There is absolutely nothing wrong with food that has been processed via a variety of means and the term is confusing for EVERYONE as a result. Did you have a tofu wrap with kimchi? Congrats, you had "ultra-processed" food and now your life is in danger. (Ok, no, not really.) Let's just look at what the article itself says:

What is ultra-processed food?

* Fizzy drinks - Carbonation isn't a problem, it's the sugar.
* Sweets - Apricots are not a problem, candy is.
* Fast Food - Quickly produced grilled chicken is a non-issue. High-salt, high-fat meets and sugary breads are.
* Mass-Produced Bread - There's nothing wrong with making a LOT of bread. The cake-levels of sugars are.

What do these foods contain?

* There's nothing bad about fruit juice concentrates except when they use insufficient water to reconstitute the concentrate or if they remove too much pulp.
* Dextrose? Dextrose is used to treat hypoglycemia.
* Golden Syrup? Again... It's sugar!
* Gluten? Gluten is the problem? WTF?
* What in the world is wrong with dried egg whites?
* Monosodium glutamate is just a salt!!

Why does it matter?

And here's where we get to what it's ACTUALLY all about-- HIGH salt, HIGH sugar, HIGH fat. That's it. That's the problem.

There is nothing intrinsically unhealthy about mass produced food.
There is nothing intrinsically unhealthy about dehydrated food.
There is nothing intrinsically unhealthy about quickly produced food or with food with a long preparation process.

The ONLY ACTUAL problems are the unhealthy levels of SALT, SUGAR, and FAT.

So again, I assert We Need to Drop the Term "Ultra-Processed". Most people don't understand it and thus it's a useless term to improve peoples' lives.

I'm not even joking.

I am well aware of the Comcast's LONG-STANDING and VALID reputational issues... but the deal was too much to pass up. My offer was for 1Gbps at $50/mo. The price is locked in for 5 years and I'm not bound by contract. The gateway is included. This is in contrast to my prior ISP where I had one-tenth the bandwidth, paid 40% more per month, and had older gateway with less WiFi range.

We're better off today with Comcast, but I'm not loyal to anyone. The second they try to pull the rug, we're out the door, but we will have gotten ours in the interim.

Here's the ENTIRETY of what Workday CEO Carl Eschenbach is quoted to have said in the article.

* “It’s an overblown narrative, and it’s not true,”
* “absolutely not a headwind”
* “We are uniquely positioned to be one of the AI winners in the enterprise because of our incumbency, and lastly, because of the trust we get from our customers,”

So the CEO of a company, the person hired to continually convince people to buy their stock, said that their financial investments are good and definitely not bad. Let's just ignore every CEO statement about how their choice to invest in LLMs replacing human work is affecting their business unless supplemental insight from that company's customers and employees is included in the article?

Thanks!

Exactly. They're not dumping AI content. They're doubling down on making AI content indistinguishable from content generated by humans.

Remember-- CEOs are not accountants. They're managers with the EXPRESS obligation to continually increase investment. They must always be in the process of encouraging people to buy their stock.

The major CEOs will never say, "I was too stupid. I was taken in by the promise of large language models thinking it was actual, Star-Trek-level artificial intelligence. We increased our software expenses by 20%, reduced our workforce headcount by 20%, and it hasn't paid off. In fact, we're significantly less financially stable today and our position to improve is weakened by the lack of capable workforce. Oops."

No. Instead, they say, "I was right. The gains are coming," while trying to manipulate the perception of their business.

I appreciate the contribution and insight of the esteemed Slashdotter "BeaverCleaver", but typically there's an article link that comes along with a summary,

* 3D TV
* Motion Smoothing on everything
* Curved Screens
* Advertising-subsidized TV prices
* Now... AI Television hardware.

What a waste.

First, I haven't read the article.

Second, my first response is, "It's more complicated than putting more people on a plane."

-- More people = more weight = more fuel = more cost for all passengers
-- Currently, coach and business class tickets pay for their extra amenities and subsidize coach/economy classes. Like toll lanes subsidizing local transit by bleeding the people willing to pay for extra convenience, they're a net benefit.

Lastly, making airline travel less GHG-intense per passenger is a good goal, but there is other lower hanging fruit (passenger vehicles, light-duty trucks, shipping fleet, etc.).

The article is written by Mike Masnick, the founder of TechDirt and member of the board of directors for Blue Sky. He has a definite incentive to mitigate regulation that could reduce advertiser revenue into TechDirt and/or Blue Sky.

I'm not saying the guy's evil... I'm only talking about the guy's likely motivations.

Almost everything that is free to access online is free only due to the revenue from advertisers and data brokers. If regulation could potentially reduce use of those sites, revenue from advertisers and data brokers will drop and the financial viability of MANY online operations (including his) could suffer.

