It's fun times to be a human.
It's fun times to be a human.
"One wants to do everything and one can do nothing, one is always thinking that from to-morrow one will begin a new life, that from to-morrow one will set to work as one ought, that from to-morrow one will put oneself on a diet; but not a bit of it, on the evening of that very day one will over-eat oneself, so that one can only blink one’s eyes and can’t say a word—yes really; and it’s always like that.” -- "Hlobuev", Gogol, N. Dead Souls (1854)
Obesity uncommon back then, on average people where younger, and there where only ~1.2 billion people alive in 1854 vs 8 billion today. I would be surprised if obesity related deaths topped 100,000 / year back then.
Your comment better illustrates my thought than me. The thought being, while human nature may not change much across centuries, some vices like food and tech are now more refined in their distribution and effects than ever before.
The idea that things are similar but not the same.
:(
If you show anorectic models, they will inspire to anorexia. We all recognize that would be immoral. Now the inspire obesity, but because the pendulum is still swinging away from underweight, we don't recognize it for how sick it is.
Have a friend, non-obese and diabetic, who has learned precisely how much insulin to shoot up after various and sundry of his candy bars and caffeinated-sweet drinks. Impressive in a way.
Just like in previous times when we discovered alcohol, various cultures also found ways over time to deal with the fallout. Some cultures don't do so well with it.
The same happened with various other chemicals like opium, tobacco, and crack, which all have had societal reactions over time. The contraceptive pill is another one, and I'd argue so are processed foods.
With something like recreational drugs, the upsides are just pure hedonism, you do them because they make you feel a certain way and the downsides aren't inextricably connected. Plus the downsides are pretty awful, whereas with internet stuff it's awful but in a way that doesn't require an ambulance. Basically social media addiction is a flu that millions of people catch and mostly live with, whereas drug addiction is a thing fewer people catch but some of them die from it, like Ebola.
God I wish, I’d probably use it more if it had any similar benefits as alcohol.
It shares many attributes/features with other social media. Does it just come down to excellent moderation on the part of u/dang? Is it the lack of instant reply notifications? Is it that thread depth is capped? Only allowing downvotes for power users? Some combination of all those?
In a way, based on the alcohol analogy, HN is kind of like an evening beer with friends at a biergarten, you drink socially, not too much to even get very inebriated, and if you try to, mechanisms exist to stop you, such as the biergarten owners kicking you out. You're not getting (or are supposed to get) drunk at a biergarten, generally speaking.
On the other hand, many other social media are more like clubs. Sure, you can drink less, but the entire environment is designed to get you to drink more. This is analogous to places like Twitter or Instagram which are specifically designed for you to use them as much as possible, like through only allowing short replies (thus stripping nuance and incentivizing short angry replies) or gamifying like counters and incentivizing heavily cherry picked and edited photos.
It doesn’t have any concept (much less a public one) of “following”, it doesn’t have public likes, it doesn’t have a DM facility, it doesn’t have a personalized algorithm, it isn’t ad supported (and thus isn’t incentivized to tweal its algorithms for maximizing engagement and ad delivery), it has negative (but equally not-public) voting and signals (flagging) that don’t require filling out a form and human review, and it has dang.
From small scale (e.g., "How to create a social media site", etc.) to "How to best use Facebook to sell XXX, to influence political campaigns, to overthrow governments, to confuse your competition, etc.".
A good bibliography?
/me checks how much time I spent on hn this week-end and decides it's maaaybe time to "log out"
Everything else you say is spot on, although the “reward” is a very nuanced minimal for me… it’s something I can go do privately by myself for a few minutes without needing to explain that. It’s probably the biggest conscious tie I still have to the habit.
Not smokers took longer to get to know each other and it was harder. But it was nit about cool factor all that much.
Something this analogy through-line makes me notice, is that we have clear cultural images of what a healthy use of alcohol looks like — going out for cocktails with friends; having wine with dinner; etc; vs. what alcohol abuse looks like — day-drinking, drinking alone, drinking until you pass out, etc. But we don't (yet) have similar cultural images for what healthy vs. unhealthy/abusive social-media participation looks like.
Too much and you become anti-social, but that's a separate problem.
I think the analogy is we're still in the equivalent of the early days of the Temperance movement for social media, where it's somewhat dysfunctional (like not drinking alcohol in the early 19th century US) to not have at least some account somewhere.
We may well be speed-running this. I won't be surprised by an attempt to ban "hard liquor" like FB and Twitter, nor if they decide to ban everything including "beer" places like here.
I've always used sugar and high fructose corn syrup as my analogy.
In the early days of the internet we didn't have what we now call social media, but we had things like blogs and message boards that allowed for some connection with other people. Those things had some of the elements that make modern social media toxic, but they were mixed in with other good things and we consumed them much slower.
Over the past few decades, we've slowly refined social media to what it is today. In an attempt to retain customers we've boiled it down to its most addictive and unhealthy parts and pushed customers to consume more of that quicker than ever before.
