Also find me at @Notnotmike@beehaw.org and @NotNotMike@notnotlemmy.com
- Posts
- 64
- Comments
- 399
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 64
- Comments
- 399
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
See, you're doing it all again. The severity of one does not discount the severity of another. And "addiction" is not DSM-V defined.
Someone does not go to their doctor and says “I have a substance abuse disorder”
Rarely does anyone go to their doctor and say "I have melanoma" either, they simply tell the doctor they have a weird mole. Part of the conversation with a professional is using common phrases and nomenclature to start the dialog and work towards a proper diagnosis. I'm sure if you told a psychiatrist "I'm addicted to caffeine" they would almost certainly understand what you mean.
The line of introduction a speaker uses at those meetings is not “hi, my name is Cepho and I have a substance abuse disorder”.
I'm afraid I can't really tell you what they say in those meetings. They are often highly religious processes and have debatable results, so I won't be taking my clinical terminology from them.
overusage the you yourself admit too
The DSM-V admits to it, as well as the negative connotations of the word. If anything, people with substance use disorders should be inclined to avoid that word in order to prevent the negative connotations. If anything, you are actually doing them a disservice by telling us we should be calling them "addicts" when the DSM-V explicitly states that it is not a proper definition and that it has a negative bias against it.
You won’t be seeing a professional that refers to the DSM-V for it.
Not for the headache, no, but for the several other diagnoses that can arise from usage of caffeine. Stop trivializing the issue, please. Caffeine is in the DSM for a reason - it is a drug with chemical and psychological effects.
I’m not just arguing semantics.
But that's your main sticking point, it seems. Your main issue appears to be that people shouldn't call caffeine consumption an "addiction" - it is entirely semantics. It's not a medical term, as we've said, so we may as well be arguing "gif" vs "jif" right now. It's just nomenclature, it does not change the underlying issue of caffeine usage.
You are also arguing that caffeine is no big deal, which just seems like an oddly obtuse and head-in-the-sand take. Just because caffeine does not cause you to sell your kidney for a fix does not mean it has zero deleterious effects. Usage results in real consequences for people, even if they are relatively minor in comparison to harder substances. Having a two day headache from a beverage should not be normalized, in my opinion.
You're clearly very passionate about this issue, but you're arguing semantics and you are, at least from my reading of the DSM-V, not even correct.
You are against describing caffeine usage as an "addiction" because you claim it is not listed in the DSM-V as such, and yet the DSM-V clearly states that it doesn't define "addiction" because it's such an overused term.
Some clinicians will choose to use the word ad diction to describe more extreme presentations, but the word is omitted from the official DSM-5 substance use disorder diagnostic terminology because of its uncertain definition and its potentially negative connotation.
From page 485 of a version of the DSM-V I was able to find online.
Also you claim "caffeine isn’t in the list of compounds forming addictions" in the DSM-V, and putting aside the fact that the DSM doesn't use the term "addictions" as a diagnostic tool, the page you reference has caffeine right there near the top of the table with several serious diagnoses, although granted not substance abuse diagnoses. We shouldn't discount a substance because one row of that table is unchecked. If it shows up, it's there for a reason.
From page 482 of a version of the DSM-V I was able to find online.
Caffeine is associated, according to the above table from the DSM-V, with anxiety disorders, sleep disorders, substance intoxication, and substance withdrawal. You give an anecdote of how you handle the withdrawal symptoms even, yet somehow suggest that, despite having a special ceremony with dealing with a substance including taking medication, it is not a big deal just because it doesn't have the same symptoms as nicotine withdrawal. You also hand-wave the complex biochemical reactions that make caffeine work saying a cold shower is equivalent, when it's strictly not - a cold shower does not block any chemoreceptors unless your shower has some really wacky features mine doesn't - and you can't bring the DSM-V into a discussion unless you plan to talk clinically and consider the chemical pathways of the substance under scrutiny.
