Exactly, which is why it's such a valuable concept for opioid marketing. The line between addiction and pseudoaddiction is vague. Doctors can't judge it; nobody can judge it. Only the patient -- and the patient wants the drugs in this scenario.
715 karma · joined February 11, 2017
"Pseudoaddiction" is deliberately defined such that it's indistinguishable from actual addiction. The concept was popularized by Purdue Pharma, who were trying to market OxyContin.
At the time, providers were averse to prescribing opioids because of addiction concerns. Purdue created the "pseudoaddiction" term to teach providers that just because someone looks addicted, you can keep prescribing them opioids anyways.
At the same time, they lied with statistics to tell doctors that opioids only caused "true" addiction in less than 1% of cases.
Thus, the brunt of the message was that if you see addiction, there's a 99% chance that it's not real addiction.
Many doctors were convinced. Now the nation is dealing with an opioid epidemic driven by OxyContin.
Pseudoaddiction exists. But actual addiction also exists, and it's more dangerous and more likely to happen. Being afraid to diagnose "addiction" because of "pseudoaddiction", is just FUD.
edit: I didn't notice that you mentioned this in your comment, my bad. Can you explain why it doesn't work for you? I'm new to the Docker-alternative scene and thought it looked pretty good at first glance.
However, it seems Norvig was feeding his program with all three types of puzzles -- zero, one, and multiple solutions -- so perhaps that led him to implement a more robust search.
Usually there are two things:
1. Performance. Business logic is usually horizontally scalable, databases are usually not. You want to pull as much BL out of the database as possible, and put it into stateless microservices so they can be scaled.
2. Version control and deploying changes to business logic. Business logic changes frequently. Do you want to have to be making that frequent of changes to your database? Do you have practices around safe deployment and code review for stored procedures?
I've worked at a place where there was lots of business logic (millions of LOC) stored "in the database". In this case the database was MUMPS. It can be done, and it can be pleasant. The catch is that vertical scaling is the only option, and you have to spend years building your own tooling from scratch.
I think the line between database and code is destined to become even more blurred, but not by bringing the code down into the database, but by lifting more and more database concepts up into "application space" as distributed computing becomes more normalized.
I would be telling myself: How can I commit to a lifelong project like children? How can I decide what career path to choose, when there are so many options and I can only pick one? How can I work out, when its basically signing up to humiliate yourself? How can I take these _risks_?
In my experience, anxiety pretends that it's useful. It feels motivational -- like you are motivated to work out, because of your anxiety about being frail.
But contrary to how it feels, anxiety can have the opposite effect. You want it too much, that becomes dangerous, because you're afraid of trying and failing.
If that sounds familiar at all, my advice (since all HN comments have to have advice, right?) is to distance yourself from those goals and aspirations. Perform the Stoic exercise of meditating on the worst-case scenario. Let yourself make mistakes and look stupid. Just do it because you should, and damn the outcome.
First, fasting does not require that your overall calorie intake is reduced. If your cut-goal is 2000kcal per day, you can fast in the morning and eat all 2000kcal in the afternoon. Ultimately, I find this is actually an easier and less hunger-inducing way to each your cutting goals.
Second, you're right. Doing weightlifting while fasted is hard. It's better to coordinate your gym schedule with your eating schedule so that you can eat -- I like a simple protein shake -- before and after the gym.
Third, I'm seeing a lot of folks talking about intermittent fasting ("IF") and day-long fasting in the same breath. I think IF is great for weightlifters on a cut diet. But I think day-long or multi-day fasts are different and should only be done occasionally (weekly being the most frequent) if you are trying to progress with weightlifting. YMMV.
[0]: https://lifehacker.com/geek-to-live-list-your-life-in-txt-16...
[1]: https://lifehacker.com/geek-to-live-reader-written-todo-txt-...
I recommend the book, "Zen mind, beginner's mind" for an introduction to non-religious meditation, written for a western audience.
FWIW, my personal opinion is that meditation is a type of mental training. The specific techniques you should use depends on what you want to train. "Empty mind" meditation is good for training "mental silence", impulse control, and focus. Love meditation trains love, including loving humanity and loving yourself, and shouldn't be underrated. If you have specific goals for self-change, IMO you should use that to create your own "training program" by altering the visualizations used when meditating.
I think this is a great article but I wanted to highlight some of what I've found to be key points for making the best cookies, at least for me personally.
1. Butter should be soft, not melted. Melted butter makes flat cookies. (Some people like flat cookies -- you can melt your butter. Heathens.)
2. Follow order of operations in the recipe. Butter is creamed with the sugar, then add wet ingredients, then add dry ingredients. Stir after each stage. Batter should be extremely smooth.
3. Ideally, batter should be chilled in refrigerator before using. But this is not required, unless you melted your butter.
4. Once formed, roll cookie dough balls in sugar before putting them on the parchment paper. Adds slightly crunchy, brown outer layer.
5. Sprinkle some coarse salt on top, to taste.
6. Use multiple types of chocolate chips. Specifically, I like a mixture of milk chips + semisweet chips. This makes the cookie flavor less boring.
edit: In terms of the base recipe, I use the Joy of Cooking recipe. Tollhouse chocolate chips also have a recipe on the packaging which is basically much the same.
