I remember diagramming being covered once, maybe 5th grade, and not sure it was addressed again.
I seem to have ended up with a very strong "sense" for correct english (though I know some parts where I'm weak; and also my online "post a comment" style stuff ends up full of shorthands...). I presume that my "being good at catching grammatical weirdness" comes from several schoolyears learning German, and being a voracious bookworm as a kid.
Curious if that sort of situation is also the case for others who weren't heavily taught diagramming but still feel they ended up being really good at correct written English.
Defo. I had always had a good implicit knowledge of grammar in my L1, due to early and extensive reading, so synthesising "correct" utterances was never an issue. However, it wasn't until I started learning an L2, and had to explicitly revisit even simple structures, that the light went on and from then on I was able to easily analyse my L1 as well.
oof - this article is pushing bad advice - general disclaimer: use a third party authentication system like Okta or Cognito. It's going to save you so much grief down the road. They pretty much all use the same pattern (OIDC), so you just need to learn it once, and you're good for at least another decade. Authentication is one of the easiest and most important things to take off of your plate. Do it.
Contrarian view - the programs are working. Rates of smoking among teens over the past three decades:
Ever used nicotine: 70.1% in 1991 to 17.8% in 2021;
Occasional use of nicotine: 27.5% in 1991 to 3.8% in 2021;
Frequent use of nicotine: 12.7% to 0.7%;
Daily use of nicotine: 9.8% in 1991 to 0.6% in 2021
I suspect the same can be said for workplace sexual harassment and outlooks on diversity. I agree that the programs are dumb and the trainings are dumb, but they have an effect.
I think that can be chalked up to other changes like the wild increases in cigarette prices, the near elimination of advertising, and cigarettes becoming culturally uncool (orthogonal to DAREs attempts). Your link shows that during the heyday of these campaigns usage rates were still rising. They didn't really drop until after the approach was dialed back, and they dropped most appreciably after DARE gave up on anti-drug messages entirely.
The message of the article wasn't that you can't discourage drug use at all, it's that the means may be counterproductive. The means used in DARE were counterproductive.
It seems more plausible (to me) that this is the result of the cultural 'quarantine' of smoking and not the efficacy of the "don't smoke" programs in schools per se. The entertainment industry in the US aggressively committed to not showing cigarettes in a cool or positive light, and to me this seems way more likely to have driven these reductions in youth smoking. In the 80s pretty much any person a 13 year old would call 'cool' could be seen smoking somewhere. Now media uses cigarettes to either indicate that a movie is happening in the past or that a character is self-destructive. With the cultural cachet gone, or greatly reduced, I think what you're seeing is mostly 'background' smoking rates: kids smoking specifically for the effects of nicotine, or because it's a taboo-breaking behavior. Not because their parents and every celebrity smoke. This dynamic also explains the rise of e-cigs, IMO. Kids love streamers and influencers, and streamers and influencers vape nic. Now kids vape nic.
This isn't contrarian, this is just correct and well understood. What's contrarian is the article suggesting that any attempts to change people's behavior, no matter how well intentioned thought-out, actually result in the opposite of the desired outcome.
While the statement "kids are smoking less cigarettes" is correct, not sure if that's proof that the programs are working. Naturally, teens are filling the void of cigarettes with vapes and e-cigs, seeing as 26% of high school students (https://www.singlecare.com/blog/news/vaping-statistics/) have vaped.
Whether the programs are working or not is more of a debate, but don't want this cherry picked stat to go untouched.
Generally correct, especially if it's too subtle for the varied age groupings and interests - everyone's hair-triggered to get butthurt about some triviality. Eventually the adults will show up in most threads and will occasionally be bothered to correct the karma injustice.
I don’t think people check karma scores. (I never do.) More likely it’s a factor of being on the site long enough to learn what jokes you can slip in without getting downvoted. That would correlate strongly with karma and good reputation.
