Because it was just the fastest data source I could find. I was simply looking for any counter example. The point wasn’t strictly about the consumption of coffee vs alcohol, it was that there is an entire internet available to confirm or debunk a gut feeling.
So if you’re going to go into a discussion about public policy, back it up with facts and figures, not gut feelings.
So to highlight the point, not to answer it directly? Got it - that’s fair.
As I mentioned in another comment the situation gets a bit more complex when it comes to booze vs. java. For a single country you could theoretically “equalise” things to the most popular booze vs. the most popular way to prepare coffee. So besides data you also need some arbitration, it’s deceptively more complex than it looks like.
We can argue over how to finesse the numbers to most perfectly represent the statistics until we’re blue in the face, but it’s really not that necessary to make it that complicated. Besides 1 serving of coffee is a pretty well established quantity, and 1 serving of alcohol is also a well established quantity. That semantic argument has already been had and settled years ago so that everyone compiling numbers and taking statistics are all operating on the same page.
Brazil - 80~100mL? (eyeballed, can dig sources if desired)
It gets worse because coffee is ingested in multiple forms in the same place (refer to the Italian example)
and 1 serving of alcohol is also a well established quantity
Ditto as above.
This is not just “semantics” or “arguing to finesse the numbers”. What’s meaningful here, in the context of OP (drugs) and the question (alcohol being potentially more consumed than coffee), would be amount of caffeine vs. ethanol, but this isn’t the sort of stuff that you can simply say “learn to use Alphabet Inc.'s data vulturing tool” and call it a day, you know?
Your initial take was that you don’t need to rely on gut feeling for this, as [ipsis digitis] “there is an entire internet available to confirm or debunk a gut feeling”. And I’m showing that it isn’t as easy as it looks like, and the very fact that you only brought up international standards later - not right off the bat - shows it.
That said, I encourage you to actually read the second link that you’ve provided:
Definitions in various countries // There is no international consensus on how much pure alcohol is contained in a standard drink;[2] values in different countries range from 8g to 20g.
It actually confirms my point.
You’re splitting hairs
Odds are that you’re fully aware that no, I am not “splirring hurrs”.
I’m saying that this should be compared by amounts of alcohol vs. amounts of caffeine, and then arbitrated somehow (say, “x grams of caffeine should be equivalent to x grams of alcohol”). But no, it is not just a “lern2google you baka” as you implied towards the other poster.
EDIT: and it’s blatantly clear that you didn’t even bother to read the first link that you’ve provided. Do it. It does not back up your claim (1 serving of coffee is a pretty well established quantity), it’s about standardisation of quantitative chemistry practices for determination of caffeine content.
I’m saying that this should be compared by amounts of alcohol vs. amounts of caffeine, and then arbitrated somehow (say, “x grams of caffeine should be equivalent to x grams of alcohol”).
Please point out in the original post where anyone was talking about caffiene vs ethanol. The original poster said they gut instinct felt that people drink more alcohol than coffee, I provided a statistical source that contradicted that gut feeling about coffee vs alcohol. Now we’ve spiraled into some asinine overly complex “well we should calculate how much caffiene is in ever single cup of coffee because coffee has different form factos and calculate how much ethanol is in every single glass of alcohol because alcohol has different form factos and then normalize them against each other because they have different effects” that no statistician would ever dream of trying to attempt.
This is at best a bad faith argument of you trying to show how massive your brain is to strangers on the internet by being a contrarian dickhead.
Please point out in the original post [SIC - clearly referring to the comment] where anyone [SIC - as if there were 2+ people behind the OP, or behind the top level comment] was talking about caffiene vs ethanol.
This implies that I claimed that the OP was about “caffiene” (caffeine) vs. ethanol. I did not, and you’re either being disingenuous or seriously lacking basic reading comprehension.
I brought caffeine and ethanol up for obvious and contextually relevant reasons. Look at the context and even you’ll notice why.
The original poster said they gut instinct felt that people drink more alcohol than coffee, I provided a statistical source that contradicted that gut feeling about coffee vs alcohol
And I showed why statistics for a single specific/random country don’t answer his question, and that the issue is more complicated than your “Or we can go with statistics instead of gut reaction.” implies.
Now we’ve spiraled into some asinine overly complex “well we should calculate how much caffiene is in ever single cup of coffee because coffee has different form factos and calculate how much ethanol is in every single glass of alcohol because alcohol has different form factos [SIC] and then normalize them against each other because they have different effects”
Want an abridged version? “You need some standard for this shit, caffeine vs. ethanol is a convenient one.”
What seems to be “overly complex” for you is basic reading comprehension.
Also, you forgot to mention the part where you bring irrelevant links up about Quantitative Chemistry methods, trying to “prove” that this shit is trivial and shooting one’s own foot in the process. Or that you moved the goalposts once your original claim was show to be fucking dumb.
that no statistician would ever dream of trying to attempt.
Standardising shit before drawing conclusions so you don’t get meaningless crap is a lot like basic reading comprehension: both things are extremely complex and inhumanely complex for you, but quite doable for other people.
This is at best a bad faith argument of you trying to show how massive your brain is to strangers on the internet by being a contrarian dickhead.
Oh look, someone got a crystal ball to assess the others’ “intentions” (“bad faith”). Oh wait no crystal ball, just an assumer making shit up.
