thin_carapace

I agree with a lot of the first point but the expression does seem to lend an air of futility to caring about your impacts which I hope wasn't the intention. I do whole heartedly disagree with everyone believing they are the hero of their own story - while there sure are a subset of people who will justify screwing others (or at least bury their heads in the sand), there's also a subset of people that are happy to revel in schadenfreude. all that aside, the author's beliefs probably do apply to his target audience.

I specifically mentioned the other arguments because I didn't want to repeat them, I'm not going to repeat them

not that wage is any indicator of inherent goodness but yea electrical engineers get paid average wage in my country while miners earn many multiples of said wage, who's the dumb one now ???

additional to the great examples already given, anyone in residential proximity to a compute centre is recieving noise + environment pollution. resultant destruction of sleep and air/water quality is massively detrimental to qol. the joes who net benefit from ai detriments seem to live far away from the consequences. I shall ask another way, how do the average joe's ai benefits outweigh his ai detriments?

currently unfettered ai spending is reducing qol for more individuals than it is increasing. why should the avg joe be happy about reduced qol?

see below comment by taurath for another great example of the truth being downvoted

study each proposed form of short form content regarding impact on cognitive function and select the most destructive forms for legislation.

if you make a website that provides short form content you are subject. why would an aggregator be excluded?

go ahead and let users make multiple accounts. the current, invalid, answer here is biometric provisioning (done not to protect anything but government and corporate interests). personally I don't care if an adult wants to fry their brain, provided that they have been adequately educated as to the extent of what they are doing to themselves. it's why I included the parental proviso, because protection from brain frying is most important during childhood.

the article does note:

"The researchers caution against reading the deactivation as evidence of impaired cognitive function. As they put it in the paper, “this deactivation should not be interpreted as a failure of cognitive control capacity.” Instead, the team argues the pattern likely reflects an adaptive shift toward low-effort, automatic processing during passive, low-conflict viewing."

my take: if the study authors could qualify a subject's liked videos, they could qualify a subject's liked activities, and study activation thresholds prior to and post short form content exposure. this would provide a better substrate from which to draw such conclusions.

but I don't need a study to tell me that short form content fries the brain ... it fries my brain!

define short form content as anything under an arbitrary time threshold, legislate all online providers of short form content to mandate an arbitrary time limit per day for all users, add a law that parents knowingly allowing children to exceed national daily short form content limits are subject to penalty. seems fairly straightforward. but uh, I guess we could all capitulate to giving corporations our biometric data ...

the linked study effectively drills down on aspects of previous work ...

"High-frequency SFV [short form video] use was consistently associated with attentional disruption, reduced executive functioning, and emotional dysregulation."

"Neuroimaging results revealed reduced activation in the Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex (DLPFC) and Anterior Cingulate Cortex (ACC) regions ... when participants viewed personalised TikTok videos."

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.08.27.25334540v...

"(The ACC) is involved in ... higher-level functions, such as attention allocation, reward anticipation, decision-making, impulse control .. and emotion."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anterior_cingulate_cortex

"The DLPFC is ... the highest cortical area that is involved in motor planning, organization and regulation."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorsolateral_prefrontal_cortex

by permitting unlimited short form content and not disallowing child access we are allowing corporations to destroy kids brains. therefore I posit the latest generation has been rendered retarded, which will pose a dire threat to continued stability unless addressed.

going to respond to your other comment here since it got killed:

i think a lot of art could be described as fashionable nonsense, and hyperreality is an artistic philosophy. it's interesting to contemplate the root concept of a map overflowing its territory, however consuming long tracts of resulting thought is questionably useful. i didnt mind reading some of baudrillard's cool thoughts books, application of hyperreality was well translated via small vignettes of thinking. but i couldnt finish the book discussed here, it's still sitting somewhere bookmarked.

re this comment:

it's clear that the powers that be will use any tool to maximise power. that's the point i gleaned from this comment because i dont identify as left or right. this is a left leaning forum, attacking the left as a whole is inevitably going to result in personal offense to left identifiers. therefore your point probably won't get translated, reducing the usefulness of these words to baudrillard levels.

after a decade of buying that same laptop for a hundred bucks 10 years after retail release ... I have a similar experience where so far none have died of their own accord ...

please somebody bottle this lesson distill it and start teaching it to kids using a framework of similar pro social behaviour

to you, the grandparent comment made a claim assigning Z to X, which you argue as bad faith because you couldn't find evidence that X=Z.

to me, the grandparent poster claimed X is more likely than Y without ever claiming equivalence. therefore I have no idea what you're arguing.

thank you for taking the time to disentangle and reorient the discussion. thanks also for explaining that my intentions are irrelevant when offense is caused. perhaps we shall discuss again another time, until then take care

you're more than welcome to join the conversation but if sitting on the sideline and calling me names is what you really wanna do then uh you do you

ah so other languages emulate harvard to a degree. I wonder if performance could improve by reimplementing a C like language based on a von neumann abstract machine inspired by something other than a PDP. thanks for your response

may I ask specifically what aspects of C lead to examples of quasi low level status such as the one you gave? I'd hazard a guess the C abstract machine is defined in a particular manner differentiable from say the JVM?