All that aside, you've correctly edited your original comment to state that you can't get a substance abuse disorder from caffeine, and you misspoke when you said "addicted".
You don’t get ‘addicted’ to caffeine. If you consume it daily your body will adjust to the new baselines and discontinuing will have symptoms (headache for a day, tired, etc…), but it is not a clinical addiction.
Edit: caffeine does not have a “Substance Use Disorder”, merely a “Withdrawal Syndrome” (DSM-V pg. 482)
So I don't see why you're still arguing with people here, nobody used the phrase "substance abuse", they used "addiction" which is a colloquial term for excessive use of something. There's no point to this discussion when, if you're using the DSM-V, you should be in complete agreement with everyone.
- This comment you are arguing about the word "addiction".
- This comment you reference "addictive" substances
- This comment you say caffeine isn't addictive and then call someone ignorant
Just let it go. According to the DSM-V, it is completely fair to call caffeine addictive in general discussion, and caffeine has real and serious effects on a persons biochemistry that you can't just brush off because they aren't as bad as meth.
It's definitely got a genetic factor, but tea and a 12 oz cup of coffee aren't excessive amounts of caffeine. The side-effects should be (hopefully) mild and mostly unnoticeable, except perhaps a day or two after quitting
Just want to chime in with a few things
First and most importantly - drop the attitude, please, everyone. We can have a civil conversation about this topic and disagree in a healthy way. You'll never convince someone of anything by calling them "ignorant".
Now, to the debate:
caffeine isn't in the list of compounds forming addictions
Whose list? Can you share your reference here? Is it the DSM?
negative impact on lifestyle that defines addiction
I would argue that caffeine does have a negative impact on ones lifestyle. While it is substantially lighter than other substances, the inability to function normally without your morning cup of coffee is a bigger deal, in my mind, than most people realize.
And to your later point I do not believe we should be giving kids caffeine. They don't need it and it starts an unhealthy relationship early. Of course, that's just my opinion as a caffeine-avoider
No I actually upgraded to Mk 2 just in case
But I have done both of those things and am still encountering the issue. I swear it worked before
I've been reading that wet concrete is a good option, so you don't have to use plastic or anything for the containers
I think there are a couple flaws in this design that seem to be glossed over. Granted the video was very long for this kind of topic so perhaps I missed the counterpoints. But, to me they are:
- the hoverpack negates the need to jump over everything, so the initial point is very early game focused, and in the early game you're building simple things
- you should never really need a top down view of your factory to understand it. Manifolds are very simple, there isn't a lot to figure out once it's already built, and frankly if you build large, spaghetti factories then you need to do yourself a favor and simplify into smaller factories or rooms. Encapsulation is a friend
- coveyors on the ceiling are nice, but they have one fundamental flaw - you can't see what's on the belt. That removes your ability to assess flow rate or even to refresh your memory on what's going where. I've done many ceiling conveyors and inevitably I end up hitting my head on the ceiling trying to peek at what's going on up there
A better strategy, to my mind, is to use floors dedicated to conveyors, or have floors that are so simple that there are only two or three things being moved on the floor (except for floors with manufacturers and the like with 5+ things). It really improves the "readability" of a factory. Plus you can use windows and glass to still allow for glance value assessments if desired
A couple options here: https://github.com/offa/android-foss?tab=readme-ov-file#-call-blocker--spam-filter
None of them are very big but they may be worth a try
Relatively new to Python so that's news to me.
Other languages I've used support assignment like that but I always avoid it, but they just used
=so I'll give this walrus a try and see if the different syntax makes it any better in my mindI definitely agree with your second point. And I find it ridiculous that a company can ever claim to "own" your genetic information. It's why I've never dared sign up for any kind of genetic ancestry sites. I can't give that personal of information away for free, let alone pay for it to be taken
Unfortunately, everyone who used their service did agree to it. Directly from their Privacy Policy:
Commonly owned entities, affiliates and change of ownership
If we are involved in a bankruptcy, merger, acquisition, reorganization, or sale of assets, your Personal Information may be accessed, sold or transferred as part of that transaction and this Privacy Statement will apply to your Personal Information as transferred to the new entity. We may also disclose Personal Information about you to our corporate affiliates to help operate our services and our affiliates’ services.
https://www.23andme.com/legal/privacy/#data-sharing
Whether this will hold up in court is a bit murky. But without a large, laborious court battle, they can and will sell the data and they are "legally" allowed to
As the old saying goes: "BROJOB! BROJOB! CHOOCHOO!"
