Tragedy of the Commons. It was around 2012 when my reactionary boomer relatives started trying to friend me on Facebook, wondering what the kids were all talking about.
Gambling is conventionally considered addictive, but the user isn't ingesting chemicals. I don't think a physical/non-physical binary really stands up under scrutiny. I mean, aren't all addictions physical insofar as they stimulate the body to produce neurotransmitters?
Plus, smoking doesn't kill people; its pathological outcomes do. Similarly, looking at a phone screen might hurt a user's eyes, but it won't kill them; however, the decisions that user makes over time due to the effects of the subject matter they interact with might definitely put them at risk. And if aspects of that subject matter are deliberately amplified for their addictive properties, should platforms be regulated to control this?
As someone who is deeply interested in writing, I drew an opposite conclusion after reading the article - these days, when I encounter an old book I like, I like that I can expect to find a lot of information about its publication history.
Thanks for posting this. I knew what Tushonka is from the game Escape from Tarkov, but like other Russian food items in that game, it's presented in a limited, practical context, so it was cool to learn more about it.
What is this assumption based on? It sounds political.
Are LGBTQ people at a higher risk for suicide? Could hotline staff reduce suicide attempts with special training? Seems like you could measure this.
Thinking about other groups with a higher risk--veterans, abuse survivors, gambling addicts--are there suicide prevention programs for these groups and are they effective?
There was actually a study done on this [0] that found LGBTQ youth are around four times as likely to attempt suicide compared to their non-LGBTQ peers.
> Thinking about other groups with a higher risk--veterans, abuse survivors, gambling addicts--are there suicide prevention programs for these groups and are they effective?
For veterans in the US, at least, there are specific programs targeting them since they do have a disproportionately high level of suicides and suicide attempts compared to the general population.
I've lost the point of dead trees entirely. My disenchantment is the result of moving many times over the years and lugging a once-huge but now dwindled collection of books, along with being able to send library books straight to my e-reader. If anything, my reading volume has picked up over the years due to the convenience of the small device.
I no longer buy printed books, but I do keep a few favorites around on a shelf because they look cool and remind me of my favorite reading experiences. I still have my Asimov's SF and comics, though. I'll never give those up.
There's research[1] suggesting readers of physical books have greater reading comprehension than readers of eBooks. Anecdotally, I feel that describes me well.
That we index information related to physical pagination is very plausible to me. Maybe an analogy would be to having to listen to full albums by flipping a record or cassette instead of listening to tracks on a streaming music playlist.
I do find that I read faster on an e-reader.
I think my only contradictory point would be: what is the aesthetic value of indexing information or reading more immersively? Surely there is one, but there may be a qualitatively different value in reading quickly but exposing oneself to more text. For example, I read the entirety of William Gibson's works last year. They went by in a blur, but I did find the speed of encountering his ideas through his novels ironically fitting for his subject matter.
