blood pressure short term, and the blood vessels in the brain prepare for the predicted caffeine ingestion, and if it doesn't come there will be a mismatch.
What triggers the blood vessel constriction on the brain? Will avoiding e.g. certain places at certain hours also avoid the preemptive blood vessel constriction and associated headache?
What’s the point of this distinction, what does it mean that it’s not chemically addictive? It causes withdrawals, dependence, it definitely acts on brain chemistry.
A lot of substances cause withdrawals/dependence and act of brain chemistry, e.g., the vast array of psychiatric drugs. However, I have never seen the word addiction used in the context of antidepressants, mood stabilizers, etc..
Even non-psychiatric drugs like NSAIDs, insulin, hypertension medication, etc. can have a withdrawal effect.
I might be mistaken, but I am under the impression that addiction is psychological in nature. Take gambling addiction, for example, I am not certain if there is any physical withdrawal effect, but there is definitely a psychological compulsion.
That lancet article very well refutes the point you are trying to make. The term “chemical addiction” is not really used anymore because it really just refers to mechanisms of chemical dependence, which are neither necessary or sufficient to cause addiction on their own.
There has been a major shift in how addiction is understood in modern research, but you have it backwards- your perspective of chemical addiction or direct chemical mechanism being important is the old discredited concept, not the new one, which sees it as a psychological process that requires no direct chemical mechanism at all.
The chemical dependence is quite a factor in the psychological process you refer to. It nudges and reinforces this psychological behaviour. You can broaden the definition to include addiction without chemical dependence, but it does not mean you can omit the chemical dependence factor from the equation.
This chemical dependence is often the number one reason people cannot physically stop their psychological process. Potential effects from quitting include simply dying, or with less strong chemical dependence, feeling anxiety or generally ill.
This chemical dependence is learned behavior in some cases, chemically induced in others.
I get what you’re saying. Dopamine withdrawal is real though and if you no longer get dopamine from an action or you physically prevent yourself from receiving that dopamine, it can be just as debilitating as cigarette withdrawal or kicking a (soft) drug habit.
> Dopamine withdrawal is real though and if you no longer get dopamine from an action or you physically prevent yourself from receiving that dopamine
Exactly, this is why the idea of addiction is more appropriately focused around the actual real world impacts rather than specific chemical mechanisms- the difficulty quitting and the negative impacts on your life. If it's strong enough to overpower your will and destroy your life, that is sufficient, it doesn't matter exactly how.
When it comes down to it, something like an amphetamine drug or other stimulants that directly increase synaptic dopamine, vs a behavior like gambling addiction that exploits the brains instincts and wiring in other ways to still cause the increase in synaptic dopamine are not fundamentally, categorically different in a way that one or the other shouldn't be taken seriously and considered a "real addiction." Either can completely destroy some peoples life, and for other people can be easily controlled and used in moderation.
Yes this is absolutely true, it is a factor in addiction- I initially mentioned this in my comment but deleted it because I felt I was making it too complicated.
>That lancet article very well refutes the point you are trying to make.
No. That lancet article very well refutes the point you are trying to make. I'm flabberghasted by your interpretation. Could you please try to support this interpretation with quotes? I can't even begin to understand how to converse with this point of view since such a POV does not exist in the lancet article. I've read it a handful of times and now once again trying to understand you. But it's not there. I recommend you re-read the article.
I have quoted the appropriate bits supporting my, and the articles very title's, claims already in the other comment in this thread and you may refer to it.
> I'm flabberghasted by your interpretation. Could you please try to support this interpretation with quotes? I can't even begin to understand how to converse with this point of view since such a POV does not exist in the lancet article.
It's hard for me to know where to start, because I feel similarly confused about where you might be coming from, and I don't know your level of background in reading and interpreting biomedical papers. However, I can elaborate a bit on my thinking and mention that I am an academic biomedical researcher that reads, publishes, and peer reviews biomedical papers - but I am not a psychiatrist or medical doctor. This is not my field of expertise, I'm not trying to argue from authority, just mentioning where I'm coming from.
