noetokyo

It doesn't make it any less shady/unethical.

Probably just means they will pay it to those that leave and not retain the amount afterwards because its unsustainable.

Not really. Several studies show people who perform in these ways are disliked heavily by their peers it.

Nope just tax breaks and bunching. Advertising has always been a waste of money. Donating for things you care about? Priceless.

The author should fix their data visualizations.

The problem is that 70% of adults are overweight and obese.

They are probably referring to the kool aid drinkers

Well at the same time due to the way the industry works in the first place. Netflix was fundamentally going to die. Mainly due to how licensing fees work. Doing this alleviates that pressure in a way that cable never could.

because almost no one pays in a patreon model.

Fearmongering at it's greatest. Instead of looking for possible solutions. It downplays the worst case scenarios by having "Too Many" educated people. Both the article and the study. Instead of asking why we should fear having too many educated people. Shouldn't we instead be asking the question why should we fear them in the first place? Rather, the government policies at place and the systemic issues which affect the people we should "fear". What am I to say. The study itself is from 2010.The effects of it are about to come anyways for the good and bad. It's just about how you deal with the issue. The call for higher education is a bipartisan belief in America. In which both sides already agree that student grants should be in place rather than student loans. While the candidates running may not agree with that in the coming presidential election both republic and democratic leaders agree that grants should replace loans. The main problems which they address really aren't likely to be problems in the near future.

Is this a GPT-3 based blog?

Sorry, I think you are mistaking what I'm writing. I'm referring to this article and basing it of PEW Research on adolescence with depression. The addition of more sleep hasn't changed anything in this survey. In regards to already existing reports by PEW on the rates of depression which in teenagers and in more specifically girls have an exponential growth in depression rates. Its not due to a change in social stigma but rather the use of social media. Specifically facebook and instagram which most teenage girls spend the majority of their time on.

Yet. Teenage girls have a depression rate that has been rapidly increasing through the years. Currently at 20%. Which would suggest the increase in the use of social media is the main cause. Especially when this study did nothing to correlate against it with its weak argument for sleep which if you look at statistics on depression had no effect on it.

Though that is an interesting topic. The data doesnt suggest that sleep had any effect on the depression rates of teens.

Oh man this is great. This is basically saying what every other scientific paper has been saying for years. The decrease in the usage of social media led to a decrease in depression in teenagers. It's almost like facebook and instagram are inherently toxic by design and should not exist.

To further clarify a 15% rate of depression in teens is higher than it was in 2017. The article lists in their survey for families who were well off during the pandemic still 15% which is really high. And 33% for those who were not. The fact the article ignores that fact is concerning to me. And makes this seem like a piece trying to claim social media isn't as "bad" as it seems. Claiming that sleep was beneficial for teens. When it in fact is suggestive otherwise that it is negligible.

Here is Facebook trying to desperately clean up in the hopes of appeasing the antitrust regulators.

That actually is antitrust. And they broke the agreement which allowed them to even acquire them in the first place.

Yea, but this is hackernews. Half the posts are sensationalized to antagonize the u.s. government.

Yea but that doesn't mean anything when 99% of them can't find jobs.

Its probably focusing on a single part of your skin.

And instagram is known for it's fake userbase. The majority of accounts are probably just bots.

This interesting, I was looking through popular instagram stars such as Messi and not even 30% of his followers are real users.

Is it really fair? There are several countries with degree mills for things such as masters even when they do not show the competencies required for such degrees.

I thought this was gonna be doom the game

I mean this is good but it assumes that all people are treated the same way in experiences.

This system is actually being implemented in farmers markets in the US. I helps them as it makes people more willing to spend their money. One issue I can see from this is that it increases the rate of obesity. Which if you look up the areas where this does occur the obesity rate skyrockets in both men and female. Which would most likely worsen the obesity epidemic in america.

I was thinking about the volume of the data and the type. But yeah they probably could easily obfuscate it. Wouldn't it just be cheaper to buy it at that rate though? Am I missing something?

Wouldn't it look suspicious if they did that though? I'm curious to know. If they ever were audited wouldn't that stand out?