I should heavily qualify this by saying that I don't think the study (which I have no access to) measured it this precisely or specifically. I think it was just people reporting roughly how many "cups" per day they drank over 40+ years. I guess I just get annoyed when I see "cups" as a unit of coffee science/health.
Translating from normie, sounds like 30-50g of beans, assuming a "cup" is 8 floz. and the water:coffee ratio is 15:1. Assuming Arabica, that's 450-750mg of caffeine.
And if you just add them to your spam filter, it won't even work easily, because they deliberately shift around the domains and subdomains they send from every so often.
I'm not knowledgeable enough to confidently verify this from the linked material, but aren't they keeping CO2 levels the same during the hypoxic periods? i.e. isn't this significantly different than just holding your breath/being choked/sleep apnea?
Yeah, it was just a creative example of the type of awful AI responses search engines, including Google, give. It tends to contradict what you say, push everything towards useless and inoffensive "there are many complicated factors" analysis, and even contradict itself.
> I appreciate that. I hope you do. But I do not for one second believe the truth of it.
Nor do I when I read passive-aggressive replies from Automattic on the Google Play store: "Hi Matthew! If you believe that your one-time payment entitles you to Plus access, which removes the ads, please reach out to us: [URL]. The banner ads help us sustain the app so we can continue making it available for free."
Sounds like it was great technology that was just badly realized by its human inventor. Twain shouldn't have invested in an inventor; he should have invested in an inventing machine, or perhaps even an investing machine.