Popper: An inductive logic programming system
GitHub - logic-and-learning-lab/Popper: An inductive logic programming system
An inductive logic programming system. Contribute to logic-and-learning-lab/Popper development by creating an account on GitHub.GitHub
False claims Afrikaners are persecuted threaten South Africa’s sovereignty, says president
White supremacist ideology and false claims that South Africa’s Afrikaner minority is being racially persecuted pose a threat to the country’s sovereignty and national security, the country’s president, Cyril Ramaphosa, has warned.Since taking office for his second US presidential term in January, Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed without evidence that South Africa’s government is seizing land and encouraging violence against white farmers.
False claims Afrikaners are persecuted threaten South Africa’s sovereignty, says president
Cyril Ramaphosa says theories, promoted by Donald Trump, ‘conveniently align with wider notions of white supremacy’Rachel Savage (The Guardian)
like this
Maeve likes this.
Starlink VP confirms ‘dangerously close’ Chinese launch incident — close call saw satellite pass within 200 meters of Starlink travelling at over 17,400mph
Chinese satellite came within 200m of Starlink-6079, travelling at ~17,400mph.
Nutanix launches Distributed Sovereign Cloud for greater control and flexibility
You can easily make a cloud sovereign by simply blocking all access. In reality, however, organizations want control, flexibility, and advanced features.
Nutanix launches Distributed Sovereign Cloud for greater control and flexibility - Techzine Global
Nutanix wants to make it easy to bring data and applications close together, regardless of the requirement to run sovereign infrastructure.Erik van Klinken (Techzine)
LG TV users baffled by unremovable Microsoft Copilot installation — surprise forced update shows app pinned to the home screen
LG smart TV owners are reporting that a recent webOS software update has added Microsoft Copilot to their TVs, with no apparent way to remove it. Reports first surfaced over the weekend on Reddit, where a post showing a Copilot tile pinned to an LG TV home screen climbed to more than 35,000 upvotes on r/mildlyinfuriating, accompanied by hundreds of comments from users describing the same behavior.
like this
Atelopus-zeteki and mrmaplebar like this.
like this
frustrated_phagocytosis, dcpDarkMatter and MyTurtleSwimsUpsideDown like this.
like this
frustrated_phagocytosis, dcpDarkMatter and MyTurtleSwimsUpsideDown like this.
"What we're doing is we're taking a relatively small portion of that [money we made off tariffs], and we're going to be giving and providing it to the farmers in economic assistance.“
You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the New West. You know... morons.
like this
frustrated_phagocytosis, YoSoySnekBoi, dcpDarkMatter and linuxfiend like this.
like this
YoSoySnekBoi, bacon_saber, dcpDarkMatter, MyTurtleSwimsUpsideDown and rash like this.
like this
bacon_saber, dcpDarkMatter, MyTurtleSwimsUpsideDown, rash and ammorok like this.
Yeah, I'm guessing we will never see any Faux segments on how that one farmer saved up some of his handout and {shock, horror!} used it to {clutches pearls} buy steak. And {collapses on fainting couch} LOBSTER!
It is so weird to me how the people that supposedly loooove the "free market" lose their minds the minute they see someone select their own food when given food benefits? The same people that fall all over themselves worshipping utter slime like Donvict just because he happens to be wealthy and think he should never have to face any consequences want to police the nutritional intake of the very poorest people...
like this
frustrated_phagocytosis likes this.
From his own pocket right? Because his stupid decisions put them in that situation. I would like to see what percentage of money goes to small farms and what money goes to huge corporate farms.
boosting the farm safety net
Oh nice that they get one but no one fucking else does.
like this
dcpDarkMatter and rash like this.
like this
rash likes this.
like this
MyTurtleSwimsUpsideDown and rash like this.
like this
MyTurtleSwimsUpsideDown and rash like this.
like this
wagesj45 likes this.
like this
MyTurtleSwimsUpsideDown and rash like this.
I'm not so sure that's true. There is a shit load of land used to grow corn to make ethanol that's farmed by independent farmers. In the US most farmland is used for soy beans and corn for livestock feed or fuel. It wouldn't be a simple or cheap undertaking, but that last could be utilized more efficiently to directly or indirectly fees people.
