511–519 of 519 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Analog cigarettes! I love how “analog” has become synonymous with everything more manual, natural, even or better.
My favorite is the “acoustic bike” instead of electric bike (the joke comes from guitars, I think)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you need to be in his head? Something that applies to many powerful billionaires is that they believe their money and power make the superior human beings, entitled to shape the world as they see fit. Without that, they're nothing.
> entitled to shape the world as they see fit. Isn't that what most people in democracies think though? When you cast your democratic vote on a candidatr, aren't you hoping to dictate how the whole country should be run? The only difference between someone like Zuckerberg and your average citizen is that the latter is powerless as an individual.
They do think that, yes. But they're not shaping anything as they see fit, at best they're shaping as millions of other together see fit. They're giving someone a millionth of a mandate to do something, and then hope that happens.
> The only difference between someone like Zuckerberg and your average citizen is that the latter is powerless as an individual
That's quite the difference. It's exactly the only one that matters from what we can see around us every day.
It's the entropy of power. Spread that power over too many people and it becomes noise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The affirmation we were accustomed to generally had some substance. If someone called, sent you a postcard, or met with you, it probably meant they cared at least to some extent. For the Average Joe, absolutely! Completely agreed. >Social media strips all that away to the point where affirmation costs no effort to give but also means nothing. Here's a test I like to recommend: don't post anything on HN, X, or Facebo…
> We wanted it, and Meta gave everyone the ability to have it. Slight modification: We wanted to feel good about things, and Meta, knowing exactly what they were doing, took advantage of that to enrich themselves while gaslighting everyone that their manipulation and exploitation was totally ok and normal. Its easy for people without a conscience like Zuckerberg to do that and laugh about it.
It's really hard to disentangle Meta's actions with the overall push for maximum-profit-at-any-cost mentality of most societies we live in.
Pay 25% from your 2025 profit for harming children since at least 2019 and be able to continue doing so. Sounds like a loss for society and a win for Meta.
ftfy
Inexcusable behaviour and Meta needs to be skinned. These measures are a joke.
>Meta will impose daily usage limits and restrict nighttime usage by children who use Facebook and Instagram, and enhance measures to prevent children from accessing age-restricted content So meta won. The only thing I'm asking for is better control over my social media. Let me remove infinite scroll on Instagram and don't show me things I have explicitly followed on Facebook. And do this setting by default and a cig…
As someone who doesn't use social media please explain. Is it not possible for people to just delete the apps and stop using them? Is the addiction so strong at this point that people don't have the willpower to stop?
So why don't you just override your monkey brain that hordes of clever people trick in to scrolling more? Why don't you just get all of your social circle to move off Meta? Why don't you just use Ebay over FB Marketplace? Why don't you just convince your housing development to use something other than WhatsApp for sharing equipment? Why don't you just find a different channel through which to promote your small business? Why don't you just accept to be a social outcast?
The vast, vast majority can't pay that price.
And yes, some programmer somewhere has his programmer friends in Matrix. And no, that doesn't work beyond that very case. Why is this so hard to understand?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you inhale the smoke, it's quite irrelevant whether smoking an industrial cigarette, pipe or a hand-crafted cigar without additives. You'll probably get lung cancer anyway if you continue it long enough. Smoke is always carcinogenic. I don't really get the point when there are many ways of getting nicotine without the smoke.
That’s not true. The lifetime risk of a smoker getting lung cancer is about 10-20%, not “probably” (somewhere between 15 and 30 times higher risk than a non-smoker). In fact, only about half of smokers die prematurely from their smoking. I mean, I’m not saying start smoking, but also let’s at least have accurate facts.
"The lifetime risk of a smoker getting lung cancer is about 10-20%".
Yup. That's probably true. It is also incredibly misleading, because that isn't the only cancer you are at risk from. So... I wouldn't call what you just said, an accurate fact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The real trick was convincing parents to buy devices for their kids. That's by far the worst thing he's ever done.
I thought texting and / or AOL Instant Messenger was responsible for that!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article outlines several changes Meta is having to implement that curbs the "and be able to continue doing so" argument a bit. That said, I wish these settlements included tobacco-esque requirements for ongoing funds to educate people. The tobacco settlement funds have been somewhat successful.
Have they? I know a lot of my peers went to college for free with the Millennium Scholarship. But so many young people vape now that it's becoming cool to smoke analog cigarettes. I barely knew anyone who smoked 10-20y ago. Many people that age now do.
For the 11-15 group as a whole it dropped from 11% to 1.2%
Vaping in that 11-15 group was 5% in 2023
So combined smoking and vaping in young people halved from 11% in 2000 to 6% in 2023, almost all of which is vaping
https://ash.org.uk/uploads/Youth-Smoking-Fact-Sheet.pdf
https://ash.org.uk/resources/view/use-of-e-cigarettes-among-...