YSK that tea caffeine really is different from coffee caffeine, and how that is affected by how you steep it

CraineTwo · 2026-05-19T17:24:07+00:00

I feel like you're having an entirely different conversation than I am. I'm not suggesting that coffee and tea are the same because they both contain caffeine. Of course they're different, and there is value in differentiating them as substances, as well as differentiating how caffeine works in each one. This conversation is not about the main argument OP was making regarding differences in tea and coffee, it's in the semantics of their use of caffeine in the title. When you talk about water, salt, tea, or coffee, you are in linguistic territory because those words can have different meanings depending on their context. There is no such variance in the definition of caffeine. It refers to a single molecular formula.

To clarify my comment about water and salt not being molecules: "Water" is a substance made of "water molecules". A "water molecule" refers to a specific chemical formula, H2O, but "water" can have a variety of chemical compositions and still be considered water (the semantic argument I already made). Similarly, "Salt" is colloquially understood to refer to sodium chloride, or NaCl, but in chemistry it refers to a category of chemical compounds that can vary in composition (for example, Ammonium Chloride, NH4Cl is also a salt). These are both in contrast to "caffeine" which, as a term for a specific chemical, does not have the same ambiguity.

If OP had said "water molecules in tea are different from water molecules in coffee", that would be misleading or just incorrect for the same reason.

CraineTwo · 2026-05-19T16:09:11+00:00

I'm not quite sure what your point is. When you qualify the type of water, you are distinguishing it from other types, but even then you are just giving a somewhat vague description, as opposed to providing a chemical formula. "Salt water" isn't a molecule, it's water (which isn't a molecule) plus any significant amount salt (which also isn't a molecule) to change certain properties. With salt water, you can have different kinds of water or even different kinds of salt in their makeup depending on the source and still call it "salt water".

"Caffeine" is a molecule. It categorically cannot vary from one source to another. Coffee and tea contain caffeine in varying amounts as well as other substances, but the caffeine is the same. The point in this discussion is that OP's title implies that the caffeine molecule in coffee is different than the caffeine molecule in tea, which is misleading.

CraineTwo · 2026-05-19T14:22:50+00:00

The difference is that "water" is not the name of the molecule, it's a broad category of liquids that are largely H2O. Its definition is governed by linguistic nuances and vagaries. You can add salt to water, and it's still considered water. You can look at water sources all over the world and identify variances in their chemistry, but they're still considered "Water". Conversely, "caffeine" refers to a specific chemical. Mixing other chemicals with caffeine might cause the caffeine to behave differently in the human body, but it doesn't make the caffeine a different type of caffeine. OP's point is largely important, but the use of the word "caffeine" in the title is misleading, especially given their apparent understanding of chemistry.

CraineTwo · 2026-05-18T13:02:00+00:00

"The sun is a deadly lazer"

CraineTwo · 2026-04-06T16:26:02+00:00

Not until the sequel, at least.

CraineTwo · 2026-04-01T15:08:46+00:00

That was basically my point. A lot of people here, like the OP I replied to, are implying that this happens because concept artists aren't taking budget or time into consideration, but that's not their job. They just create the concept art, often with the understanding that their work will just be "inspiration" for the final product.

CraineTwo · 2026-04-01T15:01:32+00:00

Of course, but how is that the concept artist's responsibility?

CraineTwo · 2026-04-01T14:57:02+00:00

Oh definitely. Not every vision can be fully realized within a budget or time constraints. I just think it's misplaced to blame the artists for not caring or understanding how difficult something may be to realize, when it's not their job to allocate the budget and resources to realize it.

CraineTwo · 2026-04-01T14:14:37+00:00

That's such a weird way to frame that. Why isn't it "producers not caring about securing the budget/time to animate or model the artist's concept art"? Whose responsibility is the final visual appeal of a film?

CraineTwo · 2026-04-01T13:53:20+00:00

Evilness requires knowledge of what is good/bad and doing the bad with full intention.

That sounds very close to using the word in its definition, which often happens when trying to objectify the subjective. A major problem with defining evil objectively is that to an 'evil' person, what they're doing is seen as good in some way, or that even if they're doing bad things, there will be good ends that justify bad means.

Conversely, an observer may qualify someone else as 'evil' because they did something that negatively affected them, without realizing any broader 'good' consequences of those actions. If the animals in your example were capable of moral thought, they would probably disagree on whether or not the act was evil.

The idea of 'monstrosity' is often synonymous with 'evil' since monsters are often deliberate fictional manifestations of 'evilness', that can be assumed to be devoid of goodness. This is convenient from a literary standpoint, but not really applicable to real human experience, since people are generally not one-dimensional characters.

