It's hard not to give a smartphone to a kid if you have to work or just can't spend a lot of time with the kid. Kids are demanding of time and attention. So either you have enough time or you pay someone to play with your kid or you have to endure a lot of chaos a kid without a smartphone and a lot of time without attention can do (from screaming and crying to wreaking havoc in your household). Or you give them smartphone and they keep quiet and still and you can do what you need to do.
imho we're completely missing the problem. It's not so much that kids need our attention, it's more that adults have 0 fucking free time, both parents have to work full time (or often even more) to afford what people could afford on a single salary not even 50 years ago.
Giving a phone to a 5 years old solves the symptom but it certainly doesn't fix the problem.
I don't think that's true, at least for Americans. Even in the sub-population of full time working parents, more time is spent on watching TV (1.45h mother, 1.98h father) than on child care (1.41h mother, 0.91h father, where units are hours per 24h on average): https://www.bls.gov/tus/tables/a7-1519.htm
Worth calling out that's for "children under 18". If you scroll down to specifically "children under 6", since people talking about "screen time" are usually more worried about 6 year olds than 16 year olds, those hours go to 2.42/1.54 childcare against 1.17/1.79 TV.
But I think I'd look at it the other way. The only category on here that's really "discretionary time" is "Leisure and sports". Across the board, parents are averaging about 12% there. The average across the population (including parents) is 22%.[0] This is also averaging everything across weekends as well. Expectedly, people have more free time on the weekends[1].
I'd also point out the footnote:
> NOTE: A primary activity refers to an individual's main activity. Other activities done simultaneously are not included.
There is nothing I do while my kid is (1) home and (2) awake that doesn't involve her taking up a large part of my time and attention.
When it's a dark evening in the middle of winter and I'm setting up a ladder in three feet of snow to climb up on the roof and run an auger down the sewer vent on the roof... I'm still spending probably a third to half of my time on her.
When I've got two pans on the fire, something in the toaster oven, and I'm trying to mind a pot I'm filling up with water to turn into supper... I guess, yeah, running back and forth to try and clean up some spilled juice and get her changed out of the wet clothes while I don't let anything burn or overflow is still technically mostly "food preparation and cleanup".
I don't even know where "planning child's birthday party" fits into this whole thing, but it's not something I'm doing _with_ my kid so it doesn't seem to be caring for household children by the general phrasing of these options. (And you might think "yeah but that only happens once a year" and you'd be right... but it's always something.)
And yeah, after she was asleep I did a bunch of "housework" and at some point I sat down for an hour and "watched TV" while I poked away at a bunch of other smaller things that needed doing. At some point I feel asleep in a chair so I'm not sure whether my primary activity was "sleep" or "watching television".
So that's a rundown of a recent evening of mine which had around 0 hours spent on childcare and an hour on TV.
Obviously "lived experience" is not "data", but that's at least _a_ perspective--yes, by the numbers I probably spend more time watching TV than caring for my kid but no, she's still the main time sink on my day outside of sleep and work (and sometimes not even sleep) and I certainly do not have a bunch of free time I could be allocating to childcare so she spent less time watching TV.
I feel it's easier with with more kids since you can let them play together. It's hard with one kid or kids that are not of similar age, since they have nobody to play with them at home. Of course, there are some kids who can play alone with legos or dolls. I know when I was growing up me and my brother where a year apart and we could play for hours together with legos or toys, we did also watch a lot of TV, this was the early 90s.
For a non native English speaker the "translation" is much more readable and can convey more information to me. The old text is kind of comprehensible to me, but I have to read really slow, re-read parts and think a lot to understand.
It seems to me the people here think it's a good idea because they know they won't be dropped on them, they'll be dropped in other countries.
The countries they live in are malaria free because they eradicated the disease-carrying mosquitos and developed their healthcare system.
Developing the healthcare system of a country helps with more diseases and keeps consent. It also doesn't open you up for a potential biological weapon if some entity decided to misuse it (Russia, CIA, etc.)
