Let me guess, looking at a large screen on a desk?
This really raises the moral question of what are people supposed to do with their time. If you have the means to care for yourself, who's to judge you for what you do with your time? If you choose to not have a family or not participate in your community or give back to the world in any way, is an addiction really a problem? If you're choosing to not have a healthy productive life, is an addiction to drugs or gambling or sex or social media detrimental to anything?
I've never met anyone with an apparent addiction - and I've met quite a few in my day - that were completely happy with the life they were leading. Probably because real addiction entails a loss of control that would be detrimental to your life and self-esteem. Even if you have no one around you, if you want to do anything else with your day besides drink and you constantly fail, it's not a good thing for your mental health. You'd continuously find yourself in degrading situations.
Coming to terms with "choice" in the context of addiction is a difficult thing to me. I'm really not sure where I stand on it. It's definitely not the same as making decisions when completely sober, you're not completely helpless or without personal responsibility either.
And then some people seem to be able to consume copious amounts of drugs or alcohol at some time in their life and then just walk away from it without issues. Perhaps it's genetics, or a personality thing, who knows.
What you're describing doesn't sound like an addiction, no, but does that mean no one is or could be addicted to their phone?
Who could be surprised when the actual title of the site is clickbait to begin with?
I take it you don't know about Napoleon II and III? Or even Napoleon Dynamite?
No, you have to tell women that your hobby is "listening".
I'm the opposite, Animals and Piper at the Gates of Dawn are the only Pink Floyd albums I like.
Byrne began drawing X-men in 1977 (Uncanny X-men #108), and the brown suit was introduced in #139 (nov 1980) so 70s is definitely your best bet here. (This is 100% a Byrne panel.)
Edit: I had a hunch and found the issue, it's from #125 september 1979, page 6 ("The perils of the Danger Room!").
Even cnailshells would have to adhere to the basic laws of conchology though
I mean, it could be a manual photoshop job.
It could, but the double spiral in the shell indicates AI to me. Snail shells don't grow like that. If it was a manual job, they would have used a picture of a real shell.
Edit: plus the cat head looks weird where it connects to the head, and the markings don't look right to me.
You're probably correct, although I also think once an addictive pattern is established there's often a kind of feedback loop where the pattern interferes with your ability and options to have a better life.
I guess there's a few ways to answer that question. In an extremely literal sense, no one is ever going to be diagnosed with anything if their behavior doesn't affect themselves or others around them negatively. But if we define addiction as a certain behavioral pattern, this person would still be addicted to their phone given that this behavioral pattern is present. Do they "play video games or doom scroll or watch porn" every day simply because they're bored, or because they can't help themselves? And if an opportunity arose and this person's life had a chance to turn significantly better somehow, would this behavior stand in their way?
I'm not saying I know the answer, by the way, and I'm certainly not judging anyone in this kind of situation.