It takes a LONG TIME for scientific communities to establish consensus on human behavior (to the extent that consensus ever exists in science). Hell, even consensus within the HARD sciences can be difficult due to the extreme financial pressures of grant-based research (See: History of research on the addictiveness of cigarettes, oxycodone, etc.)

There has been comparably little academic research on the habit-forming/addictive nature of social media "engagement" tools, tactics, and strategies, so there is nowhere near a consensus on the effects.

However... ALL of these social media companies share the primary incentive and drive to grab and hold on to user attention, and when the user disengages, do whatever possible to get those users to RE-engage. All of THEIR research has driven them to use specific tools, tactics, and strategies to do just that.

So let's remove the term "social media" from the conversation. Let's call it a "slowly blinking red light". Let's say a bunch of companies developed a slowly-blinking red light expressly engineered to hold peoples' attention and, when the people disengage, they're feel genuine separation anxiety and are driven to stare back into that slowly-blinking red light.

Would that product be allowed on the US markets? No. It only serves as a detriment to the health of the users. What if there insufficient scientific consensus? Well, who gives a shit? We have unassailable evidence of the companies' intent and efforts to do exactly what we're accusing them of doing. Moreover, the effects are observable outside of a laboratory. We don't NEED fully validated scientific research to take regulatory action on stuff that is immediately evident.

From the article:

Cool. I think it's great that the author has functionally said, "It's only a problem for people with mental health issues." That's a great standard. Let's dive deeper there.

What percentage of teenagers are struggling with mental health issues?

I'm not asking how many are mentally ill, I'm asking about "struggling with mental health"-- low confidence, anxiety, bullying, school stress, future stress, family stress, fear for physical safety, fear of exclusion, etc. Anyone who remembers being a teenager will likely say, "Well... pretty much all teenagers are going through some level of mental health struggles."

So, if nearly all teenagers are susceptible to these companies' explicit and professed attempts to manipulate user attention should they be allowed to access these companies' products? Some countries are starting to say, "No."

What about people ages 20-30?

Their hormones are generally more leveled out and they've left the high-density social environment of K-12 education. Are THEY dealing with significant amounts of mental health struggles? According to the CDC's 2022 National Health Information Survey, over 25% of this group are anxious and/or depressed.

So, if nearly 100% of teenagers and 25%+ of 20-30 year-olds have professed and/or observed mental health struggles and those struggles make them particularly susceptible to forming unhealthy habits with social media due to the intentionally habit-forming tools, tactics, and strategies, isn't that sufficient grounds for regulation?

Closing Statements

Social media companies have courted advertisers with the research, data, innovative technologies, and promises to attract, hold, and regain the constant interaction of their current and potential userbase. It has never been a secret. They weren't "exposed"-- they proudly exposed themselves and enriched themselves at the expense of the health of their userbase and our political systems. They know (as do we all) that they intentionally engineer their product to be habit-forming on the basis of users' psychological response, not the users' measured utility of their products. They have been exceedingly successful to the extent that their networks have been instrumental in the disruption of multiple developed nations' political systems by malicious external actors-- not that they care because those external actors are customers just like traditional advertisers.

Any call for a scientific consensus in these findings is obfuscation. You don't need academic research to prove things that are both evident on the face as confessed as intentional.

What we have now: Laptops.

* Low power consumption
* Lightweight
* Variable keyboard sizes, but generally compact
* Self-contained battery the entire computer for hours at a time
* Easy plug-and-play with USB C docks
* Integrated monitor

* Price: $500 - $1,500 for most business/student laptops.
* Sales Pitch: A fully capable computer wherever you need to be.

What they're offering: Screenless Laptop.

* LowER power consumption than a laptop (no monitor).
--- This doesn't matter though because almost no one will ever use this without being plugged into an external power source.
* LightER weight due to smaller battery and the lack of a monitor.
--- This doesn't matter much, though, because no one complains about the weight of small, office laptops.
* Variable keyboard size, but smallest includes a 10-key.
--- This is good. MANY knowledge-workers prefer a 10-key and might prefer to have one without having to get a 16" laptop.
* SmallER self-contained battery.
--- Presumably, this exists only so that someone can move between hoteling stations without shutting down.
* Easy plug-and-play with USB C docks.
--- Same as a laptop.

* Price: Unknown
* Sales Pitch: Why pay for laptop monitors AND monitors at hoteling stations?

If they were to go into it as an experiment saying, "Hey! We're going to see how good it is and tell you where it failed," while jumping in and fact-checking it throughout the podcast, they'd have a winner.

Unfortunately, they were so poorly informed (maybe THEY don't read the news?), that they thought LLMs were actually artificially intelligent digital beings, capable of human-level thinking and retrospection, and now they feed disappointed and frustrated.