I would also bet there are enough people that would love to be farmers that can't because land isn't available or cheap that would step up if large farm operations were broken up. That's pure speculation, but even if one mega farm were split 4 ways, that would still be an improvement to the current situation.
So then people were just starving to death in the 50's and 60's?
I seriously doubt it
The efficiency comes at scale, not diffuse small farms.
GMOs yes.
Modern farming is less labor-intensive, not sure on your point there.
Ag land use down 21.7% 1950-2002 Source. Downward trend continues through 2024 Source.
U.S. farming: total land in farms 2024| Statista
From 2000 onwards, the total area of land in U.S.Statista
So the argument is that since the executive is collecting the tariffs, it can spend them directly without Congress?
Isn't the IRS also an executive agency?
Last time I checked they aren't making any arguments unless they are sued.
Why Trump thinks he can spend any revenue without congressional permission is beyond me. It is clear his administration does not care for the rule of law. They are a criminal organization.
These farmers are what Chomsky means when he talks about "worthy victims". I'm sure many of these people voted for Donvict knowing that he'd be harming lots of people, including themselves, but based on his first term, that he'd throw some money at them...
These people deserve welfare because, well, reasons.
A. No it doesn't, we already imported more then we exported and still do.
B. That's not an excuse, make better choices and stop crying when stupidity inevitably kicks you in the ass.
Depends on what they are farming and what you mean by "everyone".
The article says most of this will go to those that produce soybeans and corn - most of that is livestock feed.
The majority of the farms around me are cash crops, not providing food for survival. I'm in central California and all I see here is almonds, pistachios, tomatoes and cows. We need to get rid of these since it's just wasted space that's doomed to fail as it's using up valuable resources to profit the few that own them.
We have one acre and we grow a variety of different veggies, trying to grow with sustainable methods like regenerative farming practices. We trade with other like minded people and my wife donates excess to the local church to help feed the poor. We need more people doing this and less of the big corporate farmers lining their pockets while everyone else suffers.
Screw these bailouts
Wait for mega farms owned by vc and banks to be the ones to get the most as always.
Stop crying start reading.
Millions of children and teens lose access to accounts as Australia’s world-first social media ban begins
Australia has enacted a world-first ban on social media for users aged under 16, causing millions of children and teenagers to lose access to their accounts.
Facebook, Instagram, Threads, X, YouTube, Snapchat, Reddit, Kick, Twitch and TikTok are expected to have taken steps from Wednesday to remove accounts held by users under 16 years of age in Australia, and prevent those teens from registering new accounts.
Platforms that do not comply risk fines of up to $49.5m.
There have been some teething problems with the ban’s implementation. Guardian Australia has received several reports of those under 16 passing the facial age assurance tests, but the government has flagged it is not expecting the ban will be perfect from day one.
All listed platforms apart from X had confirmed by Tuesday they would comply with the ban. The eSafety commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, said it had recently had a conversation with X about how it would comply, but the company had not communicated its policy to users.
Bluesky, an X alternative, announced on Tuesday it would also ban under-16s, despite eSafety assessing the platform as “low risk” due to its small user base of 50,000 in Australia.
Parents of children affected by the ban shared a spectrum of views on the policy. One parent told the Guardian their 15-year-old daughter was “very distressed” because “all her 14 to 15-year-old friends have been age verified as 18 by Snapchat”. Since she had been identified as under 16, they feared “her friends will keep using Snapchat to talk and organise social events and she will be left out”.
Others said the ban “can’t come quickly enough”. One parent said their daughter was “completely addicted” to social media and the ban “provides us with a support framework to keep her off these platforms”.
“The fact that teenagers occasionally find a way to have a drink doesn’t diminish the value of having a clear, national standard.”
Polling has consistently shown that two-thirds of voters support raising the minimum age for social media to 16. The opposition, including leader Sussan Ley, have recently voiced alarm about the ban, despite waving the legislation through parliament and the former Liberal leader Peter Dutton championing it.
The ban has garnered worldwide attention, with several nations indicating they will adopt a ban of their own, including Malaysia, Denmark and Norway. The European Union passed a resolution to adopt similar restrictions, while a spokesperson for the British government told Reuters it was “closely monitoring Australia’s approach to age restrictions”.
