I agree and feel it is a reflection on social decline. While I don’t think prohibition it the way forward it is unsettling that we tolerate this as a society. Would we tolerate youtube advertising for heroin or even recreational marijuana? We certainly don’t for tobacco and we probably shouldn’t for alcohol.

I work in mental health and I am seeing more people who spend a substantial amount on “parlays”. Many examples downplay or hide the behavior from their social network and the extreme examples spend a significant amount. The advertising is obviously predatory and goes against what we know about control dynamics in addict behavior but we tend to view that as a personal moral failing rather than exploiting basic biology and as a result allow the dealer to ruin countless lives before any action is taken (see Purdue and Teva lawsuits)

I don’t get soft core porn ads but I do scams all the time. Bullshit supplements, pyramid schemes, “buy my program to make money” type things. Otherwise it’s mostly political ads, more legitimate consumer products like dishwasher detergent, gambling, and mobile games. NE USA for reference

This was part of this difficulty in clinical trials for mdma iirc. Both researchers and participants were fairly reliably able to discern placebo, among some other issues

I watched the video on this and I just really hate that they seemingly market it in a way that is somewhat suggestive of it being a new type of glass. After watching the video I was slightly confused as to whether they were just being grandiose with the name or they had actual new hardware with some fancy glass that was being explained poorly. It’s clearly the former but man that is dumb

I’ll reserve judgement until I can play around with a final release version for a bit. the screenshots so far don’t look great but the idea of minimizing UI elements to maximize content area display does make sense, if it’s done well

A lot of times when I ask chatgpt for references on something it sends me dead links or links to something that do not have anything to do with what it claims to be citing. I point that out and then it sends me more of the same. I would not be surprised if they were already working on this to improve that aspect to convince people who actually bother to check sources. I also wonder how many people don’t bother to check and are convinced of its potentially flawed perspectives simply because it delivers some citations that are completely irrelevant

It reminds me of a time I met some kook who was arguing the merits of this dumb bullshit they bought off instagram. It was $800 and claimed to cure anxiety with magnetic power. They sent a word document provided by the company and it was just a bunch of random studies about transcranial direct current stimulation, which is a real thing with some evidence, but was completely unrelated and is based on electrical currents and not magnetic woo woo bullshit.