People must come up with new characters because they lack their own script. You can either have a script adapted to your language, or make the best of what you’ve got.
English doesn’t. Bernard Shaw tried inventing new letters. I guess that changing the English alphabet os a slippery slope. If you make it as phonetic as the Latin script is meant to be, and with special characters, people would have to relearn how to read from scratch
If people followed the alphabetic principle for English, the written language would become unintelligible due to all of the regional variations in pronunciation causing there to be many variations of the same words.
English has between 16 and 22 vowels (iirc) depending on the variety. English speakers that use a different set of vowels than each other often cannot understand each other at all at speed.
Color and colour are different pictures of the same word.
Ask people how many different vowels there are in this set of words: trap, bath, palm, lot, cloth, thought. Most English speakers will make out two-four vowels from those 6 words. But they won't agree on which words share the same vowels.
There are other phonological differences between English dialects, but for the most part you can notate them as sounds that merely some dialects don't distinguish (e.g., nonrhotic dialects dropping the `r' sound).
That's not a pronunciation difference though. Almost all english dialects and regional accents pronounce that word very similarly. It's just an introduced spelling difference for aesthetics.
When I discovered fingerprinting, I tried tinkering with every single bit of information possible, but it was hopeless.
The error lies in the candid nature of software developers, who couldn’t imagine a world in which every human thought or interaction could be economically exploitable. Why does my browser have to give away so much information?
Our generations of the last 10,000 years are seeing how the story decays.
When the food supply was abundant, families would jog every day doing BBQ every night hunting down mammoths
We have become red in tooth and claw. At the summit of civilisation, we are alienated with our screens, licking frozen TV dinners in our shared flat while we work hard to support our landlords
As long as we have surviving records people have been saying the past was golden and the present is decay with a long list of the present ills which are the downfall of the glorious past. It's a boring take and has been incorrect for thousands of years and will continue to be. Arguments about how some list of things haven't been on a monotonic increase during the last generation do not refute this.
It’s always a good moment to remember that it must still be proven that ice creams are not good for your health.
The nutritionists who have tried to prove that evident theory have all admitted that the health benefits of the ice cream are akin to those of the yogurt.
Edit: even though, I’m avoiding emulsifiers like e-471, e-472 and so on.
> The nutritionists who have tried to prove that evident theory have all admitted that the health benefits of the ice cream are akin to those of the yogurt.
That doesn't sound like they "admitted" to anything. It can at the same time have the health benefits of yogurt, and be bad for you.
In the particular case of ice cream, what makes you think it's healthy despite the high calorie and sugar content? All I could find was a study from 2018 [0], which specifically investigated diabetes 2 patients (who are very conscious about their sugar intake) and didn't control for the rest of their diet. Any claim that the amounts of sugar in ice cream are net beneficial for you will need extraordinary amounts of evidence.
*Rethinking evidence from BYU researchers adds nuance to that message, suggesting not all sugar sources carry the same risk. In the largest and most comprehensive meta-analysis of its kind, BYU researchers—in collaboration with researchers from Germany-based institutions—found that the type and source of sugar may matter far more than previously thought. Researchers analyzed data from over half a million people across multiple continents, revealing a surprising twist: sugar consumed through beverages—like soda and even fruit juice—was consistently linked to a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes (T2D). Meanwhile, other sugar sources showed no such link and, in some cases, were even associated with a lower risk. “This is the first study to draw clear dose-response relationships between different sugar sources and type 2 diabetes risk,” said Karen Della Corte, lead author and BYU nutritional science professor. “It highlights why drinking your sugar—whether from soda or juice—is more problematic for health than eating it.” https://news.byu.edu/intellect/rethinking-sugar-byu-study-sh...
This is pretty well-accepted as far as I'm aware — but I don't think anyone has sufficiently shown that the sugar in ice cream is less risky than sugar in, say, fruits or yogurt (which often has 5-10x less!)
AFAIK, the leading theory is also that this is because fruits have other ingredients that help process the sugar — whereas ultra-processed food like ice cream doesn't, especially if there are added sugars.
You can't just freeze a soda, eat it, and then expect it to be healthy.
Fruits mostly have much less sugar period, it's not really other ingredients that help process it. (Unless you over-ingest them by juicing, in which case OJ can be just as bad as Coke.) And yogurt is often full of just as much sugar as ice cream.
The main theory around why ice cream doesn't show the negative effects is that the sugar is mostly trapped in a fat matrix that takes a long time to break apart and therefore to digest and release the sugars. So there's very little harmful sugar spike in the blood, and the carb intake surprisingly becomes more akin to e.g. slow-digesting unprocessed whole grains (obviously without benefits of fiber or other whole-grain nutrients).
Of course it's also very different if we're talking about plain chocolate ice cream, vs filled with ribbons of caramel and chocolate-coated candy pieces, which will produce sugar spikes. And of course it's also not accounting for overeating, ice cream or not. If you eat calories you don't need, it's going to make you fat no matter whether it's ice cream or something else.