so the grandparent commentor has broken UK law by knowingly sharing false information. over here officer, a thoughtcrime has taken place!

this is the first time I've continued a thread here after saying goodbye, I wouldn't compromise my own integrity unless it was for something worth caring about. lots of other people are gonna think the way I did and I wanted you to hear an honest perspective, that way if a future conversation is absolutely crucial to you, you can be more aware of how critical conciseness is in maintaining conversational momentum. tried sharing this respectfully by simply stating my viewpoint, because I sometimes take amphetamines (or speed or any other name) to treat the symptoms we share. i don't judge you for feeling disrespected here but yeah feel free to take something from individuality while it's on offer, otherwise i hope you are ready to back yourself lest the system ever fail you

which boy is going to spaz out more - the one in a shitty public school with no guidance, or the one provided with a diverse education and a litany of equally well educated role models? the one with a poor diet and no co curricular activity, or the one fed properly and provided with fertile ground for imagination? the lonely one forced to make friends with the wrong people, or the one whose parents' social circles provided networking opportunities from birth?

I think it's a great point to make, one that could help people to stop identifying so much with this condition. because that exact same person probably wouldn't be experiencing such a condition if the environment was different, therefore is it really their condition ?

it may have had the same effect but me being too lazy to keep going is very much not an attack and I do genuinely wish you well

hard drugs wreck the body and cause dependency. amphetamine does both those things regardless as to whether an accredited body claims otherwise.

if you think it's ok to dose swathes of the population with hard drugs because it's 'good enough' then we completely disagree and I start to move more towards the other guy's viewpoint where it seems you are supporting the system over individuals.

it isn't easy for non amphetamine users to parse long extracts. maybe if I was also on speed I'd be interested in continuing, as is I will probably bid you farewell and wish all the best.

rather than attributing this to the brain or system inherently, it seems more accurate to focus on the position of the brain relative to the system. I think that's what the other person was trying to get at, but you're already aware based on how you specifically qualified this. I don't think it's fair to bring up a topic and then shut down resulting discussion as non nuanced, public forums probably aren't a good idea if youre not comfortable with receiving conflicting takes. like, amphetamine is a hard drug regardless as to whether or not a legal framework encourages its usage. and I have friends who immediately received their amphetamine script after a quick chat and an A4 questionnaire, which didn't involve any assessment of brain chemical imbalance, therefore brain chemical imbalance might be a valid theory but it's irrelevant practically. and this discussion may be individual specific, but amphetamine prescription rates are sky rocketing, so at some point the generalized conversation does need to take place as to how many people can get dosed before problems start happening (eg widespread heart issues due to long term hard stimulant consumption)

I also think that the system is cruel to convince its cogs that it is acceptable to experience stress to the point of requiring hard drugs, and I think the person you're responding to has provided a valid counter example of what life can be like without such stress.

your argument is like mayonnaise, liberally applicable in many situations, but it's a bit bland and not the condiment I'd choose for this dish

the lowest otc dose I previously witnessed was 1mg, perhaps my phrasing should have been "smallest commonly available dosage", because the correct dose is indeed in the vicinity of 100mcg

melatonin should be consumed in doses an order of magnitude smaller than the smallest available dosage. melatonin should also be consumed in a particular time period to correctly trigger the circadian rhythm. long term consistent melatonin use is not advised outside of special cases (eg elderly where morning cognition is unimpactful). irregardless I don't believe that consuming modified release melatonin is healthy long term, because it breaks the circadian rhythm ... but if it works it works.

if you can afford expensive supplements, perhaps consider trying magnesium threonate for sleep. anecdotally this caused intense dreaming, leading to 1 less sleep cycle being required for restfulness. you could also try eating tons of tabouli and see if a massive apigenin hit calms the body for sleep. skullcap as a tea has some interesting properties regarding GABA modulation. on tea, passionflower is a decent MAO inhibitor and knocks some people out, but that's way less sustainable than melatonin. lastly dont lie down on your right side after eating!!!

you didn't answer me directly, I'm not obliged either. MTHFR (and possibly COMT) are examples where genotype directly influences nutrient absorption. when the human body is unaligned (poor nutrient absorption, improper physical engagement, etc), symptoms such as depression and mania are expected behaviour. your link is a list of similar symptoms grouped under labels. I find it more pertinent to assess individual symptoms and progress from there.

sometimes mental conditions are temporary and resolvable. sometimes mental conditions are permanent and symptom alleviation is the best option. both are true. we are assessing the interface to the entire body here, all traffic flows through this node to a certain degree. problematic traffic can be caused by an issue local to the central node, but this possibility does not exclude the potential for data to be problematic on arrival.

the problem statement regarded 'talking about mental health'. venting is one form of talking about mental health. paying therapists is another form of talking about mental health. neither of these weakens the other. concomitantly, neither of these can have their positivity be extrapolated to the overarching point, as their positivities contradict. final result = ambiguity, we cannot conclusively state that talking about mental health is a universally positive pursuit. hence I pointed out you looked a bit funny coz sarcasm is best employed for that which can't be argued ... and we just argued. thanks & all the best