While the book does focus on smoking, and uses some of these physical aspects of cigarettes specifically as arguments, the main thrust of the book is actually a framework that generalizes pretty well to dealing with any addiction. For example, https://easypeasymethod.org/ is a simple rewrite of Carr's book for dealing with porn addiction.
So as long as you have your own reasons for why you want to quit vaping (and if you're picking up the book, you probably already do) it can still be helpful. The books from whyquit.com I mentioned in a sibling comment mention some vaping-specific arguments, and they're framed as quitting nicotine in general, not just smoking specifically.
>Most people [...] need about an hour break in between smokes.
I've never seen anything like that. When there's a group of social smokers standing around, it's very common for something like "Oh, I just finished mine and you're only half-way through yours, I'll light up another one to keep you company" to happen. I've seen plenty of people who aren't chain smokers (yet), but can easily go through 2-4 cigarettes in a row if they're suddenly in a stressful situation and smoking "to relax".
>So in terms of pure addiction I would 100% argue that cigarettes are better than vaping.
But that's not a metric that's in any way helpful for a health decision. Nicotine in and of itself is not particularly physically harmful - it's toxic at high doses and elevates heart rate for a bit, but that's about it. The delivery method is what causes most of the harm, and smoking is 100% known to cause a lot of harm in a lot of different ways. And "With vaping that limit is completely gone" is also not accurate. Unlike the Navier-Stokes equations, dopamine receptors don't experience infinite blowup in finite time. So choosing a delivery method based on the amount of nicotine taken daily is not going to change much in terms of addiction (if you're already heavily addicted, you'll remain heavily addicted), but can have a huge impact on physical health.
Speaking from personal experience, vaping is far more addicting. For one the amount of nicotine, especially in the US where 5% is the standard, is easily 5-10x the amount from a pack of cigarettes a day.
Second, its much easier to take a puff than it is to find a suitable place to light up a cigarette and smoke for 5-10 minutes. You can very easily end up becoming psychologically conditioned to taking a puff litteraly once every 20 seconds, all day long from waking up to going to bed.
I too have considered picking up smoking to quit vaping. I remember of the times I did, I could smoke 3-4 a day and be fine. I don't know the long term effects of vaping physically, but just mentally the amount of nicotine is absolutely draining and at this point I rather do some damage to my lungs than keep this going.
>Speaking from personal experience, vaping is far more addicting.
Sure, and I'm not disagreeing with that. I disagree that "degree of addictiveness" is the metric that's wise to use when choosing a nicotine delivery method. Obviously the #1 choice should be NULL, not smoking at all, but if one is already addicted to nicotine and not ready to quit it at the moment, smoking cigarettes is, as far as we know, the worst option. Even intermittent smoking, or low-volume (like your 3-4 a day) causes non-linear harm. See this paper for example: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.9... .
Do we have the numbers yet on the effects of vaping all day every day on cardiovascular health and lung cancer?
Also nicotine itself is not without harm. I always thought these drugs only affect the brain, but they're metabolized by the whole body and have consequences on all your cells https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4363846/
Trading the terrible effects of burning tobacco versus the insane amount of nicotine from vaping seems like an unknown tradeoff to me
>Do we have the numbers yet on the effects of vaping all day every day on cardiovascular health and lung cancer?
Not that I know of, and I grant that this is an unknown, and we could end up learning about extremely bad 20-/30-/40-year effects in the future. That said, there are very clear, very significant, and very well studied harms of cigarette smoking. Research is being done on vaping, and so far all harms identified are significantly lower than smoking.
>Also nicotine itself is not without harm.
Sure, and thanks for the paper. I'm not well versed in bio enough to tell the significance of everything in there, but, correct me if I'm wrong, for the most part this is showing there exist harms, but they're not particularly well quantified yet, especially in terms of human subjects? For this to really matter, you'd need to quantify the surplus of nicotine you get from vaping vs. smoking, and then compare the relative harms of those two doses. Could be that 5x the dose causes 5x the harm, or could be that the smoking dose passes some threshold, and 5x the dose from vaping is just marginal additional harm on top of that. And then still compare that to the other differences between smoking and vaping in terms of harm.
Keep in mind 5x the dose is relative to being a pack a day smoker. We're talking 20x if it means smoking 4-5x a day.
Then there is the negative effects of I dunno how many multiples of volume of vape in your throat and lungs, which I assume is non-zero even though I personally believe its 100x better than burning tobacco.
