scrion

Yes, but many things can be mapped to "language", let's say a grammar describing state machines, so it can be used to generate control actions.

Transformer models etc. are not only useful for conversational AI and translations.

I'd be fine with the approach as part of research advancing the field, but unfortunately, that's not what we're seeing.

The original paper might have other issues, e. g. https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2022/01/07/pnas-gigo-qrp-wtf-approaching-the-platonic-ideal-of-junk-science/

But I'm not here to discuss effect size or quality of sources, I think it is much more important to understand that there is no good proof that nudging enables people to make good, lasting changes, while at the same time offering policymakers an easy and cheap way out of applying uncontested, proven methods that would be a lot more beneficial.

Given that you quoted from the last paper, there was a response from Maier et al. to that paper explicitly, correcting for publication bias and finding no effect when "nudging":

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9351501/

The papers are listed at the bottom of the screenshot you posted, I agree it's badly formatted so not immediately obvious / visible.

However, I can provide sources later on, I actually still have to get back to another post to provide some papers, but it'll be a while until I have the time to do that.

No, it doesn't work - that is exactly the problem. If you don't want to listen to the podcast (which would be a shame), they list a number of studies in the show notes.

There are a few select cases for which personal nudges work, but only to a miniscule degree which is far less than what the authors claimed. And naturally, proposing nudge theory hinders actual, much more effective, systematic changes that would really benefit people - and that is a major problem.

It's a face, fake feel good strategy that can be employed to claim improving a given system - like attaching a little plastic string to the plastic cap of your beverage container so companies can claim to have improved the plastic littering problem.

Actually, don't read the books. The concept is pretty much made up. Here is an entertaining podcast about that:

https://pod.link/1651876897/episode/cc36ce12d2fd1a171630d1733998b414

Sorry, but that's simply not good advice. Nobody is born with perfect parenting skills and is granted all the answers. In fact, many parents are not fit to raise kids at all, others are simply overwhelmed and need help.

It's very easy to have a kid, not particularly easy to raise one. The idea that all your decisions are magically correct and sound just because it's your own kid and that every parent knows best is simply wrong. It's healthy to doubt yourself and to ask for advice.

Also, parenting science is not quackery. This is an actively researched area and there are real scientific efforts to better understand child development with respect to biology, psychology and neuroscience. These efforts do lead to a better understanding of how kids can be raised and how certain parental decisions might affect a child.

Personally, I'm happy each time parents try to inform themselves and seek the advice of others. That doesn't necessarily mean relying on the answers a bunch of strangers give on social media, but I hope the Fediverse as a whole can do better.

Right now, I can't make the claims you did in your post initially.

You're not causing permanent damage to a child by letting them sleep in your bed.

I wouldn't know that. Intuitively, I do believe that co-sleeping would have a lot of benefits up to a certain age, after the infant stage and dangers of SIDS have passed. However, I could easily imagine that there might be adverse effects after a certain age. Would it be likely to occur after a handful of times? Probably not. Are there any indications on the threshold maybe? Anything to look out for, given the kid might have anything else going on? Maybe. All information I would have on that subject would indeed be anecdotal though, and so in turn pretty useless. Why the dismissal of an honest attempt at getting educated?

I would indeed argue for getting an overview of what science has to say on the matter and then making an individual, informedndecision based on all the additional context I'd have as a parent that I could never cram into a couple of posts on the internet.

Having access to scientific publications, I'll see if I can provide some material later.

Congratulations, this is how you get exploited by corporations.

Unfortunately, it's probably not going to be an electric fan, but compressed air. Even more unfortunately, compressed air turns out to be a major cost factor due to the cost of running compressors, which might prevent adoption.

The original paper mentions blowing the caps out with an "air bomb", which I'm pretty sure is a mistranslation stemming from the French term "Bombe d’Air Comprimé", i. e. an air duster, a can of compressed air. In an industrial setting, you'd use a compressor for this, naturally.

A 4yo has no business having unrestricted access to media, let alone YouTube. Current recommendations are 20 to 45 minutes a day at that age, depending on country / organization.

YouTube has so much questionable content, kids shouldn't be in a position to be able to click next and consume that crap.

YouTube kids exists since 2015, but Elsagate happened around 2017/18, so I don't exactly trust their content moderation.

It is "up to two years", naturally, as mentioned in the article. I do agree two years is a span that is most likely rarely achieved, but I also remember that a single dose can basically cure* people of PTSD, so I do believe some people might be free of depression for 24 months if they processed their trauma / issues in a significant manner.

Please remember, studies that use psychedelics don't simply hand psychoactive substances to people and send them away, they do receive assistance (e. g. therapy) to process whatever issue they might have.

• again, along with therapy

This is not the only study that points to lasting relief from depression. Your experience is valid, but also anecdotal and not necessarily representative at large.