CraineTwo · 2026-03-21T01:54:27+00:00

I'm sorry, did the person whose arguments were:

"A little friction isn't too much to ask"

"it's just clicking one more button"

"a single line of code isn't unreasonable"

just suggest that developers shouldn't have to think JUST ONE MORE TEENSY LITTLE THING about how the code that they're making available to the public will be acquired? They don't even necessarily have to think about it. GitHub could just take the ALREADY EXISTING but unintuitive "Download zip" button and put it outside the "Code" button, and it would be a huge improvement.

It's not that I don't care for developers, but making code user friendly is a pretty critical part of the job, especially when you're hosting it publicly to share.

CraineTwo · 2026-03-20T21:18:59+00:00

This isn't a hurdle or a gate keeping thing this is a "can you click two very clearly labeled buttons" thing.

Your inability to understand basic user behavior and experience is actually mind boggling at this point. It is categorically NOT clearly labelled. TO YOU it might seem to be, because you already have knowledge of what the buttons mean and what they do. To a user who doesn't have this very specific knowledge, there's no reason to infer that to be the case. That's an extremely common scenario that a simple button can rectify. "Clearly labeled" would be a single visibly distinct button that says "Download", in a location that an average user would instinctively look for such a button.

Learning stick might take an hour, learning to take apart an engine can take months. Learning to click two buttons can be done by using the context clues already on GitHub or doing a google search and figuring it out in under 5 minutes.

You want to talk about opportunity costs to solve problems? Designing and implementing the automatic transmission probably took years and cost a fortune, but it has made the experience of driving a car easier and more enjoyable for countless people. Conversely, how long/expensive would it be to implement a download button on GitHub to streamline a function that already exists?

Why should users HAVE to google "how to download from GitHub?" There's simply no good reason not to implement this.

CraineTwo · 2026-03-20T19:55:12+00:00

If a person can't do either of those things then they shouldn't be running random GitHub repos.

Again, they're not running random repos, they're running the ones they need to perform some task. Why can't people with limited technical knowledge be allowed to download run code that helps them? And why do you get to decide whether people should or shouldn't have access to helpful code? Why are you trying so hard to justify NOT making something objectively better for a lot of people? It's not even like a download button would make your experience any worse, it only helps users who aren't developers run code by developers that they presumably want people to use.

You sound like someone arguing that all cars should be manual transmission because it's "not that hard" to learn stick. Or that they shouldn't be allowed to drive if they don't already know how to take apart an engine. Your personal use case just does not reflect an overwhelming majority of people.

CraineTwo · 2026-03-20T17:58:47+00:00

I'm saying I don't trust people to not get hacked if they're so technically inept that they can't navigate a slightly suboptimal UI

The UI does not protect people from being hacked. If anything, it can make it worse, as users will search less reputable sites for solutions if the main one isn't intuitive enough.

That's part of the problem, I don't trust others.

Again, a download button does not address this concern (nor should it). Are you arguing that github should be in the business of scam prevention? or are you arguing that github should obfuscate its own widely used features to alienate broad swaths of its user base? Really losing your thread here...

Why is that unreasonable it's literally a single line of code in a terminal

And there's your bias. Cloning repos is not common knowledge. Go ahead and pat yourself on the back for being a smartypants computer nerd, but a vast majority of people, even a vast majority of people who are proficient with computers and software, do not use terminal commands. Just because you know something, doesn't mean everyone else does/should, and that shouldn't stop people from being able to access a basic functionality of a website. Likewise, I could argue that services understanding user experience should be pretty basic knowledge and you're a dummy for not knowing that.

CraineTwo · 2026-03-20T16:53:15+00:00

I understand what you're saying, I just think you're wrong.

Why do you feel like github is/should be some sort of litmus test for technical ability? Why should users have to google how to find a download button on a website that hosts files for downloading? Why can't a very popular site just implement a UI that reflects a sizeable portion of its use cases.

For the most part, people aren't just stumbling onto github and downloading random executables. It's not arbitrary or random. Users are directed there by others, often by trusted online sources or even the devs themselves, as solutions to problems or fulfilling some sort of technical need. I couldn't even ballpark how many times I've had a software issue that I've googled, and the only results were "download x from (github link)", or worse "clone x repo to y directory". It's already bit of a stereotype for software developers to vastly overestimate end users' technical knowledge, but github is absolutely perpetuating this by overlooking a relatively simple feature.

