Buttons @ Buttons @programming.dev

Posts

7

Comments

359

Joined

2 yr. ago

We did it Lemmy

Sing it with me...

🎵 Every sperm is... 🎵

It would help if you could link to at least one of the thousands. What's one you think makes a strong case? I'm not sure if you're referring to actual studies or, maybe, confusing blog posts and "expert" opinions with actual studies.

This thread confuses me. Are you or GP suggesting I have a certain political leaning based on this post? I'm curious to know what you think that political leaning would be?

Speaking of "enough information":

I think blaming cellphones, and even blaming social media to some extent, is like blaming video games in the 90's. There's lots of opinions, lots of "experts" who also have opinions, and not a lot of scientifically valid research to support those opinions. This is what I'm making fun of in the meme.

You say that is "very dangerous", maybe. I'll note that (at the time of writing) I'm the only one who has linked to anything in support of my views and conclusions. So my views are, apparently, the least "dangerous" in the thread.

Sometimes you have to view the world as black and white to create a good meme. For more nuanced discussion, try non-meme communities.

That first chart I posted made it look like suicide rates were going into exponential growth recently, but "the curve" does plateau and seem to hover around the 1990's levels. See following chart, also, note how this chart makes things look unprecedented because they cut off the 1990s.

I think a lot of those things are good. Limit cellphones in schools, good. Require websites to put a "content rating" in their HTML responses which would help make filtering the internet a lot easier, good. Require cellphone manufacturers to give instructions on how parents can setup filters on their children's phones, good.

Require all adults to upload their government papers before participating in the most important speech forum of our time, bad. I think the laws created to "protect the children" aren't really about protecting children (not exactly a hot take).

I have a challenge for you, and then a prediction:

My challenge is to look at this graph and form a world view that explains it. Certainly there's more behind these numbers than cellphones. Suicide rates were also high around 1990, why?

My prediction is that if we take away kid's cellphones, it will not actually help them and they will still be unhappy, and people will throw up their hands and say "what more can we do?". Well, what more we can do is address those big problems in the first panel of my meme.

I'm 30+ and, granted, I haven't given my daughter a cellphone, and I think well of parents who are careful about how their children use technology.

It's a meme. It's not super clear, but it's memorable.

One belief I'm trying to express with this meme is that most laws created "to protect the children" are not really about protecting children. I know that's a hot take (/s). For example, my state has recently said "to protect the children, let's require all adults to upload their government ID before posting on any website", and the skeptical part of me thinks that's not really about the kids.

I don't have time to review all the research that has been done on the topic, but fortunately others have done a review of the existing studies:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9200624/ concludes "Despite the fears held around wireless technologies, we believe that at this stage there is not enough evidence supporting a causal negative relationship between MP/WD use and children and adolescent’s mental health to justify particular public health interventions."

And this isn't a review, but here's one additional study:

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2022/11/children-mobile-phone-age.html says "Stanford Medicine researchers did not find a connection between the age children acquired their first cell phone and their sleep patterns, depression symptoms or grades."

Kids are sad and have problems, people think this is because of cellphones, so they want to take away the kid's cellphones, but maybe kids are sad because of other problems.

See: https://lemmy.world/post/12059331

In general, there's been lots of talk and bills related to regulating social media, a year or two ago it was "ban tik tok", now it's regulate social media and take away kid's cellphones. Lot's of talk about it, lots of time on the evening news about it. Meanwhile, nobody does anything about the big problems and the evening news wont mention them.

Does this quality as "dank"?

Keep in mind the core value of most of these companies is "we have a web page". If only all these unhappy developers could somehow create their own webpage and we could all switch to using the web page of a better company...

(Preaching to the choir here, since we're on Lemmy. I guess nobody is making money or employing people because of Lemmy though.)

Most work environments I've been in enable 1 developer to do work that requires 2 developers to maintain.

RIGHT?!?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click#Patent

One click purchasing is little more than a web page layout and it was patented. The patent was reexamined and partially upheld too.

Also, I just think, morally speaking, that just because you had an idea, the opportunity of having the same idea shouldn't be denied to everyone else.

John Carmack said it well:

"The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying."

In Rust, right?

Prior art is still a thing though, and invalidates a patent. I think first to file just means you can't keep an idea secret and then "surprise!, we already invented that be we've been keeping it a secret, but trust us, we were first". If you publish an idea, it establishes prior art and, in theory, prevents future patents of that idea.

Patents probably just need to go for most things. At least patents shouldn't be 20 years for everything.

"You came up with an idea that would have taken a computer 30 milliseconds to produce, here's a 20 year patent."

Patents should change to protect R&D investments, not ideas. If you spend a billion dollar getting a new drug through trials, that's a R&D cost and you get a patent. If you invent a neat webpage layout or something, and a teenager could replicate what you've done in a few hours, no patent, or perhaps a 5 year patent.