It's the linkedin writing style, the idea is to make a bland anecdote with some vapid "insights" sound interesting by making it all enthusiastic and breathless like a TED talk
Mate what were you hoping a kid would get out of Ingmar Bergman and Antiononi movies and Javascript? Imagine forcing a child to watch Red Desert lmao. And now you're writing off her curiosity because she's not interested in AI architecture or whatever. Let people develop their own interests jfc
I think you are confusing forced exposure to something with being exposed to something by choice. I did not force my daughter to watch Bergman and Antonioni; I was interested in their movies so I saw them, and she chose to be interested in what kept me interested. That is how we get our cultural knowledge passed down through generations of parents who do not simply consume whatever algorithmically generated media is served up to them.
You are setting the problem: you have assumed that for children to be introduced to anything other than the popular culture among their peers is always oppressive. And when you narrowed my references to Bergman, Kurosawa, Fellini, and Antonioni down to "Red Desert," you showed either that you are being dishonest or that you really don't know what you're dismissing when you dismiss all of these directors and their works.
Her access to everything included books, music, films from different genres and time periods, and she chose which things she wanted to pursue based on the options available to her. The fact that now she does not care about the architecture of artificial intelligence does not indicate that the exposure I provided to her earlier failed her, and this is precisely what I said could happen: teenagers are making their own choices, influenced by peer pressure and social forces, and that does not make the earlier exposure I gave her invalid or mean I should have given her an iPad at the age of 5 and called it autonomy. I’m not writing off her curiosity, which you would see had you read all the way to the end of my comment.
Given your username, I am not surprised that you are weak in nuanced thinking regarding exposure versus coercion.
I'm instantly suspicious of anything online that uses the "dopamine" buzzword. The name of the neurotransmitter seems to just be used to mean "good feeling" so the grifter writing the article can make their self help content or specious moralising sound scientific
I think you just made a lot of people aware of it. Although I doubt people care all that much, unlike you do.
It's pretty insulting; as if people don't have agency and can't form their own opinions. No, it can only happen due to some external boogeyman, which seems to be NAFO in your case.
I see 8 out of 195 "unknowns"which seems to be pretty good coverage. The remaining unknowns are things like serial verb constructions and reduplication, which are very uncommon in European languages. I'm not sure why these are uncoded but based on my knowledge of the methodology for Grambank it's possibly that these typological features aren't mentioned in any source. I agree it seems like these should be straightforward to code however, I'll ask someone
"it" has two functions in English. the first is what you described. The technical term is an anaphor, basically a "syntactic variable" pronoun that stands in for a previous noun phrase in subject or object position. This inspired anaphoric macros in Common Lisp: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaphoric_macro
The other function is as a dummy subject, as in "it rained", "it's cold". English grammar requires a subject (unlike many other languages, where a pronoun in subject position can be ommitted without the sentence becoming ungrammatical). So here "it" doesn't refer to anything, it's (haha) just there to fulfill a syntactic requirement
reply