First, for context, this correspondence article is in The Lancet Psychiatry, so is targeted at psychiatrists, and is able to avoid a lot of background that they can safely assume the reader already has, like the diagnostic criteria for common conditions.
You are using the term "chemically addictive," which is not used in the article, and which is a term that simultaneously implies both "physical dependence" or "substance dependence" and "addiction" from back when the two were mistakenly assumed to be one in the same. This article is emphasizing the fact that they aren't the same thing, and both can exist independently of one another. Since that is really the only singular point in the article, and is really hammered home over and over, I cannot see how pulling out quotes would help. I think our disagreement comes from the surrounding context not mentioned, not the contents of the article itself.
The article describes that as of the DSM-5 they directly address the confusion between the two, and separate them into two entirely different things. While not explained in the article, it is important to realize that the DSM-5 now includes behavioral addictions together with drug addictions, and considers physical dependence and/or other types of direct chemical modulation of the reward system to be a contributing factor in many cases, but not essential, for addiction.
This distinction is extremely important, because it allows for addiction without substance dependence to be taken just as seriously, and properly treated and addressed clinically or by other means.
Previously, because of the history of this mistaken connection, psychiatrists and patients would wrongly dismiss (as you are with caffeine) the possibility of serious addiction without a direct chemical dependence mechanism. This left people whose lives were being destroyed by things like gambling and sex addictions to be dismissed as not serious, and not allow them to get real help. On the flip side, it also made doctors wrongly afraid to administer drugs that caused chemical dependence but not addiction, for fear that it would lead to addiction in patients.
However, I would argue that while addictive, the level of addiction potential from caffeine is pretty limited because of the fact that it has pretty severe adverse/toxic effects if you take too much, and the enjoyable aspect saturates out pretty quick. Taking a lot more than a normal amount, enough to damage your health, feels awful, so people aren't likely to become addicted to doing so. Counter-intuitively, the most addictive drugs have low acute toxicity and so you can take increasingly huge doses of them and it continues to feel good rather than just make you uncomfortable and sick like a high dose of caffeine.
>This distinction is extremely important, because it allows for addiction without substance dependence to be taken just as seriously, and properly treated and addressed clinically or by other means.
Here's where you seem confused. The article is not saying this. It is explicitly saying that medications which one builds up a tolerance to and experiences withdrawal symptoms from are not addictive.
>The DSM-5 referred to the confusion over this issue, stating that “’Dependence’ has been easily confused with the term ‘addiction’ when, in fact, the tolerance and withdrawal that previously defined dependence are actually very normal responses to prescribed medications that affect the central nervous system and do not necessarily indicate the presence of an addiction.” Public Health England makes the same distinction.
You are claiming the article's distinction between addiction and dependence is discussed in order to make a claim about substance abuse and addiction without dependence. This is not in the text at all. What the heck?
I have the decades of domain specific knowledge and time spent reading neuroscience journal articles to know that I don't have to read between the lines of the article here. It's not an opaque or jargon hidden meaning. It's quite plain: dependence is not addiction. Not, "addiction can happen without dependence" which is not addressed or relevant to the paper or this HN discussion about caffeine.
I still don’t understand the significance of the distinction, maybe because we are talking about caffeine in particular. Caffeine alters mood and causes euphoria. Is that not a chemical component of addiction?
What’s the significance of the chemical component of addiction anyway, when people can struggle with addiction to things which have clearly no chemical component like gambling?
It alters mood. It does not cause euphoria. But even if it did an addiction does not come from liking/enjoying something. Addiction comes from wanting something. Caffeine does not directly chemically alter the mechanisms of wanting (incentive salience) in the mammal brain. Drugs that directly manipulate wanting are the addictive ones.
Caffeine's mechanism of action is simply blocking the measurement of metabolic product build-up in the brain (adenosine) which is used internally for determining how tired one should be.
