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.
> why use a SQLite abstraction library when I can use LLMs to interact directly with the C source code?
Because of the accumulated knowledge in these abstraction layers and because of the abstraction itself resulting in readable and maintainable code.
Yes you can move the abstraction one level up, but you don't control it if you nor the LLM meet the level of accumulated knowledge that is embedded in this abstraction. Let alone future contributors to your codebase.
Of course it is all depending on context and there is no one-fits-all strategy here.
This implies that you need to have a lot in common in order to be friends. Maybe alcohol shows that you actually do not need to have a lot in common, just having fun together is the common. You might need alcohol once in your life to realize it, but alcohol is definitely not required to experience it.
> (b) HN commenters who consistently dismiss any and all criticism of "AI"
I do not really get the same vibe from 'HN commenters'. The way I repeatedly see it presented is, it is a language model (very good at that) and nothing more than that. If with AI we are talking about ChatGPT and alike.
Other AI is often cracked as 'just' very advanced machine learning, reinforced learning etc. In general, HN commenters' seem to be very sceptical or realistic about 'AI' at least in my perception. Of course there may be exceptions (in both commenters and threads).
There are problems where understanding one level below the abstractions indeed leads to better solutions. However, I would argue that for a large set of problems, this is not the case. I think being aware of the abstraction (at multiple levels) would lead you to choose the right abstraction level for solving the problem. Of course, apart from school assignments, these abstraction levels are never given with a certain problem, so the more you know, the better you'll be able to see it.
To be honest, being able to think about things in multiple levels of abstraction is an advantage no matter what level you are (writing assembly or writing react)
It's because abstractions always leak. You are never completely insulated from the levels above or below you, nor sideways from the other components you interact with.
I'd rather cross at a roundabout than at a crosswalk somewhere along a straight road. Actually, last week I got almost run over in such a situation. A bus stopped for the crosswalk, blinked lights to indicate he'd seen me. I start to cross, and at the same time a van overtakes the bus at 'normal' speed and almost running me over as I could not see the van behind the bus, and the van could not see me. This would not have been possible at a roundabout as all traffic is slow and overtaking is not possible.
In the Netherlands it is very common to have both crosswalks and bike priority lanes on the roundabout, especially in busy city environments. This actually improves safety, as the 'vulnerable' road users cross when drivers are driving slow and alert. Also, the access to the roundabout is slowed down by the crosswalks and bike lane, which improves safety for the drivers as well.
Note that it does require the design of the roundabout to be made with this in mind. Leaving any dutch roundabout involves a fairly tight 90 degree curve, forcing cars to slow down before encountering cyclists or pedestrians.
Avoidant behaviour does not solve the actual problem. To each their own, but I think trying to address the issue and learn from it to better deal with these situations in the future is much more constructive than to abandon or limit all future coworker interaction. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
About half of the times, the actual problem is the manager or HR, and there is no fix for this but to switch the employer. As for the other half, yes, it can be useful to learn, but it's typically quite painful, and often requires switching the employer anyway.
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.
reply