Yes, Florida for instance recently had their first documented cases of malaria in decades - immediately following the launch of a GMO mosquito manufacturing and distribution lab.
Not to worry: the scientists at lab promised the two events were totally unrelated.
The vaccine misinformation has created entire groups of people irrationally terrified of them. :( And those people are only going to cause more death and suffering because of their ignorance. :(
There's a big difference between intentionally exposing a single consenting person to a modified pathogen for the purpose of giving them resistance and intentionally releasing a modified pathogen into the environment and allowing it to spread by its usual vector to the consenting and unconsenting alike without any regard.
If this were a virus created using gain of function research we would call it a biological weapon. But because the intent is different we're supposed to be excited and accepting of it?
> If this were a virus created using gain of function research we would call it a biological weapon.
Except it's the literal opposite of gain of function: it's the subtraction of function from a pathogen which already exists in the environment and already infects people on a regular basis in the environment, turning it from a deadly killer into something that dies quickly and without reproducing when it meets the human immune system.
People take actions every day that affect others, some negatively and some positively, and don't receive consent for each one. We don't need consent to put exhaust or other harmful chemicals into the air, and those are an explicit negative. Something like this could be a huge positive, potentially saving millions of lives. If the projected benefits to risks are sufficient (and I'm not saying they necessarily are, but if that turned out to be the case based on further testing), there is a point at which it would be worthwhile, despite it not being possible to get individual consent.
Yes, you’re supposed to be excited and accepting of things that save millions of lives, not decry them just because they have vaguely the same shape as something evil.
HN is having a real hard time here with the concept that mass death is actually bad and something that’s nice to prevent.
> One could say that it's the intent which varies between a heart transplant and an Azrec blood sacrifice.
Heart transplants are from consenting donors that have recently diseased, not living victims murdered solely for their organs. Blood sacrifices do not involve taking the heart and saving a live either. So no intent is not the variance there.
> vaccine misinformation has created entire groups of people irrationally terrified
I am terrified of them but I'm fairly certain it's rationalized. The medical community decided it's more important to bully their patients into compliance than to listen to their concerns and work with them. The vaccine absolutely had side effects for some individuals and they were treated very poorly, in particular at the beginning of the pandemic, due to this attitude of "fighting misinformation." Our medical institutions were put to propaganda purposes rather than healthcare purposes and the results were absolutely horrific.
> to cause more death and suffering
This is predicated on the belief that "herd immunity" is valid and universal to all vaccines and that, again, bullying people who are afraid into choices they're not comfortable with is somehow justifiable due to it. As if letting a for profit institution inject random goop into me is a natural thing to _not_ be generally wary or afraid of.
Just because you think you have "the science" doesn't mean you get a free pass on "patient rights."
It’s sad to see this kind of nonsense in a place that so prides itself on rationality. If a bunch of technophiles can’t even accept the idea that vaccination is the first or second most effective medical technology in history (sewers potentially taking the #1 spot) then the whole thing seems completely hopeless.
I’m really not looking forward to the return of measles and polio as common first-world diseases, but that seems to be the trajectory we’re on.
You appeal to rationality then immediately abandon it. The COVID vaccine was not a traditional vaccine and the definitions were changed after it's release to match it. It relied on an entirely novel technology and novel delivery technique that was a part of a military strategy goal for a decade for no practical reason. The goalposts were constantly changed and "boosters" added to measurably diminished returns.
Which is all bad enough, but for people with your sort of "rational" to then decide that vaccines are _all_ uncritically "good," and any questions or any sort of reservations that I've just covered were thus uncritically "bad" and those having them deserved to have their civil rights stripped from them, is what made this a horror.
Finally, we have sanitized water and sewers and we live in first world conditions, the precursors to the diseases you mention are almost entirely absent from our living conditions, and those vaccinations use time tested and proven technologies which haven't ever been in question. Perhaps some of the popular adjuvants are worthy of concern, but in your version of rationality, this is apparently an evil thing to even consider out loud in the presence of the vaunted "technophiles."
