right, i kind of used the word “referenced” there intentionally, since the actual article would likely cite an actual academic publication which speaks on the matter
thanks for the info!
spujb
joined 11 months ago
this PDF will probably be referenced in the “genocide denial” article in the not-too-distant future
this format of headline needs to die.
“coming to your appliances” no the hell it’s not it’s coming to appliances on the market. which you can choose to buy, or install the app onto.
feels like fatalist manipulation tactics to subconsciously get you to accept that replacing appliances every two years is normal.
to cry i don’t do well under pressure
oversalt my soup 😔
bad comment, not a UK problem. this is c/science not “c/attack a nation people group because the study happened to be conducted in the UK”
The work tallies with previous research by economists including Nicholas Papageorge,who examined longitudinal studies in the UK and US in 2019 and found that “externalising” behaviour linked to aggression and hyperactivity was associated with lower educational attainment but higher earnings. (from the article)
uncomfortable with this being the headline and seems like without further research this could just be one of those confirmation bias things. seems to make some assumptions that we don’t know empirically such as:
- teachers in the 1980s were a good judge of character, fairly identifying who bullies whom
- that this aggressive behavior at 10 years old continues meaningfully into later life
not denying the scientific accuracy of the study, but the journalist integrity of making this the headline.
edit: you can read the original article here, and yeah the actual text of the summary vindicates my judgment of the Guardian article. the original authors frame it as an analysis of “socio-emotional skills,” not agression per se, because again, these kids are ten, not even in high school yet.
i don’t think you know what those words mean in that second part but you are right in that it’s wild to see a guy like this say the truth before sanders or aoc
also, there are absolutely other ways to regulate technology, especially since it’s a tech that’s being bought and sold.
“monitor every computer” is emphatically not the only solution ? and it’s weird that they suggested that lol
it’s not the “making one” that’s a problem. it’s the making, optimizing and rabid marketing of one in the service of capital instead of humans.
if only a bunch of open source, true non-profits released language models, the landscape might still suck but would be distinctly less toxic.
and if the government (or even a decently sized ngo standards entity) had worked proactively with computer scientists to find solutions like watermarking, labor replacement protections, and copyright protections, things might be arguably perfect. not one of those things happened and so further into the hellscape we descend.
(someone smarter than me correct me if im wrong but) in this case it’s considered a non-primary source since the article is citing what the WJC said about Wikipedia (their criticism), not the WJC’s original research on the subject.
disclaimer have edited wikipedia maybe once in my life, only a small clue what im talking about