Then there is the question of what that much nicotine does to you mentally, which is equally, if not more important. To put it in perspective, I usually wake up feeling pretty good, with some hopes and dreams of what Ill be doing that day, and Ill take a puff and immediately want to go back to bed for another hour. I cant sit in meetings for more than 5 mins or have conversations with people if it means I cant be vaping. Its like basing your whole life based on whether you get your fix of nicotine or not. Work from office? I don't think so buddy...every ten minutes Id have to go to the bathroom/outside.
I seriously wonder where my life would have been if I never picked up this habit.
> Do we have the numbers yet on the effects of vaping all day every day on cardiovascular health and lung cancer?
Even when we don't have the numbers for everyday long-term use we already know the chemical and biological mechanisms that make smoking so harmful and carcinogen and we can measure that these substances are almost entirely absent in vapor during normal use of a vape because almost all of the problems with smoking come from burning tabacco and inhaling the fumes and vaping is simply way cooler and there is no fume but vapor (hence the name) and we know that the potential of vapor to do harm is way lower than fume. We never have any long-term data for anything new. But to make an argument for not consuming something you would at least have some reasonable mechanism through which it could be harmful and a lot of those known to be harmful mechanisms are present when smoking but absent when vaping. Even the British National Health Service agrees that vaping is at least 95% less harmful than smoking and this is a reasonable position.
> Trading the terrible effects of burning tobacco versus the insane amount of nicotine from vaping seems like an unknown tradeoff to me
This is just black rhetoric that is not evidence-based. How do you know the amount of nicotine is "insane" during normal use?
All available evidence points to vaping being at least one magnitude less harmful than smoking and this is backed by what we know about chemical and biological processes of the chemicals involved and through medical reports about people who replaced smoking with vaping. It would be irresponsible to deny smokers who can't quit a way to harm reduction just by claiming we don't have any long-term data. We know enough about combustion, vapor and the chemical and biological implications to be quite confident that vaping is much less harmful than smoking.
That doesn't mean we should promote it to anybody who is not already a smoker. But as a means to reduce harm for someone who seems unable to quit smoking it should be considered.
I think you read my comments as some self assured statement or argument whereas I was genuinely asking questions.
I dont doubt given an equal amount of vaping to equal amount of smoking, vaping is far healthier. But to what end? Is smoking 1 cigarette a day worse than vaping 2-3ml of 50mg/ml nicotine? How about 3-4?
As far as I know the academic consensus is that taking in more nicotine, even a lot more, doesn't turn vaping into something as harmful as smoking. Addiction is the main established "harm". Nicotine, even very much of it, is not considered a carcinogen. There are studies that suggest it could promote tumour growth but it hasn't been shown in humans. There is also decades of data from nicotine replacement therapy and Swedish snus users and it shows little to no increase in heart attacks or strokes in otherwise healthy people. Another risk is accute poisoning, i.e. swallowing large quantities of liquid by children. As far as I know even the more alarming voices regarding nicotine do not regard it as harmful as inhaling fumes from combustion.
Also I don't think that there are many people that overdose nicotine regularily because it causes nausea and dizziness so people are normally self-regulating the nicotine dose automatically. So the scenario you are proposing doesn't seem to be something we can actually observe as a common consumption pattern.
Too much nicotine is far closer to drinking too much coffee than to smoking and has similar acute effects which is why almost nobody does it on a regular basis.
It's not really the nicotine that causes the obvious damage though. Studies have shown that the vape smoke stimulates the vagus nerve which causes changes in the cardiovascular system that could likely cause heart disease
On top of that it’s obvious that what goes into the lungs generally stays in the lungs, and vapes are full of all sorts of weird flavours and e numbers
But the truth is even if you were vaping water all day it would likely still damage your cardiovascular system
> Studies have shown that the vape smoke stimulates the vagus nerve which causes changes in the cardiovascular system that could likely cause heart disease
Can you name this study? Are you talking about "E-cigarettes and their lone constituents induce cardiac arrhythmia and conduction defects in mice"? This study did not find what you claim. All it found is that in mice the heart rhythm during and right after exposure increased. This is far from claiming that it "could likely cause heart disease" in humans. Also human switching studies point the other way. smokers who move to vaping show improvements in blood vessel function within weeks. I don't know why people really need to twist study results to depict vaping more harmful than it is. Yes, it is not healthy and you shouldn't do it. But all scientific evidence conclusively points to vaping, even heavy vaping, still being way less harmful than smoking because we already know that basically all harm comes from inhaling the residues of combustion, not from the nicotine. Condeming vaping as being equally bad as smoking is irresponsible and unscientific and prevents proven harm reduction for heavy smokers.
