91–100 of 108 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I keep debating trying to go full-dumbphone, but I'm confident what would happen is that it would work great until I need a specific thing for whatever reason, and I'd have to buy an Android or iPhone, and then I'd be forced to carry around two devices and potentially have two separate cell phone plans. This seems like a pain in the ass. But I don't dispute that waking up in the morning to a bunch of things competing…
Just do it, it's not that hard. Also don't go for a full fledged plan for the non-dumb phone (or for the dumb one). Pick one as the main outside and live with the downsides of it too. We tend to forget that we didn't always have Google maps to help us, so we would ask a stranger for directions, we would have to wait before being able to call someone, etc.
Same with cash vs. card. You prefer cash? Well, tough shit, because many places accept only cards, and some countries are going cashless as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Banning smartphones in general would be more akin to banning kids from riding in cars (not driving them) or being around alcohol (even in their own home) To say nothing of the inconsistency of those bans. You can vote, enlist in the army, and take on life-altering student loans... but smoke a cigarette? No way! Also, isn't it the sale and purchase of alcohol that is banned for underage persons, not the consumption? T…
Banning smartphones in general would be more akin to banning kids from riding in cars (not driving them) How so? I don't see you make an argument for why your simile would be more accurate, and I fear I lack the imagination to conjure up what back-seat phoning would look like.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Banning smartphones in general would be more akin to banning kids from riding in cars (not driving them) or being around alcohol (even in their own home) To say nothing of the inconsistency of those bans. You can vote, enlist in the army, and take on life-altering student loans... but smoke a cigarette? No way! Also, isn't it the sale and purchase of alcohol that is banned for underage persons, not the consumption? T…
Banning smartphones in general would be more akin to banning kids from riding in cars (not driving them) How so? I don't see you make an argument for why your simile would be more accurate, and I fear I lack the imagination to conjure up what back-seat phoning would look like.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally I'd think its different, smartphone apps usually have tons of dark patterns and are designed to always be with you versus a desktop or even a laptop.
Remove Google Play, install F-Droid instead with curated list of apps and games.
Soon: Adults who have smartphones have worse mental heath outcomes: Study Whatever the safe level of smartphone usage is, most of us are above it.
Is "smartphone usage" merely a proxy for "social media usage"? When I got my first smartphone almost two decades ago as a 16yo, I used it mostly to play with the system, write my own UIs, debug system daemon issues, tinker with bootloaders and ended up contributing to a community distro for it. It was a fun computer in my pocket that taught me a lot and a massive upgrade over earlier phones where I had to use Opera M…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My first question would be: or is it that cat owners are schizophrenic are more likely to get a cat? I'm not answering that question, but I do want to quote your article. From the bottom: > Results were inconsistent across studies, but those of higher quality suggested that associations in unadjusted models might have been due to factors that could have influenced the results. > One study found no significant associa…
>A study in the US, which involved 354 psychology students Sometimes I think that psychology students mental health must have extremely large influence on the field of psychology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Driving is restricted because of responsibility (same way marriage and contracts in general require someone legally responsible) Porn, alcohol, tobacco and gambling is cultural/religious, the same way The Prohibition happened in the US, or all alcohol and gambling is banned in hard Islamic countries and adult women are mandatory veiled. It's pretty interesting to see where a smartphone ban would fit as a category.
I think alcohol and tobacco used to be banned for cultural reasons but there’s pretty clear research now pointing to bad outcomes for early drug use. 21 is still high so some of the cultural element remains but I wouldn’t consider those two entirely ungrounded in reason.
I wasn't aware. Or more specifically, I thought it wouldn't ethically be possible to do that research while it's legally forbidden.
I assumed We'd be bound to look at cases pathologic enough to warrant intervention, and the researchers tracking back the root cause at drug ingestion. While a useful approach, it would tell us nothing about all the other cases that weren't pathological.
On tobacco specifically I think most long term effects disappear in smoker below 25 ? Not arguing that kids should smoke, but like coming at th French situation, it looks like there is a dose where the effects on kids will be negligible.
PS: even for people withing the legal smoking range, studies on drugs still tend to focus on patients that had to enter the medical system
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10798824/
If you have any good study that encompasses a wider range I'd love to read it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think alcohol and tobacco used to be banned for cultural reasons but there’s pretty clear research now pointing to bad outcomes for early drug use. 21 is still high so some of the cultural element remains but I wouldn’t consider those two entirely ungrounded in reason.
> there’s pretty clear research now pointing to bad outcomes for early drug use I wasn't aware. Or more specifically, I thought it wouldn't ethically be possible to do that research while it's legally forbidden. I assumed We'd be bound to look at cases pathologic enough to warrant intervention, and the researchers tracking back the root cause at drug ingestion. While a useful approach, it would tell us nothing about…
I’ll see if I can find some studies but it might be some weeks before I get back to this post.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> there’s pretty clear research now pointing to bad outcomes for early drug use I wasn't aware. Or more specifically, I thought it wouldn't ethically be possible to do that research while it's legally forbidden. I assumed We'd be bound to look at cases pathologic enough to warrant intervention, and the researchers tracking back the root cause at drug ingestion. While a useful approach, it would tell us nothing about…
The negative outcomes aren’t health outcomes as in lung sickness. Instead early consumption correlates with increased likelihood of future addiction. I’ll see if I can find some studies but it might be some weeks before I get back to this post.
For instance alcohol addiction is extremely destructive at pathological levels, and we have a flurry of studies coming to a "no safe dose" conclusion. But we also have plenty of evidence on what happens when outright banning alcohol at large scale and it's not great either.
I'm not sure we have a good model or understanding yet of what it actually means to have addictive substances around and their social effects.