bitshiftfaced

It comes up in evidence-based parenting programs. It helps them connect the feeling word to their internal state, which is a step toward building emotional regulation skills. You're also modeling empathy for them. But one issue rarely talked about is how parents tend to label uncomfortable emotions far more than other ones, which can inadvertently reinforce them and cause them to happen more frequently.

If it's the same study as the one that had this same finding that I dug into recently, then that's exactly what the study showed. People lost weight and slowed aging biomarkers, and the study deliberately did not control for this confounder.

I have a pet theory that there's some overlap of writing patterns that A) indicate quality, clear communication and B) those that the LLMs have been converging on. As a result, we're ruining the reputation of some great writing patterns because we've associated it with AI slop.

In this analogy, the dogs understand how their leashes, fences, etc. work better than their owners. And you need only take a trip to the park to see how many owners let their dogs walk around without a leash.

An example of a past technology that there was substantial motivation to control would be napster. It changed overtime, and you could never really control online privacy. Once local models are good enough, I don't really see how you can control that.

Not saying you're wrong. But maybe there's a reason Tiktok got so popular. Maybe for many people this way of communicating information is more effective and doesn't feel as boring/tedious.

You're claiming that generics tend to be cheaper in Canada than the US. What are you basing this belief on?

> you then also make it so that it can't be workers, what's left?

What was the core reason that readers gave donations? Probably most donors want employees treated well and to ideally keep their jobs, and yet the main thing they probably had in mind was the existence and continuation of the service itself.

> or when they’re so bad that people might actually die

Care to elaborate? Am I understanding correctly that the implication here is that there is some condition for which a software engineer having a union agreement could prevent that worker from dying?

The screen time crowds out time they could be interacting with the real world, engaging with all of their senses, and interacting with people. Two hours per day adds up over a critical time of their life that their peers are beginning to learn how to accurately learn to model the world and communicate.

At one years old, 2 hours is massive percentage of their "awake and aware" time, considering how much time they sleep and eat at this age.

I believe that "little actual historical backing" could accurately describe what evidence that publication has provided, don't you?

The hot path goes: parents choose "long" version of name. Everyone calls them the "short" name. The short name is their name for the majority of life. They have to deal with administrative-type friction and confusion every time their long name is needed. Therefore, you make their life less frustrating by making their inevitable shorter name equal to their real name.

I have similar questions about public service unions as well. The reason why it makes sense to me for private for-profit companies is because stakeholders have a profit incentive to exploit workers. If non-profit tech workers are especially vulnerable to exploitation, then I guess it makes sense too, but I'm having trouble finding evidence for that.

Isn't Wikimedia a non profit? Who exactly are the employers on the other side negotiating with the union here? They're higher on the hierarchical structure, but they're not actually stakeholders the same as there are in private for-profit companies.

Not by a mile, at least for pasta. When you compare the calorie density and glycemic index of pasta with other grains or grain-derived foods, it's really not bad. The dose makes the poison.