Don't let your dreams be dreams
For me, I respect female characters who are written strong but not mean or "buff". Your character doesn't need to be a dick or on steroids to be strong. A strong person can be kind and compassionate, just not capitulate under pressure. I also don't believe being "independent" means you can't love someone and lean on them in times of need, it just means you aren't defined by the relationship.
- Bastila Shan from KOTOR
- Mustang from Red Rising
- Rita from Groundhog Day
- Hermione from Harry Potter (if only JK respected ALL women)
- Dottie from A League of Their Own
- Mulan from Mulan
- Ellie from The Last of Us Part 2
- Freya from God of War
I do well enough to comfortably support my wife and me. I have a retirement plan, put a small amount into saving, and don't buy things on credit (besides to pay them off immediately for rewards points). I have paid off my car and it should last me a good long while. I do have student loans outstanding but I pay those down and my work provides a stipend each month that effectively doubles my payment on that. I have some small investment accounts to play the stock market, but not life-changing money. We have plenty of money leftover after the mortgage to live just as comfortably as I would like.
This all being said, I am an outlier in the current economy. Most are paid too little for too much work and I would happily pay more for most products if I thought the money was going to the employees, but I know they are given the smallest amount possible.
What in the world? You are in a relationship with them. You can't live with, sleep in the same bed with, be best friends with, and do sexual stuff with someone and not be in a relationship! What do you think a relationship is?!
You say you don't want a relationship with them but what on Earth would you change if you entered into a "relationship" with them? Just your perspective and a label from the sounds of it.
I feel as though you need to reassess where you're actually at in this. Think about what a relationship means to you and why this person cannot fit that role for you.
And above all, you need to talk to them about this and ask if they think you're in a relationship. Because you might need to "break up" with them regardless of how you feel about it
Python test coverage - Run Python tests with coverage and get rich results in the editor.
This one will be nice to have. Will be testing it out tomorrow for sure
CDN would be my guess as well. Maybe not different, but they would definitely have their ads queued up on every CDN possible while the video content is unlikely to be on your nearest CDN unless it's a Mr. Beast video
Okay, so why bring up the DSM if you don't care what it says? You seem to be missing my point.
Caffeine is addicting in the colloquial sense that you want it when you don't have it. It is not a cause of substance abuse disorder.
I never said I did and, in fact, I don't think it's okay. I'm an outlier in that fact and that's my concern and the reason I'm even in this thread.
By definition in the DSM, neither caffeine nor meth are addicting. So this is a nil point
Again, addiction means nothing here except a colloquialism. It is no longer a medical term. If you have a source for a strict definition in a scientific sense beyond the DSM I'd be happy to adjust our conversation accordingly
You cannot use an outdated version just because it fits your argument better. The nomenclature was changed, so adapt
By calling them "addicts" you are immediately not respecting them, per the negative connotation and the superior alternative term which we've discussed
And sidelining a conversation about a drug to argue semantics is better? Nobody in this thread will tell you caffeine is as bad as nicotine.
My interpretation here is that you suffer from substance abuse, in the past or currently, and you feel your experience is being trivialized. If that's the case then say that instead. Don't argue about definitions out of the DSM, just state cleanly and kindly that you feel that "habit" is a better term and let the conversation about the topic continue. Don't be so aggressive and self-righteous about it and people will be more inclined to listen and change.
And if you don't suffer from substance abuse then don't get outraged by pedantics on someone else's behalf...