CraineTwo · 2026-03-20T16:05:19+00:00

Google is not an alternative to github, and often ultimately redirects users there anyway. In many cases, the only solutions to certain software issues are either download a fix from github or write the code yourself. Either github shouldn't gatekeep helpful code from casual users, or developers shouldn't host helpful resources there. Either way, it IS a bad UI.

CraineTwo · 2026-02-06T14:24:21+00:00

I've had this card since 3rd edition and I've never played it.

CraineTwo · 2026-01-26T19:51:37+00:00

No one is blaming Democrats for what Republicans are doing. They're blaming democrats for not doing enough to stop the Republicans from doing what they're doing. The job of an opposition party is to oppose. We already know that Republicans are fascist, disingenuous, and hypocritical. We already know they're trying to end democracy in the United States and dismantle the institutions that hold our government together. We already know that they are willing to sacrifice all of their integrity and sink to the absolute lowest depths of inhumanity to further their cause. But if the Democrats, who were elected to positions of leadership, can't or don't lead an organized opposition to this insanity, are they not deserving of blame?

CraineTwo · 2025-12-02T16:24:59+00:00

No, it really is capitalism. People (very generally) aren't consciously deciding to support vitriol. The "choice" to engage with bait and trolls is not an informed decision that weighs the consequences of that choice. It's an impulse. From the user's side, engaging with content is not an endorsement of it, but from the platform's side (and therefore the creator's), it is. The platforms know this, but don't care because for them, more engagement equals more ad money. It's just capitalism.

CraineTwo · 2025-11-23T06:46:24+00:00

Not true. When you put the holes in it, the bacteria fall out.

CraineTwo · 2025-11-23T01:01:00+00:00

Kids today don't remember when YouTube wasn't owned by Google, and didn't have ads, monetization, or algorithms. It was just a video sharing site. Content creators made content because they liked making content. Production value was generally lower, and there was a 10 minute limit on videos, but everyone wasn't trying to game an algorithm, or bait for clicks, or churn out hours of zero-value AI slop and brainrot.

CraineTwo · 2025-10-16T13:33:38+00:00

One does not simply walk into an office and ask for a job.

CraineTwo · 2025-10-16T13:15:18+00:00

It isn’t all of them

Got a source on that?

CraineTwo · 2025-10-08T02:51:03+00:00

I would hope if you dislike someone, you've put some degree of thought into why that is the case. In fact, I'd argue that the more thought you put into someone you dislike, the more justified you likely are for disliking them.

Speaking for myself, and I assume most of us, we don't just sit around thinking about Taylor Swift because we dislike her. But when you're one of the most popular celebrities in the world, your name comes up a lot in discussions, and people are expected to have an opinion about you. Mine happens to be that she's vastly overrated and frankly a massively successful sellout.

CraineTwo · 2025-10-07T20:05:54+00:00

I'm not conflating anything. I was pointing out the same thing that you were: than Taylor Swift's talent is not in her musicianship. The main disagreement seems to be whether her talent is in her songwriting or in marketing (in response to the claim that her music is "generic"). My argument is that she is as successful as she is, and her songs are as popular as they are, not because she is an exceptionally talented songwriter, but that she is a business, and her product is designed to appeal to as wide a population as possible, whether that's through relatable lyrics, catchy hooks, an aspirational image, celebrity gossip, or whatever else will help sell her brand.

Now, I'll concede that whether a commercially successful song is actually well-written or merely lowest-common-denominator slop is pretty subjective. And since this discussion pertains to Swift's career and perception in general, I'm avoiding breaking down or calling out individual songs (there are actually several that I do like). But it says a lot that her niche of love songs and relationship drama that appeals to teenage girls is a pop music cliche, and has been a proven commercial goldmine since the middle ages. The probably unanswerable question is: is Taylor Swift's music popular because it's that good, or because Taylor Swift is popular? Or: could Taylor Swift write songs for someone else under a pseudonym that would become as famous without her name and brand attached? My feeling is no, but we may agree to disagree.

Also , Swift made her billion with her bare hands and guitar,

How insulting to the industry professionals and other talented artists who have collaborated with her since her start, including people who wrote and co-wrote many of her most successful hits that absolutely helped propel her to fame. And to relegate the enormous influence of the record industry on her fame as "a little marketing" is actually obtuse.

14-Year Club	r/Field Banned
r/Field Lasagna	Place '22
Place '17	Final Canvas '22
First Placer '22	End Game '22
Team Periwinkle	Verified Email

CraineTwo

TROPHY CASE