You completely fail to maintain rationality in the face of a very narrow and specific critique.
“the definitions were changed after it's release to match it”
Complete horseshit.
This sort of nonsense is what I’m talking about. It’s not that you’re not allowed to criticize. It’s that the critics are full of shit and we’re expected to take it seriously.
You have refused to take any of this seriously. You have a preconceived idea of the world and you are absolutely unwilling to accept any debate or challenge over it. You are acting as a bully and not as a scientist. No wonder you constantly appeal to authority.
Did you not notice that your Newsweek article rates this claim as false?
Definitions are always imprecise anyway. The CDC’s pre-2015 definition of a vaccine wouldn’t have covered the tetanus vaccine, even though it’s a century old and there’s no dispute over whether or not it should qualify as a “vaccine” or not.
I’ve seen two somewhat different complaints around this definition nonsense.
First, there’s the complaint that the original definition used to require that a vaccine contain a dead or inactivated infectious organism, and it was changed because mRNA stuff is the first time something didn’t work that way, and thus it’s not really a vaccine. This is of course completely false. Tetanus doesn’t work this way and there are others from well before the mRNA era.
The other is that the definition used to require a “vaccine” to provide total immunity from infection and now it doesn’t, and this is because the covid vaccines don’t provide total immunity. This is obviously wrong because no vaccine provides total immunity. There are vaccines that provide a lot better immunity than the covid vaccines do, but none that are 100%.
So yes, horseshit. This doesn’t come from preconceived notions of the world, it comes from knowing basic facts about the world. When you read that “they” changed “the” definition in order to push something, your first thought should be to look up what the old one said and see if it was actually an accurate definition. And you should have the basic knowledge to be able to understand when it was clearly deficient.
> Did you not notice that your Newsweek article rates this claim as false?
Yes.
> Definitions are always imprecise anyway.
That's the same conclusion the article arrives at in order to claim it as false, when in fact, it has to admit, the definition _was_ actually changed. You're happy they're waving their hands the same as you happen to be. "Complete horseshit" is really absurd thing to say in the face of this reduction of yours, isn't it?
> and it was changed because mRNA stuff is the first time something didn’t work that way
It was the first time something didn't work that way and was additionally being mandated. The concern was raised that mandating something which fails to meet the previous definition of vaccine was a flaw in policy and so the definition was, in fact, changed. You ironically seem to notice that it was changed as a result of public policy and not due to any other obvious reason.
> This is obviously wrong because no vaccine provides total immunity.
Most vaccines provide total immunity. That's because the disease they target is not a flu that has rapid genetic mutations and where the introduction of a leaky "vaccine" does not create evolutionary pressure on the target disease.
You can move the goalposts to debating weather a Tetanus "vaccine" meets the definition, but Tetanus is caused by a bacteria, so almost no definition of "vaccine" will apply to it anyways. Other than this oddity do you have even one other example?
> your first thought should be to look up what the old one said and see if it was actually an accurate definition
So it changed, but it was to make it "more accurate," so my claim that it was changed is somehow actually wrong? You've fallen into a tautological trap. You see why I consider you to be ideologically possessed?
> And you should have the basic knowledge to be able to understand when it was clearly deficient.
Yet they felt the need to change at the same time they introduced an entirely new vaccine and also decided that people needed to take this new vaccine or have their civil rights removed. That seems to be the "deficiency" they were trying to correct and were not at all suddenly concerned with improving accuracy at just a really unfortunate time.
So are there any other goal post distractions you'd like to hyper focus on in an effort to ignore the original point?
The claim is that the definition was changed specifically for the COVID vaccines. This is wrong, since other vaccines also weren’t covered by the old definition.
There’s also a serious problem with the phrase “the definition.” There are many definitions. There isn’t a single authority which decides what a word means.
“It was the first time something didn't work that way and was additionally being mandated.”