I completely agree that the article only makes one very specific and narrow point, that dependence and addiction are separate things. The rest of what I wrote is, like you said, not in the article at all, but is context I am adding in attempt to explain my point.
It seems like we’re talking past each other somehow, perhaps one or the other of us misunderstood what the other is saying, but I don't see any value in continuing further.
>enjoy and appreciate something on a daily basis is beneficial to overall satisfaction with life.
I'll couch this in a warning that you need to have the money for it, but for me an espresso machine and good grinder was such a great investment.
It's this thing I appreciate a lot every day.
If you're a drip coffee person I guess this won't apply and you can save a few thousand. Although I'd still recommend getting a grinder (not necessarily an expensive espresso worthy one) and good beans then.
Drip coffee is amazing: A consistent grinder; fresh, light or medium roasted beans protected from oxidation; and a machine that heats the water to the correct brew temperature (190-195 F)is all you need.
The flavor profiles are akin to wines; no decanting required.
Espresso is my soft spot given my origins, but a good drip on paper filters (to remove some oils and cholesterol) is akin to good tea, full of aromatics. I disagree with the temperature, for me a blonde roast calls for 72 degrees Celsius (162F).
To be accurate, I should qualify that for me it’s “light/medium” and not a true blonde roast.
I haven’t had the pleasure of trying to brew my own blonde roast yet.
But I was amazed when I first tried a black coffee brewed properly, and it took me far longer than I want to admit to learn the basic nuances; it was a very fun journey though.
Exactly, and a lot of people that don't like black coffee never had a solid experience: a cup full of aromatics — like tea — instead of just burnt, bitter, over-heated slurry.
I'm a hater of drip coffee as it almost always contains under-extracted (outside of cone) and over-extracted (middle of cone) coffee. You're correct about the importance of brew temperature, although I take issue with the strange units you use.
For me, full immersion brewing is the best as it's far easier to control than expresso - you can fine-tune the water temperature, the grind size and the brew time until you get coffee that astonishes people. Personally, I'm a big Aeropress fan, though I don't know why so many people make horrible coffee using french presses. I think most french press coffee I've drunk has had far too little coffee or too much water in the brew.
I wasn't complaining about the actual temperature (I tend to 80°C water for my Aeropress brews), but the use of freedom units.
I'm sure there's ways to make quality drip coffee, but all the drip coffee that I've had has been very poor. I've also lost count of the number of times that I see people using boiling water for making coffee.
To my mind, it's easy to get obsessive over making good coffee, but what I'd like to see is just more people knowing how to not make bad coffee. If you're thinking about water temperature and pyramiding the grounds, then you're likely making great coffee.
I try to not let taste or smell overrule other decisions made by my brain. Of course it is so visceral that one can not escape it; some stinky fish challenges show how powerful smell is. Some people can not control their body's reactions to bad smell.
I also enjoy my morning ritual of preparing the grinds and brewing a fresh pot. But I'll be honest, at the end of the day it doesn't really matter where I get it -- brunch at a nice restaurant, Starbucks, McDonalds, a cheap hotel buffet, lukewarm from a flight attendant ... as long as I get it. Sounds healthy, right?! ;)
One thing you learn from reading depression papers is that there are a lot of things that supposedly have significant effects on depression according to some papers, but then fail to work when people try them or they’re tested in trials.
The linked paper is pretty obvious AI paper mill content, so I wouldn’t take anything it says as directly true without checking citations. The citation is a meta-analysis so you’d have to check the criteria and the studies.
The most common explanation for the “everything treats depression” result is inclusion of studies that have no control group. The placebo response rate in depression studies is very high as many patients revert to the mean of being not-super-depressed after they are so depressed that they enroll in a study for depression treatments. Paper writers seeking a positive result will abuse this to their benefit by omitting the control group. They’ll collect depressed patients, give them some treatment, and when the average improves they’ll publish a paper saying that the treatment has positive effects in depression. So after reading a lot of papers about depression, you start dismissing claims by default unless you can confirm they came from a properly powered, placebo-controlled, double-blind study.
