The kids? I mean sure, they too - but seriously... It's not just the kids that have been affected.

Things have been spiralling out of control ever since social media was introduced.

Ever more extreme positions are being agreed as the norm, and what had previously been the norm is being decried as evil itself.

I'm an atheist myself but I cannot help but think that a lot of our western issues is because we generally no longer see the world from the lens of religion.

Evil has lost its meaning, and people started randomly selecting other behaviors as "evil", and excusing actual evil deeds like rape, murder etc because "reasons".

This has opened up social media to become a echo chamber of ever increasing insanity.

I'm not seeing things get better through initiatives like that. I suspect things are gonna keep spiralling more and more out of control until we end up in a dystopia in which the populus looses a lot of their rights. And not in the too far future either, I'm almost certain I'll witness it before I grow old.

I don’t think I agree with your take around religion or ‘evil’. (Imo two big advantages of religion we are currently or will soon be wanting for society are firstly the social/community component and secondly the idea that one can lead a worthy and fulfilling life through acting virtuously and faithfully, rather than through the worth implied by educational or career achievements, which are often a rough proxy for certain kinds of intelligence, that are neither evenly distributed across the population nor easily changed, and which may become unimportant as machines outcompete us there)

Nah to me it's more about a loss of connection with the physical world, les slowing down, less being bored. Without that, it's a different reality and I think studying requires that kind of brain. Otherwise you're just flitting this way and that and never really focusing.

People can't even discuss about any politics anymore.

Back in Obama's days there were always interesting discussions in the political threads and they were rarely insta flagged. And it was mostly nuances wrt business needs and what that means for our societies. The PRISM news also frequently got heated, and still stayed somewhat technical.

Extremely noticable compared to the platform it is today.

Tbf though, HN always had a few topics it was extremely irrational about.

Eg Apple since the start and Musk post 2012...

As one of the users that moved to HN when Reddit closed access to third party apps it’s also quite literally this. I apologize for any reduction in quality of discourse I might have caused.

If you're only after the lifting benefits, 3-5g/day is sufficient.

Title:

> Creatine promotes cancer metastasis through activation of Smad2/3

Tldr is basically that creatine helps body cells (in rats) to grow. Regardless wherever they're bad (cancer) or good (muscle). At least that's how I understood that study the last time I came across it. So probably stop using creatine when you've a cancer that's growing. Or its liable to use the creatine to turbocharge it's growth

But inversely, unless you actually go above 10, eg 15... The blood saturation isn't enough for your brain to take advantage of it.

But there is very little studied about sustained use of such a dosage. (Only short term - eg 1 week - which isn't long enough for the benefits again)

It's safe enough for anecdotes of people doing it for years and not having issues - but despite others claiming that it's well studied, it's really not - at least not with dosages above 5g in humans.

Personally I've been doing so for a year now and can unquestionably confirm a strong effect, which goes away if I reduce the dosage below the threshold. So at least my body responds to it.

But you're not getting a proper study unless you get thousands of people to take it for years... Which is basically impossible as there are too many confounding factors to get meaningful results.

And organizing such a study is gonna be too expensive too, with no sponsors willing to take up the tab

I've already written and edited this comment a lot, but as a final remark I'd like to point out that the benefits I'm referencing is having an easier time concentrating. This can also be a demerit, as you can easily be caught thinking about something for pretty long before you realize.

Taking it 2 weeks is not a big investment, and by that time you'll know whenever it works for your body or not.

The thing that's unclear is wherever there are long term health issues when taking a lot of creatine over months and years - but with it being so cheap and highly available by countless cheap brands, astroturfing initiatives would be highly unlikely.

Which option seems preferable to you?

The stated reason for the "terrorist" title was not them being not-rich. It was facilitating a platform which hosted organizations which behave on the extreme end - because it's privacy centered and those elements obviously want that.

If would be a valid discussion point wherever that justifies setting the whole platform on fire, but the way you're making the point ultimately sabotages your message.

The first and most evident is that the reason is false. That hosting provider makes it clear in its ToS that extremist groups aren't allowed, and when one is detected they actively ban those accounts. They've show documental proof of both.