> Condeming vaping as being equally bad as smoking is irresponsible and unscientific and prevents proven harm reduction for heavy smokers.
I never said this did I.
Also you’re talking about smokers moving to vaping, whereas at the moment plenty of people are going straight to vaping due to people over arguing how harmless it is compared to smoking.
And "not ready to quit it at the moment" is such a wildly inappropriate dichotomy I really wonder what experience you have which informs your decision to discuss this topic.
Also I want to mention, I feel like there is too much emphasis put on length of life and not enough on quality of life.
If smoking 3-4 a day is far worse on my body BUT it means Im not a nicotine fiend with a brain fog all day every day with zero motivation, Ill take it.
But smoking cigarettes shortens life. Why would you want to promote vaping as improvement on the quality of life? Also, why do you write nicotine fiend - you are aware that tobacco plants contain nicotine? Vaping may be less damaging than smoking. I fail to see how it is healthy anywhere at all. Why do people here on this sub promote either thing as an exclusive or? That makes no sense. People need to stop sugar-coating crap. I also noticed this with weed. Weed users always say how weed is no problem, but it ALSO is a problem. Their brain tricks them into becoming a promo-individual for weed suddenly. Weed changes the brain pattern too.
I think you misread. I am saying vaping 5x the amount of nicotine is far worse mentally. Even if smoking 3-4 a day is worse physically, if I am going to do one or the other, I rather smoke 3-4 a day.
But in general I am saying, even for the quitting smoking/vaping ad campaigns there is not enough emphasis put on how dramatically it reduces your quality of life. Its always about dying of cancer or heart disease and living shorter amount of time 20-40 years down the line. I mean shit in a lot of cases I rather die at 70 than live to 80. Youll feel better EVERY day in a month is a muucch stronger motivation for me.
They are also absolutely addictive as fuck, BUT I will say because they come in different strengths I found it relatively straight forward to quit them via tapering.
I was using 20 x 10mg per day and then bought strength 9mg, 6mg, 3mg, 1mg quit.
It was much much easier than trying to cold turkey which I also tried.
What? 50mg/ml is the standard? Or am I miscalculating something here? When I switched from cigs to vaping (back in 2012, not really comparable to now, but still), I went with very high nicotine levels of 36mg/ml which was pretty harsh on the throat, and within a year I was at 3mg/ml. Nowadays I’m at zero.
For the disposable vapes, yes it is. 5% salt nic, in the US youd be hard pressed to find lower. Most countries Ive been to limit to 2%, which the US absolutely should do. Its criminal 5% is sold with no alternative.
15ml at 50mg/ml is 750mg of nicotine. That thing would last me a week. A pack if cigs is ~25mg. Per week ~170mg versus 750. Insane
I used to vape the box mods 3mg. It was great, but now I cant go back to it after trying these damn things because the 3mg is almost a joke. Even cigarettes feel like nothing to me compared to these things
For context, I vape because nicotine helps me focus. There's a lot more to it than that but I'm not going to elaborate because if I do, I'll get about a zillion replies from preachy, argumentative people who don't know anything about me and I just don't have the time for that today.
Anyway, one of those big 5% disposables lasts me about 6 weeks at the rate I use them. I deliberately seek out the high nic content because I don't want to ingest more glycol or whatever than is necessary. Nor do I want to sit there and chain vape all day like I used to back when freebase liquids were all you could get. I can limit my intake to 2-3 puffs every 1-2 hours and that's what works for me.
... Huh, I had no idea of this. Yeah, limit in Europe is 20mg/ml, and practical limit on what you can buy, at least in Ireland, is 18mg/ml (I suspect this is manufacturers giving themselves a safety margin, but seems to be pretty standard).
Good dude, good ole days. These modern vapes are all from the same tobacco companies, hence the craziness. Cant fight em? Join em.
Instead of having to sell cigarettes with throat cancer on the label, they get to make all this colorful brands with an even more insane nicotine delivery system with the "health benefit" of quitting smoking...
Vaping to smoking is like shooting heroin is to doing a line of coke. And I say this as someone who has smoked and vaped.
