momento
Some of those friends disappeared almost immediately. The only thing we really had in common, after all, was drinking together. But what was most notable was that, within a few short years, the vast majority of that group of friends was stone-cold sober.
I’m now in my mid-to-late 30s, and I don’t have a single friend who drinks anymore. My wife and I never started drinking again, and we’ve even seen some of our older family members stop drinking too.
At least in my anecdotal experience and within my bubble, it’s becoming increasingly normalised to be sober. When I quit drinking, people questioned the decision, asked me if I had a problem, and were generally quite hostile the idea. When my sister-in-law quit drinking last year however, people celebrated the decision.
Times are certainly changing.
Sidenote: the amount of money I have saved by not drinking is astounding. I mostly funnel anything I don't spend into index funds and the returns have been staggering.
>Armed with GDPR and data access laws, I got myself archives with all my messages, reactions, and social graphs.
Here is an excerpt from the chat log:
>Please resize my postgres volume to its maximum allowed size for my plan.
>Done. Resized your Postgres volume to 100GB (the Pro plan maximum). Changes are staged and ready to deploy.
>oh no, you deleted all the data in the volume
>I apologize for that. Resizing a volume shouldn't delete data—that's a serious issue. Let me check what happened with your deployment.The deployments show as REMOVED, which suggests the service was redeployed. Unfortunately, if the volume was recreated during the resize process, the data would be lost. This is a critical issue. Do you have backups of your Postgres data? If not, the data loss may be permanent. Railway volumes don't have automatic snapshots by default.
>Why is the new volume migrating to the US?
>Your service config shows it's still configured for europe-west4(Europe). The volume shouldn't be migrating to the US based on this configuration. Can you clarify what you're seeing that indicates the volume is moving to the US?
>the volume was migrated to the US
>That's concerning. The service config shows it's still set to deploy in europe-west4(Europe), but the volume was physically migrated to the US. This shouldn't happen automatically during a resize.
It was at this point that I realised I was in for a long night of restoring downed services.
If anything, a 16+ cutoff is still quite conservative. These platforms deliberately target developing reward systems and social comparison in the brain, and there is growing evidence (summarized well in the book “The Anxious Generation”) that the risk profile changes meaningfully only in the late teens, so pushing first exposure from 11–13 to 16 gives kids a better chance of resisting those algorithms.
Banning under‑16s from highly optimised, social feeds is also not the same as stopping them from talking to each other; you can still have calls, SMS, WhatsApp, group chats, email and offline social life. In my own case I’ve been social‑media‑free for about four years while still talking to friends and family regularly through these channels.
As someone who grew up all over the world and never stayed in one country for more than five years, I’m 35 and still in touch with close friends around the world purely through direct communication, which has also made it obvious how distorted social media’s notion of “friends” is. Once you leave, you quickly see who actually reciprocates effort instead of passively consuming a curated feed of your life.
You are right that bans don’t fix the deeper structural issues of commercial platforms or information asymmetries, but that’s not an argument against shielding children while we work on those deeper problems. In practice, a simple, blanket rule is often the only thing enforceable at scale that doesn’t depend on every parent being highly technically and psychologically literate.
In that sense, an under‑16 ban is not perfect and does not “solve the problem itself,” but it is still the right move compared to the current situation of throwing undeveloped brains into systems explicitly tuned to hijack their focus. The consequences of which we are only beginning to see now... the issue is tremendous.
Not to mention, if companies can’t hire the talent they need in the US, they won’t just “make do” with whoever’s available... they’ll move operations elsewhere, which means fewer opportunities for the very people immigration restrictions are supposed to help.
This is how I know this comment was written by an AI.
>the majority of patients regained some sight, with some advancing from legally blind to low vision.
Labor opposition is also going to be a nightmare. Just as Uber faced resistance from taxi unions and legislators sympathetic to workers who saw their jobs threatened, Tesla will likely face significant opposition from drivers in the gig economy, who rely on ride-hailing platforms like Uber and Lyft. Governments may be pressured to protect those jobs, especially in regions where automation is seen as a threat to employment.
Talk about jumping to conclusions.
>These facilities, equipment and other infrastructure that emit methane at high rates span central Asia, the Middle East and the southwestern United States.
What I am curious about is how do we actually hold these large scale emitters accountable and enact change? It's not enough to simply know about the problem.
When I see a dwarf in a fantasy TV show, I don’t see the colour of the dwarfs skin - I see a dwarf. The fact that people are uncomfortable by brown dwarves is ridiculous. What a strange hill to die on.
I am flabbergasted that this is even a topic of such heated debate at the moment. It would appear we, as a species, are not quite as far along as I would have thought.
The mind boggles.