So the method I chose was mapping and intersecting.
What happens is that for each day of the week, time, and mood, there are genres that fit most with these times, according to general data I had found from various articles over time.
I then get the users selected inputs and lay out all the genres. I see if there are any intersections/patterns in all 3 and if so, I store that for use to find movies. If there are no common genres, I map only the mood to the day then the mood to the time, as I think mood is the most powerful factor, and see intersections there and store them.
Then it's just a simple search for movies of that genre with the provider and that's all.
If you have any further questions feel free to ask.
An interesting silver lining is that reported happiness (shown near the end) seems to be inversely related to all of the other negative effects. At least from first glance at the data.
I have a photo of myself holding a 256Mb SD card when it came out because it seemed magical to me that a single card could hold so much data. After all the leaps the process is still magical.
I think claims like this have the potential to bring out a great deal of research into the public sphere about the effects of social media, but looking at the law firm acting on behalf of the plaintiff, I see it's a personal injury law firm with ~20 lawyers (https://neinstein.com/about), and they have taken on the assignment on a contingency basis. Sadly, I doubt they will have the resources to go up against the major tech companies for long...... but, assuming they have not taken the assignment on as a PR stunt, I am rooting for them.
I couldn't get GPT4 to answer it either, even with several variations on the prompt. It gets too fixated on the "bear" part, so it just assumes that the answer is "white", because that's a "common trick question".
I find it interesting that it disregards the rest of the question, and just picks "the most common answer to a trick question involving the color of a bear"!
In the old days? Back-breaking work that's no longer necessary or efficient.
In the slightly less old days, probably socialize.
Nothing super productive or world changing I assume. I would also guess that a lot of these hours are spent sleeping rather than actively watching. Most people I know put comfort shows on to help them fall asleep these days.
I think socializing is world changing. So many of the global systemic problems we face are either caused by or exacerbated by a lack of social cohesion.
Its interesting to think if only people not waste their time, how productive they would be. Then you realize how hard it is to get successful in life in terms of work, how every single idea and product / service has so many competitors, and you become glad that so many people don't do anything but waste their time :)
I don't know that I can agree with the common view that back in the "old days" life was just tons of back breaking work. Yeah it was definitely more labor heavy, but people didn't have the nutrition to keep up with the heavy workload people assume these days and not be crippled by 40, which we know they weren't outside of accidents. Plus it would make all the art, monuments, religious ceremony, technological and social advancements, war, and other time and energy consuming activities near impossible if people just barely managed to survive. And there are tons of games from antiquity that people wouldn't invent and been playing if they were working all the time. Especially when you consider it would have been even harder during bronze age or stone age eras with even less technology and knowledge. And farming work just doesn't keep bringing gains by working all through the year. Crops take time to grow and can only be harvested at certain times. You are wasting effort keeping planting past the spring because you will get worse and worse returns on it and at some point you won't be able to harvest or eat it all before it rots anyways.
People worked for themselves and did what they needed to survive and live how they wanted, and doing more beyond that gave worse and worse returns that eventually people will stop for not having much value. Chopping 5+ years of wood ahead of time gains nothing because without a ridiculously large building to store it in it, which also requires more maintenance, will rot and lose energy and become less valuable over time. There is no point in making a lifetime's worth of your own clothes now if it is just going to get eaten by moths and fungus after being stored for 10-20 years. You are only going to get slightly ahead to head off bad times and then stop producing after that.
One of the biggest rallying points behind the 19th and 20th century labor movements was people wanting to return to the lower working hours that their grandparents and great grandparents worked living a far more subsistence lifestyle, and is how we came up with a 40 hour work week, which also assumed having time for the multitude of religious holidays and seasonal breaks in work they also enjoyed, and was still a mere compromise between the two lifestyles.
During Q4 2022 the average US adult spent 294 minutes per day with TV, down slightly from 303 during Q4 2019. [1].
Nothing says restorative and important like sitting stationary on a coach watching TV for 5 hours per day while obesity and mental health issues are at an all time high. Its def important for advertisers. Stop excusing lazy and slovenly behaviors.
If you are multilingual but have young children and plan to continue residing in your current English speaking country for the foreseeable future, are you opting to teach your children those additional languages or are you adhering to the idea that they can always learn those languages later if necessary, considering it might not be essential (esp with models like this)?
Any apparent causality of age of acquisition seems to be a proxy of hours of exposure. It may well be that it is easier for young people to rack up a lot of exposure to a second language, but not much evidence that age plays much of a factor for people of different ages who had the same degree of exposure.
> we argue that the late learners resort to computationally less efficient processing strategies when confronted with (lexically determined) syntactic constructions different from the L1.
> we show that the ERP signal in response to grammatical violations depends on the AoA of an L2 learner, as well as on the regularity of the structure under investigation. In (lexically determined) syntactic constructions different from the L1, we found a gradual change in processing strategies that varies by AoA, with a native-like effect for early learners and a less efficient neural processing strategy for later starters.
Although they do clarify that these effects could be confounded with age of acquisition instead of it being the cause.
reply