reading these comments are so interesting to me. I would've thought a video is a video, but I guess maybe there's some codec settings behind the scenes? On Firefox, I get the washout. On Brave/Chrome, it looks normal.
> While observing 422 children ages 3 to 5, a 2022 study led by Radesky found that mobile device use for calming — in other words, a digital pacifier — was associated with “decreased executive functioning and increased emotional reactivity.” (Executive function refers to memory and problem-solving skills needed for everyday life. Emotional reactivity refers to poor impulse control in response to stress, pain, and other negative feelings.)
The study doesn't claim causation. Instead of mobile device use causing executive dysfunction, it is more probable that the correlation is because mobile device use is more effective at calming down a child with poor executive function than a child with typical executive function. That's not to say it's a good way of calming of course.
Alas, you've received downvotes even though the substance of what you say is valid.
I'll say it's misguided, as well as the root comment to which you're reaponding. The particular study soesnmt show causation, but there's a growing bidy of research that does (it's easy to find).
The meta analysis study referenced in the article that covers 2.8 million kids in total did not find a link between screen exposure and executive functioning issues (or with math, science, reading, and a few other things). But I couldn’t tell from the summary what age ranges were covered.
Off-topic but Reddit now requires sign-in to see old.reddit. They destroyed it, "to keep us safe".
Further more, if in Australia or a few other places like Brazil, UK, France, reddit won't let you sign in at all unless you're proven to be over 16. Bottom line, linking to old.reddit is similar to linking to a paywalled article.
They degraded old.reddit even for logged in users - images show as and when you click the link you are redirected to new reddit layout just to see the picture
That's so patently unacceptable that I'm surprised you're taking that tack. You're in a lithium car fire, climbing into the front seat may not even be possible, and figuring out that your back door doesn't have an obvious release is time lost that all will have a cost in blood. There being two paths out of the maze doesn't make it not a maze.
At least on mine, if the car crashes, the child lock is disabled immediately.
BTW, the emergency release procedure should always be the same as the normal release process. All systems should fail to a safe state on a power loss. It’s easy to design a door lever that engages the powered open on pull and a mechanic mechanism when pulling harder or further.
That's a fine interpretation but it's not in complete alignment with common usage and understanding of these terms. You can define terms however you like to draw whatever conclusion you like. But they won't last long outside of a vacuum.
The difference is the source of the sample. This is a flagship product by a frontier lab. It should be reflective of the best that is possible. It should be biased in the most favorable possible way. It was designed by people without the normal limitations and quotas of outsiders in building it, as well as in learning experiences in driving it. This is not a random cherry-pick of bad code.
Again, the same parallel can be drawn by frontier tech companies. Case in point: Even before AI (and even till date), iOS has always been buggy, crappy. Apple was a trillion dollar company when they had some of the worst bugs in iOS launched to public.
The same story for Google's products - their products were always buggy even before AI. And so is the case for Microsoft.
I think the reasonable argument is that AI or not, software problems are hard problems to solve. And software is constantly evolving. AI isn't a magic wand. It also depends a lot on the humans using it, including prompting and context supplied to it.
Drawing a massive conclusion from a tiny, unrepresentative sample is just hasty generalization.
reply