Klick on those links with caution, especially the collection is most definitely NSFL.
8000mark
joined 1 year ago
I consider myself to be radical left-wing, but 95% of the content on hexbear is completely useless. It's an echo-chamber for whiney bitch-ass tanky trolls, powerlessly memeing their lives away and not contributing anything even to their marginalized corner of political discourse.
That being said: I say don't defederate. They might behave like idiots sometimes, but defederating weakens the network as a whole and the cost is disproportionate to the benefit in this case.
This point is actually acknowledged in the study findings under "Strengths and Limitations":
A limitation is that the information we collected did not allow us to separate educational screen time from other types of screen time. Doing so may have helped us in examining the association between screen time and child development while considering both positive and negative aspects of screen time.
The original data used in the study did not allow this differentiation but these findings can be used as a starting point for further research.
Ah ok, I thought you were insinuating kids were being excessively exposed to screens for the sake of research, which wasn't happening here. But yeah, I agree feeding your toddler 4+ hours of digital media a day is very depressing.
I do not understand the amount of uninformed objections to the presented results in a number of comments here ... you can't just discount the results of a peer-reviewed study with some generic knee-jerk interjection off the top of your head. Read the original article here. It details which covariates were considered and how they were taken into account. Income bracket, educational background, gender, .... all this shit is not new to researchers.
Don't get me wrong: JAMA Pediatrics being a reputable journal shouldn't lull you into complacency, but JFC, just because you don't agree with the findings of a study doesn't mean you have to dismiss it completely on first glance.
What are you talking about? This data was collected in a field study, not in a lab.
This is actually an incredibly poor take. Why do you think self-reported data has no scientific value?
Regarding your last sentence: Are you suggesting insincere motives behind this study?
There is an argument to be made about how studies like this underpin technology averse boomers trying to vilify modern social life. OTOH, studies like this, correctly implemented, are utterly important. It wouldn't be the first time science has proven something very popular (e.g. smoking) is actually also very harmful.
This was actually much more enjoyable than I expected. TL;DR: A student who kind of likes Rust has to present a PowerPoint (which was prepared for this PP-Karaoke specifically) explaining very stupidly why Rust is bad.
The article is a bit too nostalgic for my tastes, and hyping 4chan or Web 1.0 surrogates is not going to put the Internet back into users' hands.
Everybody should rather take a look at what Ari Balkan is doing with the Small Web concept over at his blog. He's also on Mastodon and generally seems like a great guy.
We bought a couple of plants that have a smell that allegedly repels cats and other animals and had good results planting them around our patches. But we also left the dog in the garden more often which might have helped even more. The plants are called plectranthus ornatus ... but there are others which might also work: https://horticulture.co.uk/cat-deterrent-plants/