He mentions in the video that they stopped advertising that when the BBB brought it up with them.
I think for this story, the timeline is paramount. What Honey used to be compared to what it became are worlds apart. Claims they made when they were just a coupon aggregator should be considered in a different light than claims once they started partnering with vendors
Hilariously, you only need to go back in time two days to when they minted the Luigi Mangioni coin and buy it right away (and sell at the peak). It ballooned something ridiculous like 37k% so that should set you up nicely
I would say it's reasonably difficult. I haven't beaten the 100 levels yet, I've only gotten up to 50, but it may be that the developer expects you to unlock more permanent unlocks before you can fully beat the game
But there are times when a boss gives you quite the bullet storm so it may be difficult if you aren't coordinated
Oh awesome! I'm looking forward to this one
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.
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.
Yeah the news of this non-recusal came too soon after the other recusal. Very confusing timeline if you didn't know there were two cases
The mathematical proof is that Elon owns several hundred million Tesla shares and his holding or selling of those shares will impact the share price of the judge's shares. Up or down, the price will be impacted, that's just how markets work. If he is forced to sell those shares to fund X, the judge will be impacted.
Also, you shouldn't really need an exact proof for the judge's recusal. There is a chance he is impacted by the result of the case in a significant monetary way, so why not pass the case to a judge who doesn't have these connections. This isn't the last judge in Texas (just one of the most partisan) so there is far greater upsides to recusal than downsides.
Why risk the optics of impropriety when you don't have to?
A good option! Perhaps more industrial than I was picturing but still relevant. Maybe there's a mod that can get me even closer to what I was picturing
I was about to complain about how my rubber bands in the US came in a non-resealable bag when it dawned on me that the bag itself contains hundreds of bands capable of sealing the bag
I also love that they used the generous term of square instead of blobl
I suspected it was a smaller channel, but didn't look myself. I haven't heard of them up until this point so this story could be a particularly big opportunity for them, so it makes sense why they are choosing the delivery method that they are