Millions of children and teens lose access to accounts as Australia’s world-first social media ban begins
Accounts held by users under 16 must be removed on apps that include TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, X, YouTube, Snapchat, Reddit, Kick, Twitch and Threads under banJosh Taylor (The Guardian)
Tech giants are well known for lobbying against any legislation that gives them less freedoms to exploit markets and regulations of any kind that impact them - but this legislation that was targeted specifically at regulating them and removes a significant number of users - "this is suspicious, I think they might be the ones pushing it!"
There's so many people in under this post trying to turn it into anything but what it is - legislation attempting to protect kids from the harms of social media. Which, again - are well documented.
"people will find ways around it" and then saying not to bother etc
i mean, people under 18 sneak into clubs and get beer... or maybe fake an ID and hit a pub... or get an older friend to do something for them....
it doesnt stop us as a society holding a view that under age drinking isnt great, and we make some effort to enforce that even if its not perfect.
Wasn't aware that social media keeps kids alive?...
I've seen enough stories on kids being cyber bullied into suicide that I really doubt there's enough happy inclusion on these platforms to balance that.
Strangely enough, support networks can exist outside of social media. It's very possible to directly message friends or neighbors without being subjected to the dregs of public social media. It remains possible to get world/local news without an attached public forum.
If you're going to make a space that has content for adults and allows for free adult discussions (with all the nuance and complications that entails), then restrict it to adults only.
This is only a problem in conjuction with legislation requiring social media use (ie: as an official broadcast system, payment platform, electoral tool, etc...). If we fight that and force it to remain an opt-in disinformation platform then who cares?
As it currently stands nothing is forcing you on these platforms other than a conditioned familiarity. Even worse, there are no tech or legal protections preventing them uniquely identifying users today. Them getting an official state ID doesn't change much. More barriers to entry for a shitty surveillance and propoganda platform? Literally no downsides there.
Think more about which sites/platforms it applies to. There was some indecision about YouTube (its in EDIT: utility kids is out) & but signal/whatsapp/telegram are not affected - yet.
Since she had been identified as under 16, they feared “her friends will keep using Snapchat to talk and organise social events and she will be left out”.
FFS, we all got along just fine and dandy with group-chats via text message. We weren't fucking cavemen.
The fact that this is her fear (and the fact that it's a legitimate fear) proves just how much controls like this are needed. It's literally digital crack that they think there's simply no other way to communicate anymore (both her and her friends)
FFS, we all got along just fine and dandy with group-chats via text message.
No we didn't. You run into nothing but trouble if you've got a mix of iPhones and Android in the group. It's a nightmare and I wish the family chat would pick a different platform.
Well then fucking take away her phone. Get her a dumb phone. Install parental controls. Go to a therapist if yo have to.
But nooooo the government has got to do everything for us incompetent fucks
I had this issue with a 15 year old. Phone gone, just an analog flippy, put in parental controls to prevent loading brain rot apps.
He's happier for it.
Get her a dumb phone. Install parental controls.
If this actually worked. I tried it once and it did not work at all. Platforms/apps don't seem to respect the device settings at all.
This is a solution for people who don’t need a solution because they’re already great parents.
The vast majority of parents aren’t going to take their kids’ phones away.
One parent told the Guardian their 15-year-old daughter was “very distressed” because “all her 14 to 15-year-old friends have been age verified as 18 by Snapchat”. Since she had been identified as under 16, they feared “her friends will keep using Snapchat to talk and organise social events and she will be left out”.
I think the ban should only apply to public-facing platforms, where everybody can see your content.
Platforms where you only talk to your friends should maybe be left out of it.
but no problem if they fail to identify minors as such?
it's a new technology. it will probably take years to figure out how to do age-verification properly.
I would like to say that this is good for the quality of content on social media as well..
There's less bullshit content on social media if there's fewer kids, and also there's less incentive for other people to create bullshit content for teenagers to consume, if there's fewer teenagers on the platforms in the first place.
Or, hear me out, let's not waste time developing useless and harmful surveillance technology.
None of this is required to safeguard children, and it does a bad job in its attempt - while doing a great job of scanning every user's face and documents.
