lsjvjn

I mean that physical brain lateralization is not supported by scientific evidence. It doesn't matter because it's only tangential to the ideas expressed in the book.

Pick up "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" and follow the lessons and exercises within. The left/right brain stuff is a little pseudo-sciency, but the basic thesis of the book is sound: contrary to common attitudes, art is a skill than can be developed with practice like any other. It just takes discipline, effort, and patience.

The debate over the limits of acceptable speech on social media is a discussion worth having, but the claim in the article does not match the wording of the policy at hand. The policy states that users will get a strike if they claim that “the vaccines will cause you to be sick, spread the virus, or would be more harmful than getting COVID-19" (emphasis mine).

The vaccine causing the spread of the virus is different than the known fact vaccinated people, infected elsehow, could spread the virus.

Is the fact that the story is set 20,000 years into the future instead of 10,000 really "necessary"? After discussing the film with friends who have no exposure to the books, I think the constrained scope helped make the film easier to digest. We still have a ~3 hour Part Two to introduce the Emperor and The Guild.

The biggest problem with the 1984 Dune is that the film becomes overburdened with clunky exposition. I think there was a deliberate decision to avoid that mistake with this adaptation.

While, as a fan of the novel, I'd have liked to see these elements given more explanation, I think on reflection that they did a commendable job deciding which elements needed exposition for audiences to follow the plot and which ones could be left as background details and texture for the world to avoid overwhelming the viewer and letting the film breathe more as a film.

We've seen many articles over the last few years about the YouTube recommendation rabbit hole radicalizing young people online. Facebook is not blameless, but they've become a scapegoat for issues plaguing an entire industry.

>The fact that Facebook is uniquely held responsible for the societal problems engendered by the Internet does, I suspect, stem from the fact that Zuckerberg is an obvious target. How many people concerned about anti-vax rhetoric, for example, can even name the person in charge of YouTube, a far more potent vector?

This article makes a very cogent point: Zuckerberg has too much baggage with the general public and Meta would be much better off if he stepped out of the light.

I'd say it's a larger concern for Bridge, since the game is (unfortunately) primarily played only by older folks who are more at-risk.

The raised camera band is bound to be a controversial design choice.