Come on, seriously? The tetanus vaccine is required for school in many places. Why are you saying something so obviously incorrect, and with an example that disproves it already being part of the conversation? You accuse me of not accepting debate and you do this kind of thing? I can’t even.
> The tetanus vaccine is required for school in many places. Why are you saying something so obviously incorrect
No, it isn't. You're describing the _combined_ Tdap vaccine. Why are you saying something so obviously incorrect, and even worse, _intentionally_ misleading?
Tetanus is not communicable. You see the problem with your focus on this one point? You're clinging to it as a defense when it's _entirely_ invalid to do so.
> I can’t even.
Then why try? All you've done is inject emotion and falsehoods into this discussion in order to defend your ego and ideology. Just stop. It's okay that people have a different opinion than you. Running around like a psychopath and labeling things as "complete horseshit" is an absurd response. You are doing this to yourself.
I'm minimizing and ignoring this thread now. Have a nice Thanksgiving!
The tetanus vaccine is mandatory in many places and it’s a vaccine that doesn’t work in the supposedly “normal” way that the old CDC definition describes. So your statement that the Covid vaccine was the first one is just plain wrong. The fact that the tetanus vaccine is part of a combined vaccine doesn’t change the basic facts.
"Vaccine" is a category of products, each one is unique and the safety and efficacy of one has no bearing on any other. The reason they have such good standing is selection bias. Before COVID, only vaccines that passed years of rigourous testing were used and those are the only ones people know to exist, giving the impression that anything called "vaccine" is safe. That's wrong.
Which currently or previously widely available vaccines are not safe? I can think of one, but I doubt it’s the one you’re thinking of.
“Vaccines” have such good standing because the general idea of improving immunity by exposing the immune system to non-infectious material that closely matches some part of the infectious agent works really well. There’s not much room for things to go wrong unless the material actually turns out to be infectious, as was the case with the dangerous vaccine I mentioned above.
> Which currently or previously widely available vaccines are not safe?
If they were detected as unsafe during testing they wouldn't be available. That's the point. You only know of vaccines that passed the tests, not those that didn't.
> “Vaccines” have such good standing because the general idea of improving immunity by exposing the immune system to non-infectious material that closely matches some part of the infectious agent works really well. There’s not much room for things to go wrong unless the material actually turns out to be infectious, as was the case with the dangerous vaccine I mentioned above.
Infectiousness is not the only risk. Look at polio vaccines causing polio.
Do you? People in malaria endemic areas understand that there is some base level of resistance that develops among the locals over time, the exaggeration about harm goes in both directions
Like teeray mentions, if we can define any knot as a path through a Menger Sponge then that path could be realized in a Minecraft world (since it is cube/block/voxel based.)
If you placed minecart rails along the knot plot then you could ride it like a roller coaster.
Maybe this was the initial motivation for the teenagers.
Not parent, but I assume the idea is that you could form this fractal by hand (all or in part) in any 3D Minecraft terrain. Then you could route rails according to the theorem.
I mean, if this should happen to me, I want to undergo euthanasia as soon as possible. If I am already dead, I don't want to unnecessarily suffer. So my question is, did he not want the euthanasia or was it not "accepted" or why he had to suffer so much?
The first person the demon core killed, Harry Daghlian, notably allowed the doctors to study and record information about his deterioration due to radiation. I believe Slotin had a similar motivation - that at least, even this slow, painful death could provide valuable information to doctors and scientists.
This was the United States in the mid 1940s, I doubt euthanasia (or even assisted suicide) was much of a thing back then. Plus, as someone else mentioned, there was also the scientifical aspect of being able to study the effects of irradiation.
There are a lot of people that don't like Brave's business model. But I've never given Brave a dime and turn off their ad network stuff and they've saved me hundreds of dollars on Youtube Premium over the years.
For me, it was as easy as adding a shortcut to the YouTube homepage on Brave that it basically acts like the YouTube app, but with ad blocking built in. It's the only way I watch YT videos on mobile.