But hey, if you’re already drinking coffee and enjoying it, continue to enjoy it!
I don’t have hard data, but I think this optimal value is very closely approximated by coffee drinkers’ daily average. 400 ml is about 1.75 cups, and i think the normal distribution of coffee cups among drinkers is centered at ~2 cups. Makes me wonder if we’re all self medicating and accidentally finding the sweet spot.
Hmm to feel a bit elevated makes sense. I also have that with one glass of alcohol at certain times. Heart rate goes up, things get a bit more intense. It's a nice vibe if you're open to it. It's also a bit subtle.
For me what I've noticed: 2 cups hits the spot, but I always tend to drink more, around 4 cups. On the 3rd cup my mind gets jittery. It's not so much my body or anything and I don't experience the jitters strongly but at the same time I feel a stronger focus while noticing that stronger focus isn't getting anything extra done. Hence I call it mind jitters.
But I can imagine that at 2 cups people are genuinely just a bit elevated in certain ways.
I tried it but coffee to me just tastes horribly bad. Chocolate on the other hand can be quite great (there is also a lot of horrible chocolate, but good chocolate has a better taste to me than coffee.)
I like espresso-style coffee. Over the years i discovered that the very best espresso shots do have a rather strong chocolate note. No acidity, no bitterness.
Unfortunately I also found out that it is basically impossible to get that kind of quality from coffee shops. You must make it yourself, have the right equipment (the grinder is the most important one) and a lot of practice. Then you might have one in 10 god shots... but you taste it... you immediately recognize it.
You can achieve near 100% great shots. I have a decent grinder, Robot Cafelat manual machine, and found the beans and roasting level I enjoy form a local roaster. Total under 900CAD.
Agree about not being able to enjoy any other coffee anymore.
An espresso is about 30 ml of liquid... I am not sure this mixture of milk and sugar (and more sugar!) into 30 ml can still be called a "coffee" , but i'm sure it is a delicious beverage!
IMHO Coffee is way too strong for most of us. Sipping green tea gives a smooth subtle high all day. And you can sleep at night. And not be an angry/anxious bastard.
Yea high quality Japanese green tea has been my go to. Unfortunately, I'm addicted to coffee. Thank god I'm also lightly addicted to living frugally and that is currently winning out. Black tea for 20 bags for 35 cents it is.
This exact issue lead me to follow the grid orchestration research out of the Oak Ridge Laboratory. The building blocks already exist to enable this. An interconnected smart network of renewables can become a stabilizing force in the overall grid. Off-peak storage would still be required, but would no longer need to be "stabilizing" (turbine or other similar generator), and can be simple batteries.
Edison Motors, a manufacturer of hybrid and electric semi and other trucks in Canada, is currently battling regulation. They have a series of videos on their Youtube channel going over what's been taking place.
That was pretty surprising when I saw it unfold. Especially because they utilised state grants specifically to achieve the goal they are now being blocked by regulation on.
KiCAD was also a meh ECAD FOSS alternative 7-8 years ago, now it is by far the tool of choice for regular ECAD designs. I can see FreeCad getting there by 2030.
FreeCAD is probably the single most frustrating and unintuitive pieces of software I have ever used. I almost drafted hate mail to the devs after 15 minutes of crash coursing fusion360 got me further than 2 days of trying to use FreeCAD.
It seems like it has lots of capability but still "punch your monitor" levels of difficulty just trying to do the most basic stuff.
Productive FreeCAD user chiming in here. I understand the frustration. It has a moderate learning curve, but the editing model forms an intuitive picture once you learn the basics and start using it.
Also second the MangoJelly tutorials. You will have a much better time if you walk through a few lessons first as opposed to just winging it and expecting to understand how everything works immediately.
While it's a pain to learn and requires some plugins (addons) for basic ergonomics, FreeCAD absolutely works for parametric CAD modeling. YMMV depending on the project and complexity, it does the trick for laser cutting, bending and 3D printing.
