Determining important from human speech. I’ve had a few summaries from meetings I’ve been involved in and there’s always been a real mismatch from what was actually focused on and how it comes across in the summary.
Sounds like it's just focused on shows and games from the description in the paper:
> At ages 1 and 1.5 years, which was conducted in a subsample, parents were asked to report the average amount of time that the child spent daily on television (TV) on weekdays and weekends within the past month. This was collected in 2010 to 2011 when TV was the primary source of screen viewing time for 97% of Singaporean families [38]. At ages 2, 3 and 6 years, parents were asked to report the amount of time, in 5-min increments, their child spent using screens on weekdays and weekend days. Three types
of devices were considered separately: (1) TV and TV-related games consoles; (2) computers (desktop or laptop); and (3) hand-held devices including tablets, smartphones, and hand-held games consoles. At age 8 