I haven't read the nearly 70 studies this review article considered, but I would assume it is nearly impossible to design an ethical randomized control study to examine this question.
Which makes the answer useless. Because if doomscrolling causes mental issues, you want to discourage it, but if mental issues cause doomscrolling, you want to encourage it as a diagnostic tool.
Plus, we've take it about as far as it can go, but we aren't ready to admit it yet because there are still marks to fleece.
Do any of those studies make any attempt to distinguish between teens having mental issues because they doom scroll and teens doom scrolling because they have mental issues?
In California, if there's a reasonable expectation of privacy (such as within your own home), recording without permission is a felony.
It is dangerous. So is deciding the other way. I think this is one of those cases where there isn't any really good answer. I bet the one they settle on is that "approved" researchers will be allowed to get answers.
Well, sort of. I really have trouble with the initial expansion, though. I've been assured that we're not within a black hole, and that makes it hard to understand how we ever escaped the Schwarzschild radius. Also time runs slower when gravity is stronger.
But, yeah, I'm no expert in the field.
I saw a video by a photographer and he points out that the quality of photos is not the reason to buy a dedicated camera. After all, you can buy a $2000 Ricoh that only takes black and white photos now; the iPhone will, in most circumstances, take 'better' photos, or at least more true-to-life photos.
But a dedicated camera focuses your attention. If you carry your camera, you're concerned with photography. You're not distracted by texts or whatever. And so your photography is likely to be better--you're paying attention to the task in a way that you rarely will with your phone.
"Dark Energy" doesn't qualify as a theory. There are at least a few theories that explain the observations labeled "Dark Energy". None of them are generally accepted. So, no, there's no competing theory that apparently explains the "anisotropic expansion", though I've got a partial one (I'm no expert in the field). My theory is that the matter of the universe isn't distributed equally, so some parts have more intense exposure to gravity than others. (I've encountered claims that it's really pretty evenly distributed, but I keep running into observations like "The Great Attractor" that seem to deny this.) This would account for "anisotropic expansion",
If "novel" means "unexpected", then it did something novel. In a complex system, don't expect anyone to understand all the pieces and how they interact. I'm sure that there was someone who could have told them "Yeah, that's a possible interaction", but he was probably working in SysOps rather than Research.
Not really. "Corporate personhood" is really a separate concept from being a person. It was created by a legal clerk in, I think it was Southern Pacific vs. Santa Clara, but then became accepted legal principle because it was so convenient. Now it has over 100 years of acceptance behind it.
IIUC, it was called an industrial accident. Of course, that was with a really primitive AI over a decade ago.
The guy who pushed the button didn't intend the result.
When laws say "intentionally" they get really fuzzy in complex situations.
This is why they're so keen on robots. They want guards whose loyalty they can really count on when the mob shows up with a guillotine.
That one might surrender and meekly accept their likely death at the hands of the machine, I can believe. But all of them? This isn't the first such claim we've heard about AI danger.
I believe that Yudkowsky believes what he says he believes, for example. He says shut them all down worldwide, immediately, and if there are rogue nations who don't go along with it then launch air strikes on their data centres - even against a nuclear state. He said that three years ago. That's the thinking of a man who believes it's genuinely likely that the machines will kill us all in the near future.
And this is still considered extremist lunacy. That tells me the rest of them don't believe what he does.
"Intelligence without character is a dangerous thing." -- G. Steinem