Deltahedra is a great YouTube channel for getting the basics.
It suffers from too many "workbenches," some of which appear to be redundant or dated. You never know whether structures created by one are "compatible" with the M.O. of another (like "Part" vs. "Part Design").
And it presents nonsensical problems, like offering to create a sketch on the face of an object and then complaining that the sketch doesn't belong to any object. So you have to manually drag it under the object in the treeview. So gallingly DUMB.
Despite all that, I will wrestle with its ineptitude before giving Autodesk a penny. I get stuff done with it and respect those who give their time to develop it.
Some of the basics aren't immediately obvious or even hinted at very well for new users, but the "problems" that come up are consistent with its own editing model.
> complaining that the sketch doesn't belong to any object
The sketch is by default attached to the "active body". Active Body is a simple, but important concept to understand. Any operation you do, including adding a sketch, is applied to what is designated as the active body. You designate the active body by right-clicking on the desired body in the object pane.
> It suffers from too many "workbenches"
Another understandably common source of confusion. There's the ever-confusing Part and Part Design workbenches.
I think it's best to just ignore Part and use Part Design whenever possible. Part lets you do operations at a more granular level, but Part Design provides a lot more QOL enhancements and is more intuitive. For the vast majority of things, Part Design is more than capable. I would only use Part workbench when absolutely necessary.
You probably understand all of this already. It's directed more towards the reader. I feel the need to defend FC when certain accusations are brought up. It's immensely powerful, capable, and usable. In my case, I can work very rapidly with it - though it's taken some time to arrive here. The project deserves more than just aspersions.
Thanks for the reply. I like FC a lot and use it frequently! And yes, I pretty much use Part Design exclusively... except when I'm importing a shape from an SVG. Then I have to use a combination of workbenches.
The combo of tracing a bitmap (from a scanned drawing) with Inkscape and then saving the result as SVG to bring into FreeCAD has been a frequent workflow for me. It generally works very well.
To clarify about the "active body" though: This problem occurs even when there's only one active body and the shape upon which you've supposedly draw the sketch is part of it. So why is FC complaining?
I can't tell for sure without knowing exactly what's happening, but one reason is that if you create a sketch from the Sketcher workbench, it will not be added to the active body.
If you create the sketch from the Part Design workbench, then it will be added to the active body.
A Body is specifically a Part Design concept, and FC doesn't presume you'll be working in PD, so this makes sense in a way - it works on the presumption that the Sketcher workbench works with other workbenches and not just PD specifically.
One thing to note is that creating sketches from Sketcher and PD is different. Sketcher offers attachment options to faces, edges, etc., while PD only offers to attach the sketch to base plane (XY, XZ, or YZ).
There is a good reason for this also. The reason is that in designing parts, especially complex parts, it is highly discouraged to use faces or edges (i.e., features) as attachment points because it makes your model very brittle against changes.
This is more of a general CAD philosophy than a FC thing. It's better to set where a sketch attaches based on variable values. For example, if you have a cylinder with a height 20 and you want to attach a box to the top of the cylinder - rather than attaching to the top face of the cylinder, it's better to create a variable h=20, and set the cylinder to height h, and set the box's z-value also to h.
In FC, I use VarSets for this. I used to use the Spreadsheet workbench, but found it clumsy.
Thanks, that's useful info and something I've wondered about.
Your comment also serves as an excellent illustration of what's "wrong" with FreeCAD, though.
"One thing to note is that creating sketches from Sketcher and PD is different. Sketcher offers attachment options to faces, edges, etc., while PD only offers to attach the sketch to base plane (XY, XZ, or YZ)."
OK, but I would argue that sketching functionality should still be centralized. So if you have a body or some appropriate object selected and invoke the sketcher (or vice versa), attachment to faces, edges, etc. will be enabled. Otherwise it's disabled.
That's standard GUI, and it's well-understood that greying something out tells the user that some condition isn't met. But he still learns that the option exists and where it resides.
