I'm fairly certain this will be more trouble to enforce than they are bargaining for, and may have some knock on negative side-effects.

However, assuming it isn't a complete failure and social media use is decreased substantially, it may provide some interesting independent data about childrens mental health and social media use.

like an unnecessary Wisk.

I will not take this unnecessary Wisk.

It's an interesting finding.
The article talks about the photoelectric effect being an analogy, though it reminds me more of how ultrasonic humidifiers work.

Comment

The $5 charge is separate, so it also comes with a $5 charge.

Whatever it is, we have been dealing with this and a host of other issues from them for years.

Absolutely love the boards, and some of the staff is really cool, but the company really is abusive when it comes to this sort of stuff.

The idea of Walmart getting involved just sounds silly.

You make yourself look stupid and you make me feel stupid for having read what you wrote.

There you are

How could we be forced into using this untested system so quickly! We should start using it only after it's been used in other countries for 20 years!
Oh wait.

I hated it because I could scarcely read what he was doing when I sat next to him due to the viewing angle.

If I ever build a killbot, it will be activated by the phrase "confusing to users."

This has already happened. Around here (one of the top five markets, and on the national 24/7 news channels, for that matter), they are constantly airing footage shot by viewers. Sure the quality is bad (technical issues like exposure, rolling shutter, etc), the composition is bad (not shot by someone who knows how to frame a shot or tell a story with video), and the overall experience is bad, but people love to see their name and video on TV so they'll even give it away for free. The station gets video for free that they otherwise wouldn't have access to, so they're thrilled as well. It's win-win or lose-lose, depending on your perspective.

Many stations send out one person, a reporter/camera person combo rather than the traditional two person camera operator and reporter team. I'm sure it's a bit awkward holding the mic and camera while asking questions, but it's significant savings (at the expense of, in my opinion, compromising content, something another poster mentioned from Thom Hogan's article about this). Similarly, a lot of newscasts are heavily automated. This leads to a lack of flexibility and occasional problems with on-air content, but stations have generally decided that those compromises are worth it in exchange for downsizing.

I can't say they're completely wrong; those are business decisions to save money at a time when there's little money going around anyway, but it's also cheapening the product and putting out substandard quality. I believe that content is king and that at some point, people will turn to the news that has actual reporters reporting along side compelling, quality video. But that's just me, and the past five or so years has worn hard on my theory.

Note that I work in TV, regularly edit material that airs nationally, worry about what my job will look like in ten years, but I don't do news.

Yeah, it's actually worse than that. There are legitimate companies that can't send mail at all to an address containing a plus sign. It's all bad (lazy? ignorant??) programming and doesn't conform to the standards, but there isn't a thing I can do about it. If I want to get mail from certain companies, I can't use the plus notation (most recently it was a small local computer shop of all things). Frustrating, but I've given up on fighting about it.