That's like saying, "I'm frustrated that my Tesla can't safely drive me everywhere I want to go without my interaction."

"The biggest night on the video game calendar" was never going to be The Game Awards. There are very, very, very few industry awards ceremonies that people care enough about to watch unless they're personally involved in that industry and video games are not one of those industries.

Movie and TV awards are chock full of beautiful people, charismatic personalities, popular music, haute couture, comedy, and themes that span generations. Gaming, by comparison, is significantly more niche and (as widespread as game-play is) there isn't enough emotional investment for the people **who otherwise go completely unseen** to attract an significant and enduring audience.

In regards to the complaints about the lack of recognition of layoffs and other issues: "What the hell did you expect?" No one builds an awards ceremony around the airing of dirty laundry.

This article is so full of cherry-picked bullshit that I would expect a 3rd-year undergrad wrote it to be edgy. I can't get to everything, so here's the lowdown on the cost of education.

Colleges didn't "oversell" education. If the well-wishers of the world had their way, we would ALL be college educated because educated people tend to make better decisions and be less horrible to each other. The value of education is extreme. PARENTS oversell specific careers to their and in consequence mandate their children attend the most prestigious university they can get into. They also have no clue how to tell one university from the next and thus lean on prestige.

The COST of higher education (Ex. post-secondary, college, uni, etc.) is highly variable based on who is providing the education. Let's take a look at a couple examples:

The University of California (UCLA, Berkeley, San Diego, Santa Barbara, etc.) has 9 undergraduate campuses and is a powerhouse of research. Their campuses are RESEARCH institutions whose charge is to be the research arm for California while also creating more PhD RESEARCHERS in addition to lawyers and medical doctors. Those researcher-faculty are also required to teach classes. Please understand that I wrote that description for a reason. Research is the primary focus and education is secondary. Thus, if you are a student that needs to be spoon-fed everything, then the UC is probably going to be a bad fit.

It costs around $15,600/year for UC tuition plus a variable amount of campus fees ($1,200 - $2,200) depending on which campus you attend.

The California Statue University has 23 campuses and is a powerhouse of education. Their campuses are EDUCATIONAL institutions whose charge is to be the educational arm for California while creating industry experts (Master's Degrees) and limited doctorates (Education, etc.). Those instructor-faculty have the option to do research as well within the realm of their instructional duties. Instruction is the primary focus and research is secondary. Thus, if you're a student that is desperate to get into a lab and work on cutting edge (albeit sometimes monotonous) research, the CSU is probably going to be a bad fit.

It costs around $6,450/year for CSU tuition plus a variable amount of campus fees depending on which campus you attend.

Side Note: The #1 reason it's more "PRESTIGIOUS" to attend a UC campus than a CSU campus is because they have Nobel Prize winners and big cool experimental toys. People see that and assume, "Wow... they must be amazing educators," but it doesn't always translate. Often, you're being taught by "lecturers" (temporary instructors who JUST focus on instruction) and THOSE instructors tend to be, on average, better than research faculty. (End Side Note)

That's all very, very affordable, right? No one gets into $100K of student debt solely on the basis of paying tuition at UC Berkeley. So what are we missing? EVERYTHING ELSE.

Housing: Rentals and homes for sale near UC and CSU campuses are under extreme demand due to both student and employees wanting to live near the campus. People buy single-family homes near major campuses and rent them out to students at massive mark-ups because... it's a strong investment and home values near major university campuses bounce back FAST after any downturn.

So how much are we talking about? Near a small campus (Chico State), it's safe to budget $500-$1000/month for a room rental. Near a major UC campus, it's safe to budget $1,000-$1,500/month for a room rental. (Note: Back in the day, almost no one rented their own room. It was always 2-3 people per room. The pandemic changed that and students view the dorm experience as a "one and done" and all but demand their own room and the cost of that preference is high.)

That's just rent. When you add in bills (electricity, water, sewer, waste, broadband internet, phone), transportation (car, gas, parking), textbooks, food, and other living expenses like clothes, the total COST OF ATTENDANCE gets you over $45,000/year to attend a University of California campus. It's not the tuition... it's the EVERYTHING ELSE and that's 100% predictable because we've been watch the cost of EVERYTHING ELSE climb mercilessly upward for the last 20 years.

Don't believe me? Look at the breakdown yourself:

UCLA - https://financialaid.ucla.edu/...
Berkeley - https://financialaid.berkeley....

And you can see the history of tuition prices here: https://www.ucop.edu/operating...

Lastly, the tuition you pay during your first year at a UC campus is what you pay throughout your undergraduate experience. Tuition increases only affect the incoming class.