Parents should be responsible, educated and empowered with tools to control their kids' activities online. Networks and mobile devices can relatively easily be configured to restrict and monitor activity, especially for young children where you might want to choose what to allow, rather than to block. There will be ways around them, but if that 1% is motivated enough and knows they shouldn't, I think that's fine.
Like the other reply said, when you go to a bar you're just showing your birthdate to some guy at the front for a few seconds.
Now, if the bar demanded to make a scan of my ID and uploaded it to some server, and reported my entry to said bar to the government or some privatized authority, then handed that data to some algorithm to cross reference everywhere else I've been to build a profile on my behavior, then established various metrics based on who I was seen hanging around....then probably sold all of that to a bunch of marketing firms...
And on and on. Now imagine it's been doing this since you were like 16.
If this sounds far fetched and overblown, I invite you to look at how US law enforcement uses dragnet surveillance like "stingray towers" to hand information to ICE, then make a decision as to whether "The Good Guys" or anybody else should be allowed to follow your footsteps across the Web.
Edit: quick side tangent:
The hilarious part is how the parties pushing for this "fOr ThE ChiLdReN" surveillance capitalism will also be the first to cry "Leftist Nanny State tho! Muh personal responsibility!" When people want something like universal healthcare.
Mankind isn’t cut out for so much information and communication.
You don't get to decide that for other people
Wait, do you honestly believe that drinking age laws like the US has leads to less alcoholism, less underage drinking and less deaths from teenagers overdosing on alcohol?
Are you out of your mind?
I just wanna say hi, and I remember those days, too.
For a long time, I couldn't understand people saying they hate the Internet or their phone or anything like that, because I had been having a blast for so long and thought it was one of the most vibrant, fun, educational and useful part of my life that has taught me a lot.
But at some point I found myself scrolling the same site for hours, trying to tear my eyes off screen and telling myself that I wasn't enjoying myself and that I should stop, but I just couldn't. That's when I finally understood.
I try to bring back intention to this. I think what I want to do online first before I do it -- what topic to look for when I want to watch a video, what kind of news or discourse I want to read, what's that on my mind that I want to share. Talking to my peers, I often feel like this kind of approach has long been lost to not thinking for yourself and wanting entertainment to just sort of happen to you, predict what you want, guess.
Big money figuring out the Internet has been a very bad thing.
The stuff that causes a lot of the harm is just what people tend to do online, because humans broadly are not meant to substitute real social connections for whatever is happening when we scroll and type and read other people’s thoughts and fantasies and depressed manifestos of strangers every day.
Where is your hard evidence of this? Can you not make the same argument about a book? A TV? You cannot assert a statement like this as if it was indisputable fact.
Pretty vague but let me make the best out of it. I’d rather prefer my kids to physically explore the world and socialize rather than forming opinions of it and the society through an echo chamber on a 6 inch screen.
So by this logic you don't like your kids spending too much time reading books either?
I'm trying to "use my damn brain", I want genuine research showing this as a benefit that outweighs the numerous and well documented negatives that social media causes in children and young adults (depression, social isolation, body image issues, extremist and regressive worldviews, sleep and concentration issues, and on and on...).
If you can actually show me that it saves queer kids from oppression in a way that couldn't be done via other methods (school programs, library funding, safe and child friendly neighborhoods, media representation, etc.) then maybe we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water. Otherwise this is keeping the baby by voluntarily flooding your house with sewage.
I think you misunderstood. If I, as a parent, don't buy my kid a phone and block them from socials, other kids may be less likely to include them in their groups, activities and messages.
We see that today with the 'blue bubble' iOS people not wanting to talk to android users.
Yes, it's very stupid, but kids can be cruel in ways they don't realise.
So rather than potentially causing issues between my children and their friends, noone can access socials, which makes a level playing field. Noone can be left out if noone takes part.
That's what I would hope for this to achieve, anyway.
If you can actually show me that it saves queer kids from oppression in a way that couldn’t be done via other methods (school programs, library funding, safe and child friendly neighborhoods, media representation, etc.) then maybe we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bath water.
No, the onus is on you to prove your points before you assert something you potentially have no sufficient alternative for should be denied.
Here is a place for you to start educating yourself!