Smoking is addictive and was kinda hard to quit. Vaping is insanely, insanely addictive and about 100X as hard to quit (for me anyway). It took me about 3 tries to quit smoking. Its taken me about 100 attempts to quit vaping.
Also, you end up vaping all day and night since there is no reason you can't do it anywhere. In the toilet at work? Vaping. In bed at night, Vaping. Jerking off? Vaping.
Opposite here. Taken me hundreds of tries to quit smoking (none worked, vaping was the only thing that allowed me to), vaping I sometimes just don’t do, never had that with smoking, where I sometimes switched to menthol so I could keep smoking while sick…
I had a very different experience. I would start smoking again for various personal but uninteresting reasons and found that it was much easier if I went to vaping for a week or two before quitting completely.
There's a computerphile video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZJc1p6RE78) with Dr. Mark Pound explaining a paper by John Kirchenbauer, Jonas Geiping et al. (https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.10226) that described a method for watermarking LLM output like this. It's not directly stated anywhere in the Claude support article that this is what they're using, but the properties of the watermark described seem to point to this method.
Yes. In the ideal world messaging would've have followed the same federalized model as email. XMPP offers this, unfortunately few people use it or even are aware of it.
It's a little irksome how other commentors are quick to dismiss this very valid point. SMBs in Asia aren't using WhatsApp because they've forced the platform on their consumers; it's their consumers who are using WhatsApp who've forced a choice on the SMBs. WhatsApp has very wide consumer penetration, and its use by businesses is meant as a convenience wrapper for customers.
Now, does switching from WhatsApp to some other not-very-widely-used platform cause customer engagement / retention to drop? I would wager very much so! It's a matter of priorities - people go where there is least friction, and WhatsApp otherwise provides a seamless friction-less experience.
It's very first world centric point of view. I doubt some of these commentator claiming whatsapp being down is good for the society have ever been outside of the first world and have seen how it actually helps people in need.
Do you even know who these business owners are and what kind of life do they live? These are the guys that don't have a solid roof over their head, struggle to meet their daily needs and might have to sleep hungry if their day's sales weren't good. Diversifying is the least of the things they have to worry about. Whatsapp allowed them to reduce friction when it comes to communicating with customers, it helps their sales.
What might be a good thing for society in the first world doesn't mean it's necessarily good thing for society in the third world.
I reject this logic - it's an argument for sustaining the status quo at all costs.
Facebook is the most user-hostile tech megacorp, and they will inevitably harm these businesses you care about. The sooner the bandaid is ripped off the better.
I mean, sure, status quo can / should be changed - but you want to get to a point where a changed status quo is sustainable, and you're not going to get there by simply removing existing options. It doesn't change the incentives people have for preferring to use the platform, namely the pre-existing widespread penetration.
You want to dislodge Facebook, you need to disrupt it / curtail its monopoly.
Have you considered that any change done is going to mean winners and losers.
If Facebook permanently goes down then those businesses would move to a different platform.
Would it suck? Probably. Would the world be a better place without Facebook? A ton of people think so. Me included.
This is the same argument people have used when we talk about health insurance in the US being scammy. If we ever decided to address it it means a good chunk of people lose their jobs but also means that the health of this country goes up. Which one is more important?
But people moving from Facebook to another social media or messaging platform is just changing the company. That new company could do whatever things you don't like that Facebook is doing.
Your example seems to mean that we move to another healthcare system as in method of implementation not just moving from one company to another.
That's a fair point. I'm going to make an assumption here but those systems aren't moderated or controlled centrally? So I see two issues with these if they become popular.
1. This only increases misinformation since there's no censorship at all
2. What prevents people from using the service for illegal purposes (I think this becomes a problem once services become popular)
3. Finally won't it just be banned eventually? If some court in any country issues a ruling to control it and it can't be controlled that will just escalate. Especially if it's something like pedophiles.
I've been doing a pretty good job of moving my client's communications to Signal out here.
I feel bad for everyone who relies on whatsapp bots for making stuff happen, though. These are getting really common out here for a lot of things and it always worries me that it's such a linchpin. They're really handy and save a lot of bullshit phone calls from having to be something people deal with for simple stuff like pharmacy delivery. I can get food from the local place down the street that's only really open for lunch and totally off the map for uber eats, for example... if this persists a few more hours those mom and pop type shops aren't going to have as great a day.
At the start of this year I started working for an employment service company that covers the Indo-Asia-Pacific and South American markets.