I put 3 sugar cubes in my coffee every day. So I divide the weight of the box of sugar cubes and it results in 1 sugar cube = 3.5 grams. Thats 10.8 grams per 12 oz of coffee.
A 12oz can of Dr. Pepper soda has 40 grams of sugar. Divided by my aforementioned mass per cube, it yields 11 sugar cubes.
Either I messed up the math or soda is crazy; i can't imagine munching down 11 sugar cubes in one sitting.
I do. And I make my own pistachio ice cream with eggs. It’s basically a “crème brûlée” with milk cream so my kid gets to eat eggs, which are essential for your health
Everyone wants to think it’s BlackRock instead of the reality that the reason housing shortages exist is to protect the retirement nest egg of Boomers, ie their house equity, by making it effectively illegal to build housing. Sorry to say it’s not a cartoon capitalist villain, but instead your neighbors trying to protect their (inflated) “home value”.
Newborn Stroller babies are not asking to be looking at a tablet. It’s the parents.
Newborn Babies do not ask to watch YouTubes while being fed ultra-processed food.
It’s the parents who purchase all those electronic devices to their children. I gather that they do it because shutting them off is illegal and irreversible
I’m raising two kids right now (4 & 6) and I agree with them. Strollers with built-in tablets are abhorrent and shitty parenting.
Learning how to be ‘bored’ is an important part of growing up, and any parent that is not teaching their children that lesson is failing their children.
When I was a kid and got bored I roamed the creek or biked miles around. Sometimes even with a real or bb gun.
All these things now end in arrest or investigation or at the least a Karen stirring up shit, unless you are real rural. I weep for today's kids. You can do almost nothing nowadays what I did as a kid unless your parents are rich enough to not work and accompany you. The parents want to let their boredom drive them to discover the world, but they usually can't. Instead they're locked in with a tablet where a Karen can't snitch on them for being a kid.
This is such a lost experience. I was a “free range kid” well before that term was coined. It was wonderful. I occasionally got in trouble, but mostly I explored the world and learned a lot.
A student recently asked me if I was ever bored. I said no. They had a hard time believing me. I pointed out that the world is endlessly interesting if you just look at it. This table— who made it? Why was it made this way? What is it made from? How was THAT made? And so on. Even dirt is fascinating. I remember biology teacher demonstrating with a microscope that a small sample of soil contains countless microbes…
I hope that people will eventually grow out of the fascination with online/social media, but I am not optimistic. But if they do, come join the rest of the folks who are having fun in the real world.
I don’t think we should raise ‘fun in the real world’ on a pedestal higher than ‘fun in the digital world’. The problem isn’t whether the fun is digital or real, the problem is that the digital fun isn’t really fun, but drugs. Real drugs aren’t legal, and the same should be true for their digital equivalent.
There's been pushback against this, 8 states have passed “Reasonable Childhood Independence” laws since 2018, Georgia in the last few days, and more will.
There are still places where you can experience these things without "Karen" ruining your life. Smaller towns basically anywhere provide the statistical cover you are looking for. When you dial the density up to a certain threshold, these people become unavoidable.
I have a 5 year old, it takes effort to not expose them to phones and tablets, it's a conscious choice. We even avoid them when driving for a couple of hours, instead she can draw in a coloring book or we can play disney songs on the radio. It's all habits, how come our kid can sit alone in the back seat for an hour and not make a fuss, but her cousin needs mom to sit with her in the back seat for even a short drive. Mostly what I observe is parents using phones as a pacifier when they need the kid to sit still for awhile.
Yeah gotta love those 'cool' parents who even brag how they easily travel with small kids in their cars for a long time. Then you look at the car and of course there is a tablet in front of each kid.
'Bbbut kids then cry and scream!' Well yeah, thats how you raised them overall, don't expect miracles suddenly, world doesn't revolve around you and certainly kids don't.
Fyi our small kids (3 and 5) can handle that 'boredom' of day-long travel without any device just fine. But its due to them being raised without screens, and their parents not being constantly glued to same thing. So they just watch the country go by, go through a book or two, draw with pencil on paper (yes, its still a thing), we talk to them and entertain them and so on.
Your kids are soon going to notice the glowing entrancing screen that other kids (their friends) have access to, and they will absolutely hate you for denying them the same fun. Tale as old as time.
Admittedly not my kids, but my experience of how "tablet/phone banned" kids actually act in that case is "why are these other kids being so boring"
But these kids are pretty well looked after, 24/7 parent available, high engagement parenting. The kids just find stuff in the real world to do. They get 30 minutes of "group" screen time a day, as in the family sits down together and watches something.
I have the same feeling when I see adults on their phones to be honest, and I'm quite introverted. Just feels like a sterile community to be in.