This review identified LGBTQ youths’ uses of social media to connect with like-minded peers, manage their identity, and seek support. In the few studies that considered mental health outcomes (5/26, 19%), the use of social media appeared to be beneficial to the mental health and well-being of this group [11,34,44,55,60]. In this systematic review, we identified the various important beneficial roles of social media, but the findings were limited by weaknesses in the evidence base. This information may be useful for professionals (eg, educators, clinicians, and policy makers) working with LGBTQ youth to consider the appropriate use of social media in interventions as it provides an evidence base for the role of social media in the lives of LGBTQ youths. These findings help further understand how LGBTQ youths use social media and its positive and negative impacts on their mental health and well-being. Further research is required to provide stronger evidence of how social media is used for connectivity, identity, and support and determine causal links to mental health outcomes. We recommend larger, representative, and prospective research, including intervention evaluation, to better understand the potential of social media to support the health and well-being of marginalized LGBTQ young people. It is imperative that social media is understood and its beneficial use is supported to ensure improved outcomes.
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/…
Edit here is another
Just as the American Academy of Pediatrics has called for rethinking the shame-based narrative of a developmentally appropriate use of social media [33] clinicians might consider both the risks and benefits that social media use can have for youth and adults. Clinicians can work closely with local community organizations and advocate for positive policy change to better support LGBTQ + youth. There is a need for more research on BIPOC LGBTQ + adolescents as the intersectionality of their identities brings nuance to the interactions on social media and the impact this has on those populations [3, 4, 13, 15, 29]. There is also a shortage of research involving LGBTQ + youth of intersectional backgrounds, including rural, racial/ethnic minority, gender minority, and neurodivergent youth. Researchers are developing new tools like the Social Media Benefits Scale (SMBS) that can be used as a clinical tool to help develop and implement a social media strategy to give a new multidimensional way for professional practitioners to develop strategies for interventions [34]. Additionally, there are increasing digital modalities to mitigate the disproportionate high rate of online victimization and suicidal risk for LGBTQ + youth. At the University of Pittsburgh, an app called Flourish is being developed through codesigning to augment schools and mental health services for LGBTQ + youth who face online victimization [35]. Other digital interventions are being designed with LGBTQ + youth feedback, and concluded that tech-based tools, such as apps and chatbots, offer immediate, non-judgmental feedback but can feel impersonal [15]. Understanding informal learning and non-clinical contexts that can help shape the mental wellbeing of LGBTQ + youth will be critical. For instance, virtual camps during the COVID-19 pandemic that celebrated the LGBTQ + identity development and supported social network development reported longitudinally reduced depressive symptoms, friendship formation, and positive changes in self-esteem [36, 37]. This is an initiative that could be specialized to outreach underserved LGBTQ + communities such as rural BIPOC adolescents.
link.springer.com/article/10.1…
Edit 2 another
Social media can provide benefits for some youth by providing positive community and connection with others who share identities, abilities, and interests. It can provide access to important information and create a space for self-expression.9 The ability to form and maintain friendships online and develop social connections are among the positive effects of social media use for youth.18, 19 These relationships can afford opportunities to have positive interactions with more diverse peer groups than are available to them offline and can provide important social support to youth.18 The buffering effects against stress that online social support from peers may provide can be especially important for youth who are often marginalized, including racial, ethnic, and sexual and gender minorities.20, 21, 22 For example, studies have shown that social media may support the mental health and well-being of lesbian, gay, bisexual, asexual, transgender, queer, intersex and other youths by enabling peer connection, identity development and management, and social support.23 Seven out of ten adolescent girls of color report encountering positive or identity-affirming content related to race across social media platforms.24 A majority of adolescents report that social media helps them feel more accepted (58%), like they have people who can support them through tough times (67%), like they have a place to show their creative side (71%), and more connected to what’s going on in their friends’ lives (80%).25 In addition, research suggests that social media-based and other digitally-based mental health interventions may also be helpful for some children and adolescents by promoting help-seeking behaviors and serving as a gateway to initiating mental health care.8, 26, 27, 28, 29
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK5947…
This is complicated, you can't just take away a thing that for many vulnerable people may be a lifeline and just handwave and say "well we should be solving the problem with other methods anyways!", these are problems now that need addressing now, your dismissal is irrelevant to the people who are isolated and who could find connection through the internet that you are advocating for denying because it isn't the right way to solve the problem in your opinion.