I doubt the OP would mind building a J2EE project from scratch to solve a novel problem. But nobody does that -- usually if there is a J2EE job, it's maintenance, which can be less interesting. And if there is a novel problem, it will likely be solved with the current status quo ("modern") technology.
There are two factors:
- Area / Perimeter ratio. If a room is too large, it's tough to use space efficiently. In open-concept rooms, there is limited space on the walls for traditional bookcases, art, buffet tables, etc. Of course you can still use the space, but you can usually fit more furniture when you have more walls (up to a point, then the inefficiency swings the other way).
- Privacy. Depending on how many people live in your house, a single large room may not offer enough privacy and noise exclusion as a day to day living space. Therefore, even if you have an open layout, you usually also want other more private and cozy rooms (e.g. a separate family room or den).
My conclusion is that an open layout is fine, but shouldn't be the be-all and end-all public living space in your home. If you have a 2k+ square foot house with an open layout and another separate living space, I think most people will be happy with that. For a single person/couple, having the extra living space might not be needed.
IIRC, it has been used as a textbook for systems theory classes in some universities, but it's concise and written for a general audience.
I knew I was on a bus, because the sounds and feelings maintained continuity with reality. But the details I saw were completely made up. My eyes were closed, I think, but it didn't feel like that was connected to my ability to see. Because of the swaying motion of the bus, I knew where we were, and the scene I was "watching" was based on that. I was able to move, and think normally about my day, and did not notice that I had fallen asleep.
Of course, I eventually woke up. Reality was significantly less pleasant than my dream. The dream bus had been much less crowded, and clean, and generally more atmospheric and warm-toned, even the sunlight.
Does that sound similar to what you meant by trance consciousness?
I think there is very strong truth to this. Words get in the way when trying to share internal experiences. Also, by reporting and discussing your experiences, you affect them. Memories of past experiences, and expectations for future experiences, are both affected.
For that reason, and without having digested the scientific literature, I would recommend against labeling oneself as having (or not having) aphantasia.
But then, I feel that way about pretty much all labels, especially ones related to cognition. They're fine for communication, but not for your internal perception of self.
It's super interesting how memory works. Like, I can remember the content of songs because they have rhyme and rhythm and pleasantness, but I can't remember anything else word-for-word. I'm the king of paraphrasing jokes and quotes, because I can never remember how they originally went.
edit to add: I'm just kidding about the brain damage thing, but seriously, I very much don't like the idea of presenting this as "aphantasia" as though it is a lack of something. I think it's (probably) just a different system that's optimized for different kinds of behaviors.
I do also suspect that the mental visualization could be learned. I feel like when I played Legos as a kid I was incidentally practicing my visualization, perhaps the only reason I'm good at it now is an aggregate of those kind of coincidences.
I think there are generally a variety of ways things can "appear". However it's never the same as true AR. For example, with true AR, you could be fooled into seeing something that's not there. But I can't fool myself (deliberately) with my own mental images.
Having said that, it subjectively feels like the stimulus originates in a different part of the brain at a low level, but eventually both "mental visual" and "true visual" stimulus are unified to some degree.
Like yes, I can visualize a ball in my hand, but it'll always be in a different layer from my actual visual input of my hand. Like two different layers in Photoshop.
Also, beyond the AR concept, one of my favored types of visualizations is what I call "playing myself a movie". It's pretty much what you would imagine, basically watching a movie with my mind's eye. I can watch the movie and look at "real things" at the same time. Works great for falling asleep as well.
I agree, it's a super fascinating discussion.
For example, once I've heard a song enough, I can just replay it in my head, and it feels the same as actually listening to it. Is that just as weird for you as being able to see a ball?
Obviously, types and tests help. But it's astonishing how much incidental complexity creeps into one's everyday work with our current tools. Under most circumstances telling a computer to do something shouldn't be that much harder than telling a human to do it (assuming a concrete grammar and shared vocabulary).
It's made me start thinking of programs more as multicellular organisms, or communities, where each part is responsible for a particular task. I think this is the core genius of OOP. It's not about classes or (Java) interfaces, it's about programs being communities of cohesive individuals with well-defined communication protocols.
edit to add: I think another key difference is in increasing the level of abstraction that you think about your program. You want to build a layer where you just say what should happen (the "declarative layer"), and keep that separate from the idea of how it should happen (the "implementation layer").
I think of OOP as a message passing paradigm. It's concerned with how messages are passed from one part of the system to another. It is not particularly concerned with how those messages are implemented under the hood. In that sense it's a higher level paradigm because OOP is all about building abstractions ("objects") and defining how they communicate, rather than wiring code together directly. FP doesn't really have anything to say about how you design your abstractions, just how you implement them in code.
Either this is an incredibly widespread mistake in science journalism, or it's not a mistake and I'm an idiot?
I guess there are a lot of different kinds of creativity. This seems to target something I'd think of specifically as "lateral thinking." I agree it doesn't seem like a very satisfying test, though.