The distillation of social media is still ongoing. It won’t be long before TikTok looks as quaint as MySpace does today.
Seems really sad that we're forced to choose between our own wellbeing and participating in broader culture.
Have to point out, though, it seems the one place where everything isn't toxic seems to be (certain forms of) orgnanised religion.
Maybe the lesson there is that organization is the evil, given that it seems to pop up in so many contexts (megacorps < small businesses, megachurches < community organizations, public schooling < small private/parochial/charter schools, big government < grassroots organizations). Would make sense, since an organization, by definition, is about subsuming what individually makes you happy so you can be a part of something bigger. The bigger the organization grows, the less it can fit the authentic selves of the people who support it.
* As a group grows it gets worse at serving each individual's needs.
* Large groups outcompete and disrupt small ones.
I think the trick is for small groups to be illegible to the outside world.
Fish school, birds flock and animals herd partly to avoid predators. I wonder if multiple schools/flocks/herds are always superior to a single one, as long as each of them is above some critical threshold.
That doesn't happen.
Perhaps what we are seeing is a generalization of religion in which certain aspects of social concern have effectively become religious exercise. This might be a challenging thesis to sustain, but where parallels can be found it might give some broader insight into the present moment.
Becoming the hypocrite is never fun, but at least I understand my parents now.
And the important bit seems to be
>nicotine concentration between 0.001 mM and 4.0mM.
And they found an effect starting at 1.0mW. But, this is what I hate about pretty much all scientific papers that clearly set out with a purpose in mind (good or bad) is the abstract doesn't mention what the hell 1.0mW. Is that even a feasible amount? Is that one puff? Is that 100% nicotine being directly vaped? What on earth is it? None of this is mentioned, for free anyways.
The full study can be found as the first article in this pdf: http://tobacco.cleartheair.org.hk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01...
This says nothing about rates of other non-site specific cancers of course (pancreatic being a big one), or the other health risks that are still associated with smokeless tobacco (stroke, cardiovascular disease, impotency), but it's somewhat telling that even anti-nicotine advocacy groups rarely mention the risk of cancer for smokeless tobacco products in their publications.
My remark was about young people doing something that is idiotic (vaping to the degree they do it) who would not take a puff on a cigarette. Arguments that vaping is "less dangerous than smoking" are precisely "At least I'm not shooting heroin in my eyeballs", because at no point did I assert that they were equivalent.
> But of course they continued using the stuff
Sorry to be blunt, but why don't you do your duty as a parent and continue the prohibition of those devices except for necessary things?
Perhaps one useful and applicable distinction that can be made, is between 'interpersonal communication' (in apps like messengers, directly talking to people you know) and 'posting something on a platform' (in apps that are more like "social media", where posts are available to a broader public). Another distinction could be made for 'private platforms/spaces' (like discord) or 'limited/like-minded/focused spaces' (that aren't just the most general platforms, but something bit more specialized for some kind of content or audience), and the bigger platforms/spaces (that are basically just 'you're out there with everyone'. it also could be pointed out that 'having a semi-private group on a big platform might not be too bad - but that it might be still out there and accessible, so there's things to mind'. or, hell, explain what comes with posting on a big platform and what precautions should one take). Explaining the differences and outlining where and what someone would be doing, could help, in a practical way that won't be just 'you can't do anything now'.
Cutting off messaging isn't something that should be done, in my opinion - it's too drastic. it's basically saying, 'don't talk to people/you don't get to talk to people', and those people are probably gonna be the most familiar/important people to them. Cutting off social media, could be done, but it's really worth talking through and explaining the difference between 'publishing something for the whole internet and hanging out in that broad of a space' or 'posting something for your friends group to see, and hanging in a private, familiar space' (and perhaps, enticing them to grow and enrich their own social circle and seek something there, not just from random people on big platforms). At the end of the day though, cutting off and prohibiting something can be just circumvented, as people might just do something anyway, and if they don't have the 'why' explained to them, it might be even easier to ignore the limits without much concern. With guidance, that stands on its own, maybe it could be less so.
Those who vape would also smoke, vaping is far healthier to do, it's cheaper, and it tastes better. You also can't government regulate liquid like you can cigarettes.
You certainly can, my city just passed a ban of all flavored tobacco products which will include vaping.
I disagree with the ban, but that's beside the point here.
I'm actually curious to see how things play out. The first thing that occurred to me was that vape shops might start selling unflavored liquid and also sell flavoring which you would have to mix in yourself. Not sure that would be passable under the legal regime or not.
Interestingly, statehouse Republicans attempted to pass a law which would have negated my city's ban. This was vetoed by the state governor though.
It's quite frustrating that as we slowly step towards an end to the senseless and wildly net negative prohibition of marijuana, we are determined to repeat the mistake with nicotine.
Lots of the motivation behind this seems to be the popularity of vaping among teens. "Think of the children" and all that goes along with it.
Alcohol