I was amazed to discover how pervasive Facebook, Inc. has become in the developing world for conducting business and navigating everyday life.
For a lot of people in developing nations such as the Phillipines and Indonesia, Facebook is synonymous with the internet. This has been buoyed by their push to bundle uncapped/free data for Facebook with mobile plans in markets with high growth of mobile internet access.
It's interesting, because I'm always reading articles about how "Western teens aren't using Facebook any more", which is true, but it's also irrelevant, because they're not really a profitable market, teenagers have short attention spans and no money. Facebook's growth strategy is to become the one stop shop (in lower income nations) for everything you want and need.
In Latin American 3rd world countries, people also conduct business via Instagram.
They create Instagram accounts and post products as posts, with a caption of "DM me for price".
It also turns on every alarm on my mind, when they start calling these "Instagram pages". It blurs the line between a real website and an Instagram account (In Spanish, "website" is "página web" as well).
I've also heard: "My business went to hell because Instagram killed my account" and that's when I reply: "Have you ever thought of owning a real website?"
Maybe an event like this will spur some people into... not doing that? Yes I'm aware of the ubiquitous nature of whatsapp in many developing nations. Have also successfully got a lot of people moved onto using Signal for anything they care about.
Signal has and will go down just like facebook.
Cloudflare/aws having issues affects an insanely high percentage of the internet. People still use them.
Outages rarely cause anything, they happen, people move on.
Email, SMS, good ol' phone calls, Signal, <insert local app/platform here>, your own website, etc, on top of whatever you use right now.
If you're in a country that relies a lot on Facebook or Whatsapp, that's where the main focus will be, but at least try to have alternatives just in case something goes wrong.
So 4/4 of those are platforms controlled by a single company or a few large corporations. This really isn't a win in any meaningful sense.
It should be fine for huge corporations to exist and provide services really efficiently at scale while also being forced to play nice and respond to the will of the people they serve.
If we collectively can't stop Facebook from doing bad thing and being bad stewards to their own platform then you won't be able to stop whatever would replace them either.
It was a mistake to communicate with the users on a platform that they use? Instead of trying to get them on signal, losing 90% of leads in the process and making each of your sales cost x10 much?
You need a contingency plan for when vendors go down even in 3rd world countries. It just so happens a lot of us would not mind this vendor failing entirely. It’s unfortunate that we have so little choice in the matter but ultimately the same advice holds true for all of us smugly throwing insults while keeping our billing in AWS.
He’s a HN 10xer. He doesn’t care about anyone outside his Palo Alto cold-press-Koffee-Klatch, despite what he virtue signals. It’s amusing seeing people here trip over each other to say some variety of “I don’t use Facebook.”
How is that a good comparison? Not everyone uses Facebook out of habit, some businesses need it, and it can be used for good things as well as bad because it's just a medium in which people post content
Yes how that content is presented, ranked, etc is controlled by Facebook but that contribution is less than the content itself.
It would be better to say it's the spoon in which someone could eat a sugary cereal or something healthy.
Are you a Facebook employee? Your justification sounds a lot like the internal propaganda that is being fed to employees. “Facebook is net positive”, “it’s just a tool”, etc
What makes you say that? I think it's a good argument, doesn't mean it's right but it has substance. You also have some quotes that I never said. Nowhere did I imply it's a net positive. It is like a tool however but it has much more input.
The argument was that Facebook is neutral as a platform. Similar to the internet, it serves all kinds of content. Some of the content is good, and some is bad. That doesn't necessarily mean the platform is good or bad.
Having worked in growth before (not at Facebook), I can tell that you vastly underestimate the impact FB teams have on how/when/what/for how long/how many times/etc content is displayed to end users. This is absolutely not a neutral impact.
Here in Europe, WhatsApp actually powers many neighborhood watch groups, and so when it goes down, basically a formal crime reporting system also goes down.
This also means that you can't participate in a neighborhood without agreeing to a legal contract with Facebook to use their services, as well as submitting to ad surveillance and tracking.
I know you think this is some sort of neutral comment about personal choice, but it isn't. Millions of underserved people all over the world live in Food Deserts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert), places with little to no access to affordable nutritious food. Those people wind up consuming a large portion of their calories from high fructose corn syrup, not because they have chosen to do so, but because they have no choice, and that is their only option. Whether you want to accept it or not, your comment is classist and makes HN a more hostile place.
