As an alcoholic, I can say with complete certainty. That some one who drinks everyday to “de-stress” IS one or very much is in danger of becoming an alcoholic if it goes on long enough. Second, specifically mentioning “it’s not the alcohol” is usually a huge red flag, it means they’re worried they may actually have a problem and are over compensating.

I get that you are trying to be helpful here and that’s a good thing, but I suspect you try too much to fit what OP is saying into the mould of your own experiences. And again, you assume too much and to boot, you assume that OP is lying, which means suddenly anything could be true or false.

some one who drinks everyday

OP does not drink every day.

Second, specifically mentioning “it’s not the alcohol” is usually a huge red flag, it means they’re worried they may actually have a problem and are over compensating.

Or it could actually be true. People simply use alcohol in this way because it works. It might end in a destructive pattern of abuse or it might not, but actual alcohol problems come with a lot of other symptoms and patterns, none of which are on display here.

Perhaps you should be a bit more cautious about diagnosing people you’ve never met based on very little information. You assume a lot and jump to baseless conclusions.

If you need alcohol that much to “de-stress”, then you are functionally unable to live without alcohol.

The original comment describes a situation of constant stress, and alcohol as a shortcut to destress. That person even says that it’s not the alcohol in itself that is desirable. Nowhere does this person talk about excessive consumption.

Um, no. Problematic use of alcohol, perhaps - “alcoholism” implies addiction, impact on relationships and rest of life etc, which is not implied in the previous comment. A lot of people use a beer or two to deflate after work or stress without it necessarily being a problem. You have to look at the whole picture.

If you could increase the productivity of knowledge-workers 5%, that’s worth a trillion

A big if (and where does these numbers come from?), but more importantly, a “more productive” knowledge worker isn’t necessarily a good thing if the output is less reliable, interesting or innovative for example. 10 shitty articles instead of 1 quality article is useless if the knowledge is actually worth anything to the end user.

Ed Zitron, a tech beat reporter, criticizes a recent paper from Goldman Sachs, calling AI a “grift.”

Fittingly, this paragraph is incomprehensible to anyone who hasn’t already read the blog post; who is calling AI a grift, Zitron or GS? And is Zitron critical of the GS article (no, he’s not)?

Now, if it was your job to actually absorb the information in this blog post, there’s really no way around actually reading the thing - at least if you wanna do a good job. Any “productivity boost” would sacrifice quality of output.

Seriously? It’ll take you a minute to read, if you read slowly.

They want to end Edge and bring back Internet Explorer. It’ll start over at IE 33 since 33x3=88, which means Heil Hitler in super secret numerology.

You haven’t been looking very hard I gather. There are numerous studies done on the benefits of reading, you could use your preferred search engine to read a few of them perhaps.

Those sure are some labyrinthine sentences you managed to conjure up there. Now, if only I didn’t find the task so boring, perhaps I might be able to untangle a coherent thought or two, who knows?

The idea that “Oh, if all the morons likely to believe facist ideology are just taught Hamlet, it will all be okay”

Well, of course nobody said that, it’s a gross oversimplification of my argument - a strawman - which I guess is very fitting in this context.