dmschulman

A layperson might ask, What difference—besides diss’ing social scientists—does it make if these interesting articles about loneliness growing are off a bit? First, they are off a lot. But more important, they are a critical distraction. Chatter about feelings (of mainly affluent folks) distracts us from the many real crises of our time—say, widened inequality, children growing up in criminally and chemically dangerous neighborhoods, the dissolution of job security for middle Americans, drug addiction, housing shortages (where the jobs are), a medical system mess, hyper-partisanship, and so on. That’s what makes the loneliness scare not just annoying but also another drag on serious problem-solving.

Ahh the cruelty of science. I would agree that the claim Brooks, an op-ed writer, made is overblown and sensationalized a bit in order to get readers interested, but that doesn't make those who are indeed lonely, and those who the NY Times article focuses on, any less lonely or visible.

It seems like the post's author is dismissing that there are lonely people out there because Brooks wrote something that overstates their numbers. As any social scientist would tell you, even the best numbers we have on these phenomena are problematic and incomplete.

Point being, it would be pretty hard to drown on your own accord in a flotation tank. Perhaps he lost consciousness and drowned, but this would indicate more about Traywick's current state of health than anything else.

He's a musician and synthesizer enthusiast, granted electronic music and synths have taken on a pretty youthful market in recent years (thanks to cheaper products and a larger acceptance of the genre) but Andrew becoming a YouTube personality in this space was definitely met with backlash from the community.

It wasn't for the content itself, I really respect the guy as both a musician and video editor, but it's the gimmicky persona, the little "signature" things he does in his videos, the all too-perfect sheen put on top of his content, the silly faces on the video thumbnails that draw people's attention, the inauthenticity of it all. It rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, at least in the electronic music/synthesizer communities I visit (full of people who have been working with synths and modular instruments since the 70s/80s).

Now I realize it's not just his gimmick, it's everyone who hopes to ranks' gimmick!

This is a completely misguided notion. There are many types of disabilities out there, some can be apparent to the outside observer (physical disabilities) but there are many which are not apparent (mental and sensory disabilities).

1 in 12 men and 1 in 200 women throughout the world are affected by colorblindness.

Epilepsy affects 2.5-3 million individual in the United States.

Hearing loss and vision loss will affect most individuals during the course of their entire lives.

These disabilities and others are all considerations relevant to web and software development, with so many affected populations throughout the world disabilities are much more common than you or I might perceive.

But it's really not a question of perception among developers. Accessibility guidelines are relevant to some industries more than others, enforcement is sparse. If it became necessary to support all users and take into account their accessibility needs then we would see a change in the marketplace. The short answer is that developers and product managers who do not take accessibility into account with their products are lazy.

Many fast food drive thrus will have the sticker on the drive thru window due to the preservatives used in some of the food and the components used in the cooking process.

Disneyland has signs bearing the warning through out the park.

I find it infinitely more resourceful to have a well-stocked kitchen with ingredients that last a good while than to go out and buy a single serving of anything. I would never consider buying a specific spice or sauce "an investment" in a single type of dish given both the small cost and the viability of those items in other types of cooking. Hoisin is great when making hamburgers or chilis, for example.

UnrealEd on the other hand inverted that paradigm, instead of building your level a void you carved your map out of a solid mass. The geometry was much easier to work with and led me to really embrace Unreal's engine over Quake. I still loved Quake as the better game but Unreal's technology shined brighter for me as a young map maker.

These companies are able to flaunt the laws of the marketplace by forcing consumers to pay more for a product despite the "physical good" becoming cheaper and cheaper every year for the ISP to produce.

https://broadbandnow.com/report/much-data-really-cost-isps/

I'd reckon the geniuses in the labs do understand complex systems very well, only problem is that these chemists, engineers, etc who do bring concerns their concerns to the table tend to get shut down in favor of getting a product to market so that the company can continue to reap profits no matter what the environmental impact.

www.modulargrid.net

There is actually an entire segment of the cycling industry that has sprang up around catering to this demographic, urban commuters who want something functional and hip looking and are willing to pay the premium, but don't need a $1000 mountain bike for their trip to and from work. I have not taken a full survey of every bike commuter I see in my city, but I feel confident in assessing the cost of their ride falls under or just around $800 (assuming they bought brand new and not used, I think less people tend to buy new).

The amount of these hip cyclists grossly outnumbers the amount of "prosumer" cyclists (spending $2,000 on a carbon fiber bike) I see on the weekends riding trails. I would imagine these numbers are inverted in the suburbs, where you wouldn't find as many bike commuters, but the suburbs are also lower density than a city and therefore fewer potential bike riders to compare with.

EDIT: Also your point about middle class incomes and their effect on how much a consumer can afford to spend on a bike doesn't square with economics. I see your general concern regarding middle class wages not keeping pace with economic growth, but if a bike is essential to someone's lifestyle they will find a way to afford what they need.

And on a related note, many city dwellers are starting to give up on the concept of owning a car, favoring their bike or public transit or ride shares as a means to get around. Do you know how many bikes you could afford if you sold your car and no longer had to maintain its upkeep/insurance?

"Challenging" music is good and necessary to further art, but it's not a kind of music that the majority of Spotify's audience go out of their way to consume.

I run multiple browser plugins to block ads on my browser, but has anyone actually seen Facebook, et al ads for cryptocurrency?

I think we're seeing a completely different trend, spurred on by social media and the ability for people to broadcast their own messages/opinions about a topic, and that is, everyone has a loud, and often spurious, opinion about everything. This is something that's always been true, social media is just amplifying this aspect of human nature.

It feels like an act of willful ignorance to interpret the few words or catchy phrase on a protest sign and ascribe them as that person's core beliefs.

We live in a market-driven society, people are free to choose to consume what they want to consume (as you point out) but that doesn't give carte blanche to the producers in the marketplace to do whatever they want in the name of ad revenue. When it does reach a tipping point, as I think we're seeing with this Medium article, regulation will start to come to a niche industry that had previously operated under the radar. Especially when human health consequences are involved, the government steps in to ensure protection to its citizens (and its most vulnerable members, children).

If you really are upset that you won't be able to view algorithmically generated children's cartoon videos stuffed with tropes and keywords that exist for no other purpose than to make money, I'm concerned for your wellbeing.

But there is a vast chasm of difference between using social media to organize people and mobilize a campaign's message (as Obama's campaign sort of did in 2008, a lot of that engagement was organic though) and using the Facebook ad network and a network of phony accounts tied to real people in influencer groups to spread a litany of propaganda and false information meant to foment outrage and cultivate doubt in the integrity of the American election system.

There are other instances when I get the gist from the headline and don't care about the story, but want to read what others have to say (for example, the current front page story about New Zealand banning foreigners from buying new houses in the country. Headline says it all but there must be something interesting to talk about if a story like that garners 444 comments)