Lots of stretching here. The paper uses simulations of microtubules to show quantum effects when tryptophan residues are excited by UV light. The paper only did simulations of microtubules, and those simulations did not include the bends and many many dynein molecules found on microtubules. The reason this is important is that researchers have been hitting every biomolecule with UV excitation for decades, including microtubules, and have never observed this effect.

A key finding missing from this video is that microtubules are dynamic. They are constantly disassembling and reassembling and recycling components. This occurs at very short timescales. Also, they do not bridge cell membranes. If information is passing through networks of microtubules, it is constantly disrupted and not affecting other cells. Synapses do handle cell-cell information transfer (where the role of microtubules is already well studied and not quantum in nature). Why would quantum microtubule information be limited to a single cell? Maybe it could influence coordinated assembly and disassembly at the termini, but the authors offer no evidence that there is any chemical effect of this quantum phenomenon, which would be required to change anything about how those enzymes behave.

We already know of a mechanism by which information is transported across microtubules: physical transport of signalling molecules. They are walked (quite literally, dynein is cool) along the microtubules to different sites in the cell. No quantum effects needed to explain this phenomenon.

Go to pubmed. Type "social media mental health". Read the studies, or the reviews if you don't have the time.

The average American teenager spends 4.8 hours/day on social media. Increased use of social media is associated with increased rates of depression, eating disorders, body image dissatisfaction, and externalizing problems. These studies don't show causation, but guess what, we literally cannot show causation in most human studies because of ethics.

Social media drastically alters peer interactions, with negative interactions (bullying) associated with increased rates of self harm, suicide, internalizing and externalizing problems.

Mobile phone use alone is associated with sleep disruption and daytime sleepiness.

Looking forward to your peer-reviewed critiques of these studies claiming they are all "just vibes."

We are not in a recession. The problems with wage stagnation are not some temporary hiccup in the economy. It is a systemic problem. Stop conflating the two, complaining that a macroeconomic term with a very specific meaning isn't defined the way you want it to be. Stop expecting the problem to heal itself if the fed lowers rates or taxes get nudged up or down or whatever. We know how to fix wage stagnation because we have done it before. Regulation. Labor protections. Minimum wage increases. Wage stagnation occurs in the absence of these things, and they can only be done by Congress.

TikTok pushed a notifications to all US users with the phone numbers of their local congressmen to oppose the bill. So many calls came in that the phone lines were jammed.

Let me distill that for you: China attempted to directly influence legislation with a mass propaganda campaign targeted at its US user base.

Please explain to me why that isn't a threat and why the US should allow hostile foreign powers to directly influence internal politics?

There is a book I will mention that will get me downvoted to oblivion, but it is very relevant to this discussion. It is called "White Fragility" and it discusses the following phenomenon: When vulnerable groups express criticism of societal problems, individuals will take that criticism personally and redirect the conversation towards their feelings. This has the effect, whether intended or otherwise, of shutting out the voice of the vulnerable group and forestalling any meaningful change. The book identifies this phenomenon in discussions of race, but I hope you can identify the parallels.

This is a difficult issue to deal with, but I think the problem lies with our current acceptance of photographs as an objective truth. If a talented writer places someone in an erotic text, we immediately know that this is a product of imagination. If a talented artist sketches up a nude of someone, we can immediately recognize that this is a product of imagination. We have laws around commercial use of likenesses, but I don't think we would make those things illegal.

But now we have photographs that are products of imagination. I don't have a solution for this specific issue, but we all need to calibrate how we establish trust with persons and information now that photographs, video, speech, etc can be faked by AI. I can even imagine a scenario in the not-too-distant future where face-to-face conversation cannot be immediately trusted due to advances in robotics or other technologies.

Lying and deception are human nature, and we will always employ any new technologies for these purposes along with any good they may bring. We will always have to carefully adjust the line on what is criminal vs artistic vs non-criminal depravity.

Trailer Park Boys

Connect your circle of thought. If we buy Haiti a bunch of food and deliver it, we have created the jobs and infrastructure to solve the issue precisely in the manner you describe. We have redirected the economy to solve the problem. You seem to take issue with the idea that the solution did not arise from capitalist market forces. Well no shit, that's kind of why we have the problem.

Avoiding advertising is the best way to avoid influence, but remember that pretty much everyone wants you to change your mind ina way that benefits them. Avoiding influence altogether is impossible, and that influence is necessary to stay informed and make good life choices.

My advice is twofold. First, learn the logical fallacies and how to identify them. Second, account for uncertainty in your decisions. The most practical application of this second point is to favor decisions that leave you with more options in the future. This uncertainty should include you. Account for the possibility that your goals and views may change in the future, because they will.

The cause and effect may be reversed there.

The dissenting opinion is unlikely to be heard. Here is another brain quirk for you: we hate seeing information that contradicts our beliefs. The attention-optimized algorithms of social media have made it possible to spend a whole day consuming information without seeing anything we disagree with. Traditional journalism is no longer the source of shared truth for our society, we have surrendered that to the algorithms with the net effect of fracturing society into groups with very different ideas of what the truth is.

IMO the recent rise of far-right political power can be directly attributed to the "post-truth" bubbles we have found ourselves in. I know I have overused the brain quirk gimmick, but these bubbles are creating a huge amount of fear and uncertainty. This over-stimulation of our amygdala reduces empathy and causes us to further constrict our in-groups. This makes it easier for power hungry politicians to push out-groups into "enemy" territory and leverage the fear of the enemy into raw political power.

I do acknowledge the irony, as I type this message, that I will be heard only by people that share my values. My hope is that you the reader see that empathy is the cure, and choose not to close off your in-group despite the feeds and the mod bans and the powerful men profiting from this mess.

The articles cite "people" and a single analyst concerned about content, but no lawmakers.

I understand people are concerned with 1st amendment issues, but I do not see any issues with free expression here. Individual US citizens have the right to free speech in America, including the right to spread CCP propaganda. Foreign companies do not have this 1st amendment right. Also, individuals do not have a right to use a specific privately-held platform for expression. If this right existed, the government would have to bail out a bankrupt platform to keep it operational.

This bill is regulating a corporation. In my view, we should do more to distinguish corporate rights from individual rights, end corporate personhood, and hit all companies, including social media companies, with many more regulations. This bill is a step in that direction, and hopefully a prelude to data privacy bills.