That's because the suburbs have basically spread us out to such a ridiculous degree that kids don't have a lot of opportunities to socialize.

I think you are missing important details here. Kids still have their chat groups and socialise over them, pretty much as they did before. The difference is just that these chat groups aren't tied to a social media platform any more.

Before the "ban" there was a lot of pressure for kids to be on one particular social media platform or another, depending where their friends were, in order to socialise with them, with the inevitable exposure to other content on those platforms unrelated to their social group. Since the "ban" there are definitely kids who still have social media on one platform or another, but the fragmentation means that the social media platforms no longer become the defacto common space.

Kids now use more specific apps (eg Whatsapp, Facebook messenger) for their shared social spaces.

The social spaces not only still exist, they are also more purely that, not co-opted by endless scrolls of algorithmically presented content and adverts or subjected to engagement mechanics (likes etc). The social spaces are just actual people talking to other people they know.

In that regard I think the "ban" has been relatively successful, different kids may still have accounts on different platforms and perhaps may still spend too much time on them, but generally kids aren't practically forced to be on a social media platform just in order to talk with their friends.

None of this is about "stripping adults of their privacy" as you describe.

The Australian law explicitly prohibits platforms from requiring ID or retaining personal data collected for age assurance.

I didn't know one of Elon Musk's kids was involved with this.

It's a "simple solution" because you have missed the point entirely.

The extra cost of ApplePay to banks isn't borne by the individual using ApplePay (almost certainly Apple's rules for issuers using ApplePay will expressly forbid charging customers a fee for using it). Rather the cost of ApplePay to banks must covered by whatever base costs they pass on to all consumers (whether they individually use ApplePay or not). So no, you can't just "Use your bloody physical card" to avoid paying for ApplePay.

I imagine Apple would argue the use of ApplePay brings other cost savings (eg fraud prevention) and even "new business" that more than offset whatever Apple charges so there is in fact no net-cost to issuers that they have to pass on.

That might even be true!

My guess is it is more likely to be an artefact of increased attention rather than an actual increased tendency to be pro-social.
Ie, people on average are x% likely to give up a seat for a pregnant woman if they are actively aware, but in many cases people on public transport are "zoned out" so the actual rate of people giving up a seat is lower.
The "Batman" may just be something somewhat unusual that increases people's awareness of their immediate surroundings rather than making them more pro-social.
An interesting follow up would be to try things that are "unusual" and attention level raising, but are somehow neutral and free of the sorts of symbolism that are attached to Batman.

The only "point" your post makes is that you don't know what p hacking is.

If you have some other criticism of the study, then putting "p-value hacking" as the subject is your error not mine.

Sometimes, Slashdot posters who are under pressure to publish, anything, no matter what, to increase their publication count, will make stupid comments, mentioning terms they have vaguely heard about, without any real thought as to whether they apply.

P-hacking involves researcher degrees of freedom and the ability to find some signal for "something" in a bunch of data by varying how the the analysis is performed after the events themselves.

That does not seem a relevant at all in the context of this particular study, which uses a very simple method and measure for what it is testing and whose methodology was pre-registered before it was done.

50% of Entrepreneurs will say that they are "considering" anything.

I'd argue that while you might be gaining something here (time) you could also losing something and that is expertise.

If you aren't reading the documentation yourself, then you aren't absorbing things that could be valuable later (even though they might not be relevant to the particular task you are doing now) and are therefore "stupider" at least by that definition.

All the time I'm involved in conversations where it is useful to have information in my head to either
- immediately answer a question (and avoid a follow up meeting), or
- prevent time being wasted on some course of action that isn't viable, or
- to suggest a neat solution I am aware of
all because of some detail I have read that hasn't previously mattered.

Of course, perhaps you are reading the documentation first, then pointing the AI at the relevant bits so it can complete some task and then reviewing the output for sanity, in which case I think you probably aren't losing out.

In the real world though I am seeing more and more information coming my way where it is pretty obvious that the person presenting it hasn't actually done their homework and doesn't really understand what they are proposing or working with.

You're less than a couple of years away from being in a Russian oligarchy.

You're optimistic, I was thinking more like North Korea....

I have probably read something they published in the last decade, but I just looked at their website

I do love posts that just start off, "I, an ignoramus, think...."

I don't mind articles mentioning AI when it's relevant but using that generic term over and over again without mentioning which specific tool just smacks of a writer more interested in hitting buzzwords than conveying information.

From the article published in Cell it seems to be Alphafold and the structure it reveals seems vital to being able understand how PHGDH could be interacting biologically and therefore be a critical part of the discovery, so a shame the uscd.edu article doesn't mention it by name.

Long term, they will pay the 500% tariff because this tariff level is not enough to induce American manufacturers to compete with the Chinese on low margin products.

I am not sure that is quite true, there will definitely be a threshold where it would become more than viable for American manufacturers to compete.

However, the investment involved is only going to be made in an environment where there is some predictability. If anyone believed that the tariffs would stay at that high level for years then they might invest, but no one in their right mind would believe these tariffs will stay the same next week, let alone past the end of the Trump presidency.

Did you actually see the chart of tariffs that every other country had in place before any of this started.

Would you like to buy a bridge?

amid efforts by the Trump administration to grant Moscow concessions to end the war in Ukraine

Even Trump isn't such a bad negotiator that he'd be handing over the concessions before the deal is made.
Clearly the West Wing's full title is now the "West Wing of the Kremlin"?