Now if they could just extend the 50% weekly limit increase promotion which will otherwise expire on July 19th at 11:59PM Pacific, they might actually remain competitive.
Hopefully the same will happen this time but there’s no announcement and it’s uncertain and unpredictable, which is less than ideal. Personally I am using all my quota before Monday morning Pacific time anyway, hoping they will do a reset when the team is back in the office. If I’ve bet incorrectly, I will
have wasted my 25% by using it all in one day, in a rush and therefore inefficiently, rather than being able to take my time and plan it out. That’s what irks me the most.
In fact I’d say the entire system of weekly quotas and resets seems quite poorly designed. A constant rate continuous recharging model would work much better, like a battery. No arbitrary usage period phasing, no waiting for 5:45am on Sunday morning for your quota to reset. There would be no worrying about how your specific reset time aligns with the additional random resets or model availability. That would be a much better user experience and would cost them nothing.
The triple whammy of (a) two layers of annoying timed usage windows, (b) constantly changing model availability windows, and (c) random unpredictable usage resets, is absolutely brutal for anyone who is trying to plan methodically and be efficient.
One minute I'm trying to use an entire week's worth of quota in less than 24 hours, then moments later I read the deadline has been punted and I have only 25% remaining to last me an entire week. This alone is enough for me to switch back to Codex once my current Claude sub ends.
Oh gosh, that would be so nice. The triple whammy of (a) two layers of annoying timed usage windows, (b) constantly changing model availability windows, and (c) random unpredictable usage resets, is absolutely brutal for anyone who is trying to plan methodically and be efficient.
One minute I'm trying to use an entire week's worth of quota in less than 24 hours, then moments later I read the deadline has been punted and I have only 25% remaining to last me an entire week. This alone is enough for me to switch back to Codex once my current Claude sub ends.
I don't think that exculpates the Trump administration for its arbitrary and capricious use of export controls, an ill-suited legal mechanism, without reasonable process or justification - thereby forcing Anthropic to scramble.
That's one of the reasons. The primary reason is THC is a partial CB1 receptor agonist - CB1 is abundant in the central and peripheral nervous systems - so it increases sympathetic nervous system activity and norepinephrine, both of which raise heart rate independent of vasodilation.
They didn't find that cannabis use leads to cardiovascular disease. They found a strong association between cannabis use and cardiovascular disease in a very large study. Correlation isn't causation. The study itself acknowledges that. That doesn't mean it's an invalid or useless study that didn't add to the body of scientific knowledge and evidence about the relationship between cannabis use and cardiovascular disease - I think we agree there. That's how science works. Observational studies do not definitively prove causality.
After reading the study, should we update our posterior on the hypothesis that cannabis use causes cardiovascular disease to nudge it in the direction that it does? Yes - that's just Bayes' theorem. Does the probability go to 95%+? No, of course not; I'm not claiming otherwise. It's still useful research.
Also, worth noting that MI risk spikes several-fold within the first hour after cannabis use (and that's not caused by cocaine).
That's not really a fair standard by which to judge the study, abstract or not. The dosing mechanism information was not present in the underlying dataset available to them:
> This retrospective cohort study utilized the TriNetX health research network, which aggregates deidentified electronic medical records from health care organizations worldwide.
> 1) The cannabis-user group with cannabis use diagnoses (International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision: F12.1, F12.9, F12.90).
You can't expect them to work miracles and come up with data they didn't have. They produced a valuable piece of research furthering our understanding of the cardiovascular risks of cannabis use based on a very large existing dataset that was available to them.
Of course they would love to be able to answer the question of whether smoking is worse for your heart than edibles and so on, and they stated they would like to do this in a future study. But that costs time and money to create an entirely new dataset, and you know what funding for science is like these days.
There's plenty of other evidence in the literature on the cardiovascular effects of THC if you want to see what our current understanding is there. TL;DR: smoking is worse than vaping or edibles; myocardial infarction risk spikes within the first few hours of using cannabis; but the risks are not limited to inhalation because THC itself has physiological effects that raise cardiovascular risk factors (increased heart rate, endothelial dysfunction, platelet activation raising clotting risk, inflammation and oxidative stress, etc.).