I fully agree. There should be a complete ban on social media and similar addictive platforms for those under 16, and a nighttime ban (10 p.m.–7 a.m.) for users aged 16 to 18.
I agree, and this is easy to implement. My kids have to hand over their phones every day before bedtime. I see no need for any institutional interference to implement such trivial policy in any family.
> We basically give cigarettes to children.
In my opinion, this is not a good comparison. Just because parents give their kids smartphones doesn't mean they want or force them to use social networks. Kids use them because it's socially acceptable, and they aren't warned against using them.
When I was a kid, my father sometimes asked me to go to the store to buy cigarettes for him. At that time, this was a socially acceptable thing for a parent to do. However, the problem of kids smoking cigarettes was almost non-existent. This is because every kid was strongly advised that only adults could do this. There would be consequences if you didn't obey this advice. By the way, I never started smoking.
It is absurd to suggest that children should not be allowed to socialize online. Have we completely forgotten the internet we grew up on? I would be dead if I hadn't been able to make friends online.
When I was a kid I joined a random BBCode forum with a group of 10 people who taught me how to program. There were challenges some passionate person set up and he would give tips to me and a few others for free. We hung out all day. That's gone.
We can create spaces like that again, and teach the younger generations, instead of antagonizing them, coddling them and banning them from congregating on the internet.
The actual forces promote toxic platforms like TikTok, Sora, Twitter, BlueSky with no real productive value at all. Even HN is a waste of our lives yet here we are.
I have a great time on the internet. I meet new people all the time, and I have met many of them in real life, and many of them have become good friends. I am sorry you're having such a bad time, but if you looked around, you'd see there are many healthy communities built around all sorts of interests.
Some of them even live on TikTok. I don't use TikTok, but my girlfriend uses it quite a lot and while there is plenty of brainrot, she also learns a lot from it, too.
Why not vice tax the operators? Easier than using age verification schemes and giving them even more data, chat control etc. I'm thinking tiktok, meta and x. Want to operate in Denmark? The license will cost $N/person/month where the amount of people equals the country's population. It's basically a viewer tax.
Qualtrics is the leader in experience management, helping businesses improve customer, employee, product, and brand experiences through AI-driven insights and real-time feedback.
There are some settings in your profile that show you are open to work without broadcasting it on your profile picture. There is also a setting that is supposed to hide the fact you said you were open to work from people at your company but I’m not sure if that really works.
Have used this feature, works exactly like this. However it is a hit or miss, most of the incoming recruiters/companies are far below my standards. The best way to use LinkedIn is to send out requests to engineers where I want to work and ask for referrals. It's important to do your homework on the role, company, and person. Most of the people are happy to refer if you do this.
You might be able to get it to output raw demodulated FSK or OOK data without further processing, but I really doubt you are getting raw IQ samples from it.
Another motivator is to write some notes that you can google in the future. Write down a tutorial as a part of learning which others can benefit from it.
If you create value, you almost always capture it in some way. Not always money, it could be a job referral.
I don't think I'd wait even 15 seconds. Maybe on average across all users because a lot of users have slower connections or devices so they're more patient. But I'd expect to have something in 3 or 4 seconds. Even that I consider slow. At probably 8 or 10 I'm gone.
USA can claim that one Bradley is 2mln, but what is a real value?
Polish T-72 can be worth 1mln, but it's much more valuable than Bradley. UA army knows how to fix it and operate.
I would say that Bradley is actually more valuable, since it can serve wider range of missions, while having higher crew survival rate and being more maneuverable.
Huh? A Bradley is more survivable than a modern T-72? It's a light IFV, it's only advantage is to be more versatile and maneuverable. It is not going to be more survivable.
If you're talking about the autoloader - the kind of munition that would detonate the munitions on a modern T-72 would completely eviscerate any IFV.
If it really was more survivable than a modern tank, why would anyone even bother making tanks, when IFVs have about as much firepower when using ATGMs?
How is a T-72 a "modern tank"? There are dozens of stories of both American (during various other wars) and Ukranian Bradley crews engaging T-72s and winning.
Polish T-72s are modern tanks with tons of upgrades. They are not comparable to base model T-72s in Iraq. They have much improved armor, firepower, sensors, and mobility. It's a lot like how modern Abrams are barely comparable to the original model, which is only 6 years more recent than the T-72. In fact, the Russian T-90 and Chinese ZTZ99 are also heavily upgraded T-72s.
In the era of ATGMs IFVs can engage tanks and win, no matter the tank. In fact, an infantry soldier with an ATGM can engage basically any tank and win. That doesn't mean a soldier is more survivable or more capable than a tank.
A Bradley would be disabled or destroyed by many weapons any modern tank would shrug off, and it cannot provide sustained heavy fire as it has a very limited number of ATGMs.
No. Apples vs. oranges. While UA lacks IFVs, they first need main battle tanks. IFVs without MBTs doesn't comprise a survivable mixed combat element. Main battle tanks with troops with AGTMs is a starting point, IFVs would enhance their mobility but cannot replace the priority of having MBTs before IFVs.
We basically give cigarettes to children.
reply