Yeah that was silly, but aren't all of the new iPhone cameras 3D cameras? People take photos/videos all of the time. Now you can immerse yourself in them. I think it's pretty cool
Presumably the current and next iPhone Pros can capture 3D video.
I don’t know why this wouldn’t have been ridiculous, because it really is ridiculous to suggest this would be worn by a parent during a young child’s happy birthday singing and blowing out the candles.
This idea seemed like way too much of a stretch for this intro. They had to know this, so I am very curious what the reasoning was for why they included it.
> I don’t know why this wouldn’t have been ridiculous, because it really is ridiculous to suggest this would be worn by a parent during a young child’s happy birthday singing and blowing out the candles.
Do you not remember the 1970s-1980s, when "filming home movies" meant resting a 50lbs camcorder on your shoulder and looking through the eyepiece in a way that blocks anyone from seeing 75% of your head?
This was also my thought. My grandparents had a Panasonic VHS camcorder in the 80s. Everyone in the family took turns sharing it. I can see people using Vision Pro in a similar way to film short segments of family events in 3D.
Too bad we now live in the 2020s where no one wants to do that or look stupid doing that. A camera strapped to your face and you having to move your own face/body to zoom into something is way more ridiculous than the camcorders of those eras.
People generally didn't want to look stupid back then, either.
But dads finding ways to combine "being excited about their kids" with "nerding out about new technology" have eternally been the exception to the "people don't want to look stupid" rule.
That was literally the only way to capture video back then. Everyone has infinitely better cameras in their pocket, notice how few people buy and use video cameras outside of professional or hobbyist creators.
Current iPhone Pros? How would they? Their cameras are super close together and different focal lengths (or whatever the correct term is for "they're 1x, 3x and 0.5x").
I share your immediate skepticism that wearing one of these during any moments you'd like to relive later seems preposterous. May as well just be DVRing the "moments" with your goggles and be watching a movie on the inside, because that's how present you would seem. Unless the entire family all had their goggles on ("Apple Vision Pro Family, starting at $9,999!") and you are all actually experiencing a remote moment virtually!
> because it really is ridiculous to suggest this would be worn by a parent during a young child’s happy birthday singing and blowing out the candles.
I see people keep repeating this, but why is that? Most people take videos / photos on their phone, and because of that their eyes don't actually see the event happening, they are just looking at it through the screen. With this you'd actually be able to record while also not focusing on your screen but looking at them.
I don’t mean to make this personal, but have you raised a kid?
If someone is holding up an iPhone taking a video, especially up close it is a distraction.
Depending on how much they are aware of it and the person’s self consciousness, it can really take away from or alter a moment to have it so obviously recorded.
Kids can be extremely perceptive and sensitive.
Our kid is not even two and there is a subtle change when a phone is obviously out, pointed at them and capturing them.
I know it’s always better to interact without a phone in sight.
I still capture a lot of great stuff but sometimes something is so special I can’t bring myself to disrupt it by trying to record. My wife and I will look at each other and know something truly amazing is happening and both just live the moment.
Looking at the Apple Vision, as it is at launch—-it looks disruptive to both the subject and the wearer in the circumstances I’ve described above.
Perhaps in time they will become so ubiquitous a headset like this will be noticed as little as a smartphone.
But at the start, especially with the price and production volume expected this is very likely be an unusual thing to see around in the world.
Yet in the example Apple showed it appeared to be taken very, very close to the action.
I’d guess if someone tries to do this it will cause all the other kids to be looking at you, not your kid during their special moment.
Yeah but more importantly the post suggests there are likely terrestrial explanations which obey the laws of physics as we understand them contrary to what's been depicted in the media recently.
I want to believe, but I agree with the author of the post that we need to see some evidence that's outside of the "Low Information Zone"
There's always been possible terrestrial explanations, but those explanations are as concerning (if not more concerning) than actual aliens, which is why these things remain so compelling.