I already said the reason that I’m bringing this up. Also, if you really think that “caffeine” and “ethanol” are someone showing “big brain”, I have really, really bad news for you. (Doubly hilarious in the context that you were shaming the other poster for going by “gut feeling”, instead of searching stuff. Can’t be arsed to search a fucking word?)
Given your lack of basic reading comprehension, I feel like you might be better off in Reddit. Seriously.
Why are you restricting the scope to some random country, if the comment above doesn’t have such implication?
I suspect it’s the data they happened to find first.
Because it was just the fastest data source I could find. I was simply looking for any counter example. The point wasn’t strictly about the consumption of coffee vs alcohol, it was that there is an entire internet available to confirm or debunk a gut feeling.
So if you’re going to go into a discussion about public policy, back it up with facts and figures, not gut feelings.
So to highlight the point, not to answer it directly? Got it - that’s fair.
As I mentioned in another comment the situation gets a bit more complex when it comes to booze vs. java. For a single country you could theoretically “equalise” things to the most popular booze vs. the most popular way to prepare coffee. So besides data you also need some arbitration, it’s deceptively more complex than it looks like.
We can argue over how to finesse the numbers to most perfectly represent the statistics until we’re blue in the face, but it’s really not that necessary to make it that complicated. Besides 1 serving of coffee is a pretty well established quantity, and 1 serving of alcohol is also a well established quantity. That semantic argument has already been had and settled years ago so that everyone compiling numbers and taking statistics are all operating on the same page.
Not really; unless you’re assuming that your local standards apply elsewhere. They aren’t - this varies wildly. For reference:
It gets worse because coffee is ingested in multiple forms in the same place (refer to the Italian example)
Ditto as above.
This is not just “semantics” or “arguing to finesse the numbers”. What’s meaningful here, in the context of OP (drugs) and the question (alcohol being potentially more consumed than coffee), would be amount of caffeine vs. ethanol, but this isn’t the sort of stuff that you can simply say “learn to use Alphabet Inc.'s data vulturing tool” and call it a day, you know?
Oh so like how there’s an ISO standard for determining caffiene content for use when maming comparisons: https://www.iso.org/standard/34185.html
And the Standard Drink for alcohol: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_drink
You’re splitting hairs and retreading ground that has already be standardized years ago and continually receives updates to maintain relevance.
You’re moving the goalposts.
Your initial take was that you don’t need to rely on gut feeling for this, as [ipsis digitis] “there is an entire internet available to confirm or debunk a gut feeling”. And I’m showing that it isn’t as easy as it looks like, and the very fact that you only brought up international standards later - not right off the bat - shows it.
That said, I encourage you to actually read the second link that you’ve provided:
It actually confirms my point.
Odds are that you’re fully aware that no, I am not “splirring hurrs”.
I’m saying that this should be compared by amounts of alcohol vs. amounts of caffeine, and then arbitrated somehow (say, “x grams of caffeine should be equivalent to x grams of alcohol”). But no, it is not just a “lern2google you baka” as you implied towards the other poster.
EDIT: and it’s blatantly clear that you didn’t even bother to read the first link that you’ve provided. Do it. It does not back up your claim (1 serving of coffee is a pretty well established quantity), it’s about standardisation of quantitative chemistry practices for determination of caffeine content.
Please point out in the original post where anyone was talking about caffiene vs ethanol. The original poster said they gut instinct felt that people drink more alcohol than coffee, I provided a statistical source that contradicted that gut feeling about coffee vs alcohol. Now we’ve spiraled into some asinine overly complex “well we should calculate how much caffiene is in ever single cup of coffee because coffee has different form factos and calculate how much ethanol is in every single glass of alcohol because alcohol has different form factos and then normalize them against each other because they have different effects” that no statistician would ever dream of trying to attempt.
This is at best a bad faith argument of you trying to show how massive your brain is to strangers on the internet by being a contrarian dickhead.
This implies that I claimed that the OP was about “caffiene” (caffeine) vs. ethanol. I did not, and you’re either being disingenuous or seriously lacking basic reading comprehension.
I brought caffeine and ethanol up for obvious and contextually relevant reasons. Look at the context and even you’ll notice why.
And I showed why statistics for a single specific/random country don’t answer his question, and that the issue is more complicated than your “Or we can go with statistics instead of gut reaction.” implies.
Want an abridged version? “You need some standard for this shit, caffeine vs. ethanol is a convenient one.”
What seems to be “overly complex” for you is basic reading comprehension.
Also, you forgot to mention the part where you bring irrelevant links up about Quantitative Chemistry methods, trying to “prove” that this shit is trivial and shooting one’s own foot in the process. Or that you moved the goalposts once your original claim was show to be fucking dumb.
Standardising shit before drawing conclusions so you don’t get meaningless crap is a lot like basic reading comprehension: both things are extremely complex and inhumanely complex for you, but quite doable for other people.
Oh look, someone got a crystal ball to assess the others’ “intentions” (“bad faith”). Oh wait no crystal ball, just an assumer making shit up.
I already said the reason that I’m bringing this up. Also, if you really think that “caffeine” and “ethanol” are someone showing “big brain”, I have really, really bad news for you. (Doubly hilarious in the context that you were shaming the other poster for going by “gut feeling”, instead of searching stuff. Can’t be arsed to search a fucking word?)
Given your lack of basic reading comprehension, I feel like you might be better off in Reddit. Seriously.