People don’t eat straight corn syrup. The products they do eat that contain it are quite expensive per calorie. I.e. Coke.
The problem is initiative and knowledge. They should walk or ride a couple of miles and buy the biggest bags of rice and beans they can, along with a bottle of multivitamins. And then learn how to cook.
If that’s classist, then the classes are structured by knowledge and choices. Which they may well be.
The entire reason that high fructose corn syrup is so prevalent in low-cost foods is that it's cheaper than sugar, especially in the US because of corn subsidies. Find literally any evidence that HFCS is more expensive per-calorie than sugar and you will come up empty-handed.
> If that’s classist, then the classes are structured by knowledge and choices. Which they may well be.
class by its definition accounts for massive difference in access to resources. If you think access to resources doesn't measurably change the level of knowledge that a population has, that's a declaration that resources do nothing, which would be an odd stance to take on a knowledge-focused community website.
> They should walk or ride a couple of miles and buy the biggest bags of rice and beans they can, along with a bottle of multivitamins.
I just LOVE the subtle food choice of rice and beans here, paired with the recommendation to take multivitamins, a recommendation that is supported by little to no evidence. Your own lack of knowledge on this topic is in full display, as is a clear demonstration of your own biases across multiple dimensions.
Of course HFCS is cheaper than sugar. I'm referring to the products made from it, like Coke. They are a poor way to spend your food dollar.
I agree that class accounts for a massive difference in access to resources. However, in this case, the knowledge is available for free, and in the US the basic foodstuffs are available for far less than what disadvantaged people pay for the typical processed and fast food they live on.
Rice and beans - nothing subtle about it. They are basic foods that provide the necessary carbs, fat, and complete protein. The vitamins are a simple way to prevent scurvy and similar deficiencies, until the choice of food can become more varied.
As a person learns to cook and bake, they can add wheat, peas, and corn (But they need to learn about nixtamalization before they add corn.) None of these foods require refrigeration.
I have in mind the cuisine of Mexico, which is inexpensive and nutritious. Similar cuisines are found in home cooking all over the world, at least where commercially processed food hasn't driven them out.
It is most important to make sure that all school children are taught how to process and cook these basic foods.
If you are knowledgeable in this area, I'd appreciate some specific suggestions.
My mother didn't really have a common means to communicate with her grandchildren in the same way.
Email, phone are just not the same.
There are more channels available now for sure, but none so ubiquitous.
Facetime is not displacing FB for a lot of things, but that's more direct.
'Everyone is on FB' is the reason it still holds in these kinds of uses cases.
None of us case one way or the other about the platform, we'll just use what's convenient, but that is what it is.
This is a very common theme among FB users. FB by the way, is still growing it's userbase, and growing revenues even more so. The themes we see here on HN and even in the news don't represent the views among the population, nor are they necessarily very close to material reality.
pass is great. I use the dmenu script to get passwords into my clipboard without leaving the keyboard or being locked into browsers with a supported extension.
As others have mentioned, the Android app has slight issues, but they're not dealbreakers for me.
There's some interesting pass plugins, e.g. pass-otp. You can get 2FA passcodes from the commandline rather than being locked into Google's Authenticator.
I don't want to come of as insensitive, it sounds like you've had some really bad experiences with ternaries in the past and it's important to acknowledge your experience. But I just want to say that not all ternaries are like that.
In a more serious tone, ternaries in places where they should be used, i.e. as expressions, are in my opinion much clearer to read than replacing them with an if-else statement. In my mind, an if/else block is an imperative entity that describes two different actions that could happen. Even if in reality both branches are trivial, my mind will be unnecessarily occupied with the fact that it needs to reason about code here, not just data. A ternary, on the other hand, is a declarative entity, saying that this expression takes on this or that value, usually in such a way that each branch of it maintains some invariant with respect to what's in the conditional.
> In my mind, an if/else block is an imperative entity that describes two different actions that could happen. Even if in reality both branches are trivial, my mind will be unnecessarily occupied with the fact that it needs to reason about code here, not just data
That's true in some languages. But in some languages if-else can also be used as in expression. e.g. in Rust I can write:
So as long as you have your own reasons for why you want to quit vaping (and if you're picking up the book, you probably already do) it can still be helpful. The books from whyquit.com I mentioned in a sibling comment mention some vaping-specific arguments, and they're framed as quitting nicotine in general, not just smoking specifically.