"In FC, I use VarSets for this. I used to use the Spreadsheet workbench, but found it clumsy."
Thanks for the tip. I've been meaning to tackle spreadsheets as a means to resize stuff (another pain point with seemingly many "solutions" in FreeCAD).
Not OP, but I've been using FreeCAD for hobby projects for 8 years and even though I usually do achieve the results I want, the "monitor punching UX issues" are absolutely real. I'd love for FreeCAD to succeed the way Blender did, but the project either lacks people with UX expertise or funds to sponsor such people.
I tried it this year. Not in too much depth, but I tried Fusion and FreeCAD for the first time this year for 3D printing and found I was getting much further much faster on Fusion.
I'm sure I could grind harder and learn more and make FreeCAD work, but I'm not sure why I'd bother.
If all you're looking to do is produce a design the quickest way possible, then sure Fusion often wins. Just as there was a time where buying Maya made more sense than using Blender. But, FreeCAD offers other niceties, like being able to work offline, using an open file format, performant non-web UI, generally avoiding vendor lock-in. And Autodesk already did a major rug pull with Fusion360 licensing once.
I mostly design functional 3D prints. I've found FreeCAD 1.0 fixed most of the annoyances I ran into and I'm pretty productive with it. But, I didn't come into it with an expectation of a SolidWorks or Fusion clone. I learned the tool with its own idioms and it seems pretty straightforward to me. It's not perfect by any means and I've run into the occasional bug. To that end, I've found reporting bugs with reproducible steps goes a long way to getting things fixed.
I'm not sure what it is about CAD in particular, but I find everyone wants the "Blender of the CAD world" while skipping over the decade of investment it took to get Blender where it is. For a long time, discussions about Blender were dominated by complaints about the UX. If we didn't have folks willing to work past a hit to productivity in order to make an investment into Blender, we wouldn't have the amazing open source tool we have today. FreeCAD has all the expectations of a high quality open source CAD tool with hardly any of the investment. Just getting people on /r/freecad to file issues is surprisingly challenging.
By all means, if you're happy with Fusion and don't mind the licensing, have at it. I'm sure there's functionality in there without an equivalent in FreeCAD. I'd personally rather not have my designs locked up in Fusion and see FreeCAD as the best option for me, even if it suffers from the challenges of open source UI design.
No arguement that fusion isn’t better and easier to learn. Their licensing and changes to their hobbyist offering were no longer tenable for me which prompted my change. I was pleasantly surprised at how well I was able to work in freecad after a few youtube videos.
A foundational research team in a Canadian university in Quebec, if I recall correctly. They licenced these patents to the Chinese companies royalty free when used the Chinese domestic market. The Chinese spent the time developing LFP to where it's now a bleeding edge of batteries, while practically no-one else was interested.
In a retaliatory fight over the EVs, in October 2025, the CCP issued a ban on transfer of advanced technology for LFP batteries, and battery manufacturing equipment.
I've talked to people from that very lab at the Université de Montréal many years ago, before the parent expired.
The IP was licensed by Hydro-Quebec first, and some of it was also held by UT. A123 was a US company manufacturing LFP batteries in 2005 in infringement of the patents.
A123, Hydro-Quebec, UT spent 15 years suing each other (and also suing BAK technology in China and other companies that used the technology), complete with secondary patents, etc...
Hydro-Quebec actually was producing LFP batteries commercially, along with an EV program. Those ventures were cancelled, in no small part because of the political issues when Canadian SoEs compete with American businesses (but also for other reasons). HQ is restarting the LFP manufacturing program now, though, through a new spinoff.
Anyways, this is not like Nortel at all - we had two decades of a headstart and we didn't give the license to Chinese companies until quite a few years later. A big part of the issue is because an American company violated the IP, then filed secondary pattents and tried to get the originals invalidated, which led to a huge legal battle strongly discouraging investment. There was really no mistake done in licensing it to Chinese companies.