Review of Current Trends in LGBTQ + Youth and Social Media: Implications for Mental Health, Identity Development, and Civic Engagement - Current Pediatrics Reports
Purpose of Review This review looks at current trends in the effect of social media use on mental health, identity development, and civic engagement for LGBTQ + youth during the post-pandemic period, when online engagement has significantly increased…SpringerLink
Instead of punishing these cancerous cess pool manipulative platforms, they punish the kids.
The youth deserves to be able to communicate and use the web the same as the rest of the population.
Regulations should be such that these platforms are neutral, non manipulative safe spaces where people can come together share content and discussions.
The overall stupidity of decision makers is incomprehensible to me. Literal shit sacks politicians that should all be thrown into a hole.
Beat of luck youth, my heart is with you. Hope Lemmy will be the answer(or some other decentralized platform)
They enforce laws that would punish the platforms if they dont abide by them. In what way are they not punishing the platform?
There will be other platforms and kids that deserve to be able to communicate will figure it out.
All i have to say about the ban is "fucking finally". Cant wait for it to be enforced in Europe.
50mil for a company like meta is chump change, and it is not proportional to being a teen in today's world locked out of all main communication hubs.
Youth are not the ones who need to 'figure it out'. Massive companies, market leaders and decisions makers should, but they are all trash.
Its a sensationalist solution that will surely backfire, it only address symptoms while ignoring the underlying many many problems.
Very short sighted
It is for the people to understand not to use such garbage, yes. If they cant figure it out, there is always text and phones.
If it's chump change, then why are they adhering to the new rules? There is something that you seem to have missed.
You don't seem to understand the manipulation that the social media companies are capable of, which is why rules are needed.
It is for the people to understand not to use such garbage, yes. If they cant figure it out, there is always text and phones.
You contradict yourself. So the ban is not needed? You were saying it's up to the youths to find alternatives.
What I was saying that these platforms are toxic, they have a destructive affect on all, and we all deserve something better.
A government ban never worked on anything and jts the stupidest and laziest of all options.
it will probably take years to figure out how to do age-verification properly.
yeah, what i actually meant with this was that it will take years for platforms to figure out how to do age-verification properly without infringing on the privacy of its users.
not because it is complicated, but because it is a societal process and these are always slow as hell.
no social media.
less harmful.
addictive.
Australia.
I've seen this before
Parents of children affected by the ban shared a spectrum of views on the policy. One parent told the Guardian their 15-year-old daughter was “very distressed” because “all her 14 to 15-year-old friends have been age verified as 18 by Snapchat”. Since she had been identified as under 16, they feared “her friends will keep using Snapchat to talk and organise social events and she will be left out”.
Okay, that's really bad. On the one hand, this is like "they don't even card me at the bar", which is opening up a whole can of worms. Either they're passing for older, or they're faking it. As for the kids left behind, it's also "you look too much like a kid to hang" or they simply get left out for not breaking the rules. All this kind of shit used to happen before, only now it's technologically accelerated.
And here I was naively thinking this was going to make everyone stampede back to SMS instead.
Populism increases where people get better access to the internet. This is surprisingly well established because it's easy to measure.
Of course wealth inequality and climate change are the bigger issues, but social media gets people to believe it's actually minority groups behind the effects of these issues.
We're not pretending, this is an asinine view.
Two things can be true at once. It's surprising how difficult a concept this is to grasp.
Social media accelerated this, it provides the vehicle in which to make culture wars the only thing at the front of people's minds. It accelerated division and hate, as these improve platform attention.
Let's not even talk about the death of critical thinking which just allows this to happen to greater effect.
Rising wealth inequality because a side effect of us not fighting a class war which is a side effect of us being completely focused on culture wars which is a side effect of social media.
There's an entire chain here and social media underpins most of it's acceleration
Cool
We'll see in a few years if it was phones that made kids disinterested in society instead of society.
My money is on society being shit, and when I ask kids why they feel the way they do it's because society is shit, but let's not listen and keep pretending
something you potentially have no sufficient alternative for should be denied.
Not having an obvious alternative ready doesn't change the cost/benefit weight for society at large. Just because cars are the only way we have to navigate suburban sprawl doesn't absolve them of being one of the worst modes of transport for safety, the climate, passenger efficiency, etc... We should be talking about radically restricting their use, not shrugging and trying a driver education bandaid.
For a laugh, a scoping review of social media and adolescent risks through 2022. Sure, plenty of questions on causality, but also quantitative articles on direct impacts to physical health and harmful exposure to constant ads. In dozens of articles, just 1 (one) article finding a positive socializing impact... I'm certainly leaning towards denial by default...
The Use of Social Media in Children and Adolescents: Scoping Review on the Potential Risks - PMC
In recent years, social media has become part of our lives, even among children. From the beginning of COVID-19 pandemic period, media device and Internet access rapidly increased. Adolescents connected Internet alone, consulting social media, ...pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
So I guess the kids are gonna go to the dark web. What could go wrong.
I will look forward to Darth Musk throwing a tantrum against Australia when they eventually fine X for not complying, but that's about the only good thing to come from this ban.
Oh yes sure, it's great they stop the kids from being brainwashed by the algorithms. They really should ban everyone, especially the elderly.
I don’t get it. This “ban” is going to last days or hours before the kids just find an app that does’t check their age.
It also will allow the big platforms to drop any pretence that their users need to be protected and take the gloves off with their algorithms to increase engagement to replace the kids.
For a laugh, a scoping review of social media and adolescent risks through 2022. Sure, plenty of questions on causality, but also quantitative articles on direct impacts to physical health and harmful exposure to constant ads. In dozens of articles, just 1 (one) article finding a positive socializing impact... I'm certainly leaning towards denial by default...
Wait... why would a scoping review of risks necessarily include evidence of a positive socializing impact? It is by definition a review of risks...?
The Use of Social Media in Children and Adolescents: Scoping Review on the Potential Risks - PMC
In recent years, social media has become part of our lives, even among children. From the beginning of COVID-19 pandemic period, media device and Internet access rapidly increased. Adolescents connected Internet alone, consulting social media, ...pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
I do agree with you.. for now. But this is just the beginning.
And to be fair, I do believe something has to change. However, we'll find out in 10 years if this is the can of worms we really wanted to open.
Hopefully, the open source community and the "competitive commons" will make strides faster than the oligarchs can suffocate it.
“social media” or “social network”, “health”, and “pediatrics”. Nothing particularly biasing in either direction.
if i consider the impact of going from "drinking age laws existing" to "no laws existing at all"... would i be surprised to see a surge in drinking sales for minors? no.
its not magic, and it doesn't fix society issues, but that doesn't make drinking age laws wrong either.
Now, if the bar demanded to make a scan of my ID and uploaded it to some server, and reported my entry to said bar to the government or some privatized authority, then handed that data to some algorithm to cross reference everywhere else I’ve been to build a profile on my behavior, then established various metrics based on who I was seen hanging around…then probably sold all of that to a bunch of marketing firms…
That is in fact a requirement for bars in Australia.
if i consider the impact of going from “drinking age laws existing” to “no laws existing at all”… would i be surprised to see a surge in drinking sales for minors? no.
If that occurred that would only conclusively prove an abrupt non-linear change may be bad with a law that impacts so many people and aspects of society..?
You are assuming that kids read stuff on the Internet. They don't (and even if they do, it is very little). Most of their screen time is social media or games.
you don't like your kids spending too much time reading books?
Tue to some extent. Doing just one activity for a long time even if you love it is not good for developing your brain and the body as a kid. Even though they might not want to, I would encourage them to do more stuff as a parent.
The other kids with socials will be more likely to have mental health issues than the kid who doesn't even if they get excluded from that group. There will be other group of kids with no socials as well. They will always find a tribe.
I don't know about the west, but Indian schools don't allow phones to be carried at all in their backpacks or pockets so maybe that's why I might not know how serious this issue of isolation is in the west but in India it won't be an issue because schools are 4-7 hrs long and after that parents usually send the kids to daycare, private tuitions, sports group, or any other hobby coaching that the kid is interested in. But some parents are absolutely stupid — they just give toddlers a phone or a pad just so they won't have the hear the toddler crying.
