I would interpret the American Academy of Pediatricians stance as being supportive. But that’s open to interpretation, I suppose.

https://www.aap.org/en/patient-care/media-and-children/center-of-excellence-on-social-media-and-youth-mental-health/youth-advisory-panel/youth-advisory-panel-feedback-to-policymakers/

It’s literally cited on the HHS page about it: https://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/priorities/youth-mental-health/social-media/index.html

So you acknowledge that you don’t have the skills necessary to interpret papers so… what, you decide that Nature adequately represents their findings enough to dismiss them? Even though you say there is little evidence of a causative link? Even though the surgeon general says they feel there is and cites that evidence to back it up?

I mean… what?

It’s a pity you aren’t worth responding to. Have a nice day!

Tell me you didn’t read the article without telling me.

Why would you conclude that? Because it conflicts with your “vibe”?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

Do I really need to point out that you yourself are “literally just posting vibes” ?

You didn’t even bother investigating whether or not they had justified their stance with science. I’m not convinced you made it past the headline, much less read any of the content that article linked to.

The funny thing is I actually did read two of the studies I quickly found and which you too can find. But you seem more interested in adhering to a certain… vibe.

Have a nice day.

Edit: You know I was busy and totally forgot.

The very first result on my search engine, if you search for “effects of social media on children’s mental health” is the HHS.gov website, specifically this page: https://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/priorities/youth-mental-health/social-media/index.html

And wouldn’t you know, right there are 5 separate papers cited to support 1. that social media is widely used; and 2 it “presents meaningful harm to youth”

You are manually caching web content. Were you aware that (a) your browser does that for you; (b) the internet does that for you ?

I’m as guilty of this as anyone and can tell you from experience that it’s sutpid.

No, it’s just based on vibes.

You didn’t bother looking, clearly.

Edit: I’m not saying I’m familiar with what the studies say, although some draw a clear link with adverse mental health impacts on kids. Not sure how far that goes. I’m also not saying I agree with the SG or the need for warning labels, but to say this is based on “vibes” is, ironically, speculative at best.

I live in rural California. We only just this year are able to pick up a faint LTE signal. I think it might get us a very unstable 1-2 Mbps if we hold the phone just right. We have no cable, DSL or other land-based options and because of the topography can’t pick up the local wireless provider, which is very expensive anyway - like $175/month for 50/5

So without Starlink our only options are crappy regular satellite providers like Hughesnet which impose very low quotas - 10 GB monthly for day time usage - and have insane latency.

It bugs the shit out of me I have to give money to that fuckwit but without it we live in the dark ages.

Are you on the spectrum? I ask because your “but it isn’t 100% literally this thing” is the sort of overly pedantic and literalist thing I would do myself.

Would it make you feel better if you noted that the scrolling red banner at the top of the website does in fact have “this water ain’t woke” among other similar sayings? And there is a “This drink ain’t woke” Yeti cooler.

Does that help?

Meanwhile, the DOJ has done dick all to defend voting rights in purple or red states over the last four years.

Naturally, this is complete hogwash.

Because although likely immensely satisfying, it will not actually accomplish that much on it’s own.

How does this relate to Brave browser?

Edit: I had no idea about the CEO. So yeah, not gonna ever use that.

How did you get my cat?

Jesus enslaves

This post reminded me to try out Brave. It’s based on Chromium but purports to block ads and trackers…

Anybody else use it?

Edit: Interesting. Anyone care to explain the downvotes? I know nothing about this browser other than it purportedly blocks Youtube ads, which are driving me nuts.

Edit2: Well shit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich

I had no idea about this guy. Ok, so completely not an option.

If you beat cops up you are a terrorist. If you beat up the same people the cops like to murder, you are a very fine person.

This sounds excessive, that’s almost 1.1$/day, amounting to more than 2kWh/24hrs, ie ~80W/hr? You will need to invest in a TDP friendly build. I’m running a AMD APU (known for shitty idle consumption) with Raid 5 and still hover less than 40W/h.

This isn’t speculation on my part, I measured the consumption with a Kill-a-watt. It’s an 11 year old PC with 4 hard drives and multiple fans because it’s in a hot environment and hard drive usage is significant because it’s running security camera software in a virtual machine. Host OS is Linux MInt. It averages right around 110w. I’m fully aware that’s very high relative to something purpose built.

You will need to invest in a TDP friendly build

Right, and spend even more money.

Oh no, they are not terrorists. I know because the cops told me they are very fine people.