The second is that it violates the first amendment of the US's own constitution, which uses universal language, not discriminating between citizens and non-citizens, nor between inside and outside US territories, nor between nationals and foreigners. So any federal US action trying to prevent people anywhere from saying anything they want between themselves, and with people in the US, is, in principle at least, out of bounds.

>We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Although more generally I do believe even without the preamble it would still be implied that the US government does not have jurisdiction over the entire planet. We would never be able to invade a foreign country if their government was entitled to third-amendment and fourth-amendment rights.

    > The second is that it violates the first amendment of the US's own constitution, which uses universal language, not discriminating between citizens and non-citizens, nor between inside and outside US territories, nor between nationals and foreigners.

If you take this universalist interpretation, that would mean it's fine for US citizens to truck guns into Canada (which they can't, but they still occasionally do, largely for much more boring reasons than believing there's a constitutional justification) with no restrictions because the implication is that the US constitution supersedes other laws in other countries.

It is, however, against the spirit of the document, and it's arguably an abuse of the existing framework of sanctioning organizations which take part in terrorist efforts. It's another case of the US legal system falling short because of an assumption of good faith by those in power.

This is why, for example, the US gives itself the right to tax people in other countries. If those people happen to be Americans, the US enforces that by threatening them with this or that the moment they step back anywhere the US has enforcement means. This is also why the UK tries to enforce its censorship laws on US companies, why my country tries to enforce our censorship laws on SpaceX, and so on.

Hence, if the US considers itself capable and allowed to enforce this and that law internationally, it follows that the supreme law that governs all those more limited laws also applies internationally unless a specific point in it says otherwise (and several do, so this delimitation is in fact meaningful and coherent).

    > Every country believes its laws apply universally

Canada has the Canada Health Act, which describes the specifics of what provinces and territories must provide in terms of public health services, and how, and how those health services are funded, how the money gets disbursed, and how the money gets reimbursed by various parties within the system. It would be absurd to think that the expectation of anyone in the Canadian government is that this should apply worldwide.

The UK has the Highway Code, which describes a number of driving laws, restrictions, conventions, and requirements of drivers, among them, their (at this point rare) left-hand drive rule. Do they expect that to be enforced universally? Do they have some kind of plan to power-project onto the rest of the world with that by having agents of their government travel abroad to, say, France, Mexico, or South Korea, and ticket people for driving on the right?

The same goes, I suppose, for the UK code you refer to. I imagine the British legislators specified clearly what roads are under its control. If not, then yes, that's the expectation, exactly like is happening right now with their censorship laws.

To learn more on this Google for the quite famous phrase "Parliament can criminalize smoking on the streets of Paris”. You're going to either double facepalm, or be horrified, if not both.

It's essentially the xr-glasses /vr glasses category. Plenty of options around on stores

Not a big deal if you're basically the only developer and handroll the process - but poly repositories make release and dependency management a lot more straightforward to wrangle

I'm not questioning it. I know it does. I just cannot wrap my head around it beyond the initial marketing angle (you cannot be interested in an article unless you know it exists).

Eg I like to watch some pretty mainstream creators like mkbhd. Never was I actually interested in any of the products he pitched. Literally every marketing $ spent on him that ultimately reached my eyeballs was entirely wasted by the sponsors

After all the delivery is different.

With traditional advertising you're being sold a fantasy. The advertisment is usually produced so you're self-inserting yourself into the production. So when you're seeing the fit and good looking cowboy smoking a Marlboro... You subconsciously think: that's who I wanna be, and consequently may be more likely to buy it.

Influencer marketing is however inherently contextualized to the para social relationship between the viewer and the creator. The people that buy the product do so because "their" creator told them about it.

At least that's been the feeling I've got on every sponsorship pitching to date. It's aimed at people that want to get closer to the Creator. At least in their head.

eh, i'll bet there is a single person that read your comment and had no idea who that creator was, searched for their name, watched their videos, and eventually bought something

second- and third-order derivatives of a social impulse are difficult to track

Sorry couldn't resist ( ･ั ﹏ ･ั )

Not sure what you didn't understood in their comment though, maybe the raph loop (and jev which was just released)? Isn't the rest completely self explanatory?