Beforehand the user gets a personal key from the government, then when a site asks for proof of age, the user signs a token which the site sends to the government server with a query "Is this user over 16?". Then the government server identifies the user with the token, and responds to the site "Yes" or "No".
The site cannot see any of your personal information, just that you are over 16.
I'm surprised the government isn't doing the verification themselves as it has a huge information/tracking incentive to do so.
social media does have its benefits though, like the democratisation of the press.
I'm of the opinion that simply banning advertisements outright destroys the incentive structure that exists to keep social media bad
Discord isn’t covered by the ban surprisingly enough despite being one of the platform more ripe for exploitation. I get that you’d want kids to be able to DM each other and voice chat but Discord is closer to a forum than it is to say, Signal.
Wouldn’t be surprised if it ended up on the ban list later on.
The most influential man ? He is influencing indeed but not the way the article depicts it. He is pushing for the demise of the USA and accelerating its isolation.
If he thinks Europe is not doing well, then we must be doing great.
"So Sweden was known as the safest country in Europe, one of the safest countries in the world. Now it’s known as very unsafe — well, pretty unsafe country."
I wonder if he reflected on where that would put the US, if Sweden is to be considered unsafe.
Edit: I'm not really wondering, of course he didn't.
Snapchat rolls out its end-of-year Recaps
The Recap is a short video that offers a personalized look at highlights from Snaps, Stories, and Chats, showing how users connected and expressed themselves throughout the year.
Google is killing off dark web reports
Google's dark web report was initially a feature that was available only to paid subscribers of its Google One program, but last year, it was made available for free to all Google account holders. As the name suggests, the tool allowed users to set up a profile which would constantly monitor the dark web and notify users if their breached information was located online. Although this seems quite useful on paper, the company has decided to kill off dark web reports, with the feature being axed early next year.
https://www.neowin.net/news/google-is-killing-off-dark-web-reports/
ECOWAS sounds alarm as West Africa enters regional state of emergency
ECOWAS sounds alarm as West Africa enters regional state of emergency
ECOWAS has declared a state of emergency in West Africa, citing rising coups, expanding security threats and worsening political instability.Business Insider Africa
At least 22 people killed in office building fire in Indonesia's capital
cross-posted from: lemmy.zip/post/54641987
At least 22 people killed in office building fire in Indonesia's capital
Do Renewables Really Raise Electricity Prices? What The Data Shows
Do Renewables Really Raise Electricity Prices? What The Data Shows | ACE
Residential electricity prices have increased 6.2 percent over the past year, prompting a debate about the role of renewable energy adoption in driving upBrissa Acevedo (ACE)
TLDR: no…
Available evidence does not support a direct link between renewable energy adoption and rising electricity prices. Analysis of data from 2000-2024 reveals no statistically significant correlation between wind and solar generation growth and inflation-adjusted electricity prices, despite a 97-fold increase in renewable generation. The modest 5.9 percent real price increase over 24 years suggests that concerns about intermittency and backup costs have not manifested as significant price increases at the national level.
Multiple factors influence electricity prices beyond renewable energy adoption, including infrastructure maintenance, weather-related damage, fuel price volatility, and policy changes.
The Government Is Withholding Data On Labour Relations
ESDC removed data tables reporting ‘work stoppages’ from its website several months ago.
The FIFA Peace Prize Was Recycled.
Miniature of famous Azerbaijani sculpture presented to Donald Trump as FIFA Peace Award - PHOTO/VIDEO
The artwork “Thoughts and Dreams” by Azerbaijani artists Salhab Mammadov and Ali İbadullayev was gifted to the U.S. President during the 2026 World Cup drawİdman və Biz
like this
Zier, jherazob, RandomStickman, SuiXi3D, emmanuel_car, MyTurtleSwimsUpsideDown and qupada like this.
like this
Zier likes this.
dohpaz42
in reply to Lee Duna • • •Seizing land from white farmers in a continent where said white people are not indigenous is such a white thing to say.
Power to the South African government! 👊
~Feel free to use that fist however you see fit.~
like this
Maeve likes this.
Madison420
in reply to dohpaz42 • • •*undeveloped land.
They're not having their homes taken as far as I'm aware just land good for farming and industry that is just being sat on by wealthy families.
ceoofanarchism
in reply to Lee Duna • • •