37r7rudjduj

If orgs like Skeptical Science already exist and are influencing academia then why should the public assume that the advice of climate scientists is anything but political at this point? Laymen don't have the insight to make judgements about which scientists are quacks and which are just under fire from a cancel campaign. You can't expect to be treated with credibility while being this susceptible to outside influence and it's weird that there isn't a universal effort to identify and decry this sort of behavior within the field.

I wanted to say thanks for giving such a detailed reply. I still have some things that I'm unsure about as far as the framing of everything but having concrete examples like your point about your lowered risk of breast cancer is immensely helpful in understanding where I'm making social judgements vs. just being ignorant about the topic as a whole. It's often hard to get clear answers like yours because just phrasing these kinds of questions often feels like a minefield. So your patience in answering what I'm sure is an at least somewhat demeaning line of questioning is very appreciated and helps a lot in wrapping my head around this.

>Yet the concerns are that some under-13 users may lie to get around the age restrictions, and that the platform is not obtaining the required consent from those users’ guardians. <

I'm not really sure I see how this is a uniquely TikTok problem or why it's really news anymore from the angle the author is approaching the problem. I get it, I'm a millennial, we grew up with tv and parents telling us the internet is full of molesters (and there's a lot of those, don't get me wrong). But the social landscape children are /already/ operating in is so saturated with digital media that the idea the genie can be put away or wholly regulated at this point seems rediculous.

I've got a 14 year old half-brother who I try to chat with often since I know he wishes we were closer. From time to time he shares the sorts of things him and his friends do online with me and it's so far beyond what's in this story that it's hard to view the article's concerns as anything but quaint. By 11 tons of children are already on discord, snap, insta, tiktok, and whatever novelty app is trending at their school, many even start sooner. This is unretricted usage because, just like my generation when we were kids, Zoomers know that the golden rule of the internet is "Of course I'm 18" and when that's not enough most can come up with a scheme to spoof parental permission anyway.

I get that we're talking about age ranges where children are at wildly different points in their social development and that some do benefit from simply being told "no stay out", but if the goal is actually to provide useful protections for the children on these platforms then we need systems that provide escape hatches for people who get in too deep and not just walls to keep them out. What's more, strong enough walls mostly just encourages migration to new apps where monitoring is harder because no one but the kids is aware the scene has moved. I'm all for responsible app design but we can't attack this in the same way past generations have tried to, we already know a nontrivial amount of children will outmaneuver us and so we should incorporate that into the plan.

Can you elaborate on this more? I meant "sex" in the way that my physician would use the word. I'm aware of things like intersex conditions but, unless someone is actually intersex or otherwise complicated, your reply doesn't really answer my original question.

> The media has clearly latched onto a storyline of a mass exodus from American cities, but the reality is probably much more complex. <

But isn't the point of the article that San Francisco specifically is seeing an exceptional exodus? The story even mentions San Jose as a regional counter example to the observations being made of SF.

Something I feel isn't being acknowledged with online education is that brick and mortar schools are the worst people to be doing it. Traditional colleges have staffing levels geared around physical limitations after all. Assuming you can make online-only work even kind've well, won't it mean that staff who share course modules are suddenly redundant as a concept? I get that that's not bad in the efficiency sense but if you can run a college without the brick, mortar, and seating requirements, then why would anyone ever hire the same number of master and phd level academics when you could have people specialized in communicating the material following modules designed by a subset of the people in the mid and upper echelons of academia? It seems like if we ever get online-only working what we're going to see is a mass consolodation of high level programs.

I realize this might be rude but I'm not sure what the polite way to ask is, isn't your sex always your birth sex for the most part? Outside the effects of the medications and the cosmetic effects of the surgery isn't your body still mostly the same as far as the nuts, bolts, and genetic disorders, are concerned?