jacobsimon

I think “about Apple” was the operative part. For example, if you know that Nokia had a bad quarter, then perhaps you might infer that Apple had a good one. I believe this is also illegal but obviously harder to prove.

Chill I’m just giving you the history of why there is no housing at that intersection. I don’t know about your bill, I moved away out of SF in 2023.

You can define it however you like, but my point was that all of the following appear to be increasing:

* the number of people creating software

* the number of people who are educated in creating software

* the number of people who are paid to create software

No true Scotsman uses AI? :)

Jokes aside, I think you’re valid but if you take the macro view, it’s clear that there are now more people doing some form of engineering, the same way the digital camera led to more people doing photography, and so on.

I think we can make separate distinctions around the act of consuming vs creating—a lot of vibe coding is beginning to look more like “consuming software” but that’s not what I was intending to describe here.

Good point!

I think it probably just boils down to whether the word is functionally necessary to understand the meaning of the sentence and how the language evolved...

For example, in French you don't usually pronounce the "s" at the end of a plural noun and lots of singular nouns end in "s", so the articles become necessary for determining if you mean plural or singular. In English you pronounce the "s" clearly and very few singular words end in "s", so you just don't need the article to distinguish anything, it becomes functionally redundant.

I can’t speak about other languages but in my head the simplest reason is that English “a/an” specifies “one”, eg “I have a cat and two dogs.” I googled and confirmed a/an is Old English for “one” but otherwise they didn’t use articles. I assume it’s a similar origin story for other languages like “un/una/une”. In that case, it’s equally strange that other languages would make “one” plural imo.

Yet other people claim to not have an internal monologue (including my wife and brother) and say they don’t hear anything when they think to themselves, and don’t really even “think” in words for that matter. So this comparison is also tricky because not everyone agrees on either of them. I have a weak visualization ability and strong internal monologue, I’m not sure if they’re correlated in some way or not.

The number is wrong / the citation is misleading. It’s closer to 20-30% according to that study, the 79% is referring specifically to cases involving social media, of which Meta platforms are obviously going to make up a large percentage.

There’s also a reporting bias here I’m sure - if Meta is better at reporting these cases then they will become a larger percentage, etc.

1. Parental control features on phones and computers

2. Grassroots marketing about potential risks of social media

3. Maybe better parental consent via existing regulations like COPPA

It’s just an incredibly different statement. It’s like saying 79% of Americans voted for Trump vs 79% of registered Republicans voted for Trump, they lead to very different conclusions.

I’m not saying it’s easy for teens to stop using social media, I’m just saying it doesn’t seem like it should require intervention by the US government to do so. There are many other ways to go about social change.

Yeah that’s a good counterpoint. I guess it hinges on whether you can define a clear boundary around what is harmful or unharmful social media.

Like to me “online shopping addiction” is probably a more realistic and analogous problem to gambling, so maybe online advertising to teens could be regulated, but the jump to child abuse is so far outside Meta’s actual business model that it feels over-reaching to go there.