BringMeTheDiscoKing

I don’t normally reply like this but i’m not wasting time on composition.

I think you are forgetting that correlation does not imply causation.

Really? Then I think you didn’t read or understand my previous reply.

or is it dangerous, misleading, and unscientific to say things that can’t be proven as if it’s fact?

What is dangerous, misleading and unscientific about alerting parents as soon as possible that screen time has been linked to atypical sensory processing, the most popularly known examples by a country mile being ADHD and autism? Have other studies shown screen time to be beneficial to young children? Who are you shilling for, Sesame Street? lol

I would argue that it’s unethical not to inform parents using terminology that they are familiar with, even if it is not going to be accurate in each case.

As someone who has worked and continues to work with several doctors in a medical research environment

I was wondering when the appeal to authority would come. Your assurance, as an internet rando, is meaningless. You oughta know that already.

“Reading between the lines” in research has led to countless people being injured and killed

Except pop-sci magazines aren’t research.

And finally, you’re statements about research bias and the crap about Wakefield, Kennedy and troglodyte Rogan is false equivalence and obvious baiting. See sentence above. Unlike the situation you describe, you haven’t called into question this research, only the article.

I guess we’ll know eventually if we should’ve been warning people away from screen time for young kids a lot more forcefully.

“Brain melting” and “Without parents knowing” are the only two inherently scary things in that headline.

Did they intentionally chose a picture where she looks like she’s morphing into Elon?

I mean, if you think that they aren’t talking about ADHD and autism there, after reading the article and the study, well okay then.

The paper comes as close to saying ‘direct link’ as these papers ever do. It’s quite difficult to prove a direct link and there are consequences for using that language inaccurately, when you’re publishing in a respected journal (at least there is supposed to be)

Pop-sci articles are usually going to try to hook readers with their headlines. Not being beholden to the same standards, they are free to read between the lines, as it were. One could say that because it’s not held to the same standard, it’s BS but there’s a lot of substance there to refute. It not an op-ed piece.

Its an important article that shouldn’t be ignored (there are other sources if you don’t like that author,) and if people want more details, they can get to the JAMA investigation from the link provided at the end.

What does the paragraph above the one you posted say? The paragraph under the header “Findings”

I’m sorry, was that a refutation?

This study found a link between screen time and autism by looking at TV exposure among very young children, nevermind phones and tablets.

https://www.earth.com/news/toddler-screen-time-linked-to-atypical-sensory-behaviors/

It makes sense in a way. How we process the world might be a bit messed up with we were exposed to lots of bright shapes and loud sounds doing impossible things before our senses were fully developed.

Belief in god or astrology is not anti-scientific, it is unscientific.

Anti-scientific is evangelizing that the belief in god or astrology is a replacement for science.

Environmental factors (screen time) while a child’s sensory apparatus is not fully developed has been linked to development of ADHD and Autism.

https://www.earth.com/news/toddler-screen-time-linked-to-atypical-sensory-behaviors/

The thing that keeps us from living lives of abundance is not a lack of technology.

You are a P̸̡̖̻̖͎̫̞̯̙͚͐̽̌̃̃͑̾͑̃̇̃̌̌̓ͪ̚͟͝͏̷̡̡͘͟͟͜͟I̶̶̡̳̼̪̰̥̬͋̃͘̕͟͡͡ͅĘ̸̧̪͉͉̙͙̝͍̞͍̣͓͚̬̞̙̪ͥ̐ͬͩ̃ͨͥͦͫ̿̀̀́̚͟͡C̴̸̸̨̤̘̝̺͉̙̱̰͇̻̙̥̑͒ͭ̇̀͐ͪ̐̏̐ͬ̀́̚͘͜͠͝͝E̸̴̢̮̦͎̫̲̬͓̳̪̖̪ͭ̒͐̔ͮͧ̅ͨ̽͋̇̊͌ͯͬͭͨ́̀̚͢͜͟͜͡͝͏̵̢̛̛̀͜͝-̰͎͎͎̬̙ͫ͊ͣ̚͘҉̢̛̛́͘͟͞͞Ơ̵̵̧̛̥̜̦̹͍ͨ̿̐̓͋ͤ̉ͬ̄͋ͪ̆͑́͘̕͘͟͟͜͜͡͡F̙͎̟͔̥͈̦̔͋ͩ̏͌ͧ͑͆͒ͩ̿͒ͥ͐́̀͜͏̛͢-̶̭̭̲̻̫̠̲̳̭̯̟̏͆̎ͣͩ̉͑ͨͩͧ͟ͅ͏͟͡͞͠͠͏̴̴͝S̶̴̴̶̸̵̢̧̹ͣ̎ͪͥ̿̊́͆̓̐̊͑͢͟͢͢͞͠҉̨̢͡H͕͖̞̠͔̤̏̓ͩ̒ͯ̚͢͞I̖͇̯̹ͥ͌̐̇͏̶̵̶̧̨̛̛͡͡͝͡͏̢́́̀͠͞Ţ̴̷̷̨̧̛̠̯̞̞̌͐̐̑̐̍ͨ̏́͘̕͠͠҉̛́́͡, you are a piiirate!

This is right. To do it before you had to be a bit smart and motivated. That’s a smaller cross section of people. Now any nasty fuck with an app on their phone can bully and harass their classmates.

I one heard ast describe Linux’s code quality as ‘marginal’ (presumably speaking of the kernel)

Of course, it was ast talking at BSDCan but still, harsh words from a master.

If you aren’t the customer, you are the product. Congrats on being monetized and kinda sorta immortalized as a series of weights.

But he ABSOLUTELY supports the speech he supports!

It was enough of a dumpster fire before it got all musky. After it got the preputial gland the edgelords became MOR and there was no arguing past their mechanical circle jerk of atavism.

“Magic until it’s not” basically sums up the whole Apple user experience.

It is a bad look and a sign of a lack of good options, but that’s the situation.

Also, all Canadian parties run like that except for the Greens and the Bloc, and it’s probably because they know they won’t form a government

Man, the cognitive dissonance Americans must have to deal with.

Sorry you had to find out this way, but it’s been going on for most of your lives if you’d only cared out the rest of the world enough to look past your own borders.

It’s called american exceptionalism and this idea that you can just blow it up by voting for (or not voting against) the orange guy is just another example of it.

Fixing what you have is hard work. Burning it all down is a child’s response and will fuck the rest of the world up.

You don’t have to vote for the other genocidal facist to let him become the president. Poor voter turnout will work just as well.

But go ahead, ignore the rest of the context and cherry pick the thing you think you have a response to.