sosodev

This is such a reductive perspective. Yes, plenty of bad things have happened on Omegle. Likewise plenty of beautiful things have happened on there too.

The “it’s dangerous we’re better off without it” line of thought tends to reduce most things to bland nothingness. One could argue that Lemmy is dangerous in the same way. Children could see terrible things or meet terrible people here. But does that mean it shouldn’t exist?

I too met my wife on Omegle. It was in text chat. We were both around 14 years old at the time. I don’t remember what talked about but we ended up exchanging phone numbers. We texted for years and would sometimes play video games together.

Eventually towards the end of high school I was able to fly out to visit her. I did that a few times and was totally convinced at the point I was in love. So I moved across the country to be with her after graduation.

Married and few years ago and we’re 27 now so it’s been 13 years since we met on there. :)

That’s not really what the article says but ok. I like that you immediately assume I don’t know what an IQ test is lol.

Alright, so I did some reading of the research.

The attention part is “The task is to cross out all target characters (a letter “d” with a total of two dashes placed above and/or below), which are interspersed with nontarget characters (a “d” with more or less than two dashes, and “p” characters with any number of dashes).”

The participants are usually given 20 seconds per line and a total of 10 minutes. A controlled environment where the only thing you can do is this task seems like it measures some kind of attention but it might be not be generalizable.

I think the problem is that attention means a lot of different things. Often when people complain about lack of attention it’s within the context of the many distractions we have in the modern world.

So the scientific claim is “adult participants have gotten moderately better at the d2 attention task” but the article says “people are paying more attention”. To me that seems like clickbait from what is otherwise a reasonable meta analysis.

I have a hard time believing that an IQ test is a serious measure of attention.

I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make. It seems like what you’re saying doesn’t follow the conversation logically. I think that’s why the other commenter asked if you’re ok.

Industry standard by massive corporations synonymous with corporate greed. Boy am I glad the fee decreases after $10m in sales. That will go a long way with helping out indie devs.

It’s okay to like Steam because they’ve provided us with a good way of purchasing and playing games. I like Steam but we don’t have defend things that are obviously greedy.

Does it? I love answering questions and I answered yours

I don’t know but I can tell you something about fish that’s pretty interesting. In northern parts of the world like Scandinavia there’s not much UV radiation during winter months. Our bodies need UV to produce vitamin D and we can have serious health defects (like rickets) without it.

At some point it was recognized that eating fish, particularly those rich in Vitamin D, made people much healthier. So it was codified into their culture and traditions to eat these healthy fish. Often with preparations that would preserve the fish and its vitamin D content throughout the winter.

The dates in the article confuse me because they say the fossils are related to the great oxidation event but it’s not clear how long after. Also, they make a relative date to another date that doesn’t seem to be provided.

Edit: Reading the linked source it’s clear that the fossil is dated to around 2.3-2.4 billion years ago. It does seriously suggest that complex multicellular life existed then. Very cool!

I knew a goth girl in high school who was into blood play. She wanted to be cut during sex. I don’t think she was otherwise into self-harm which is interesting.

All humans? No. There are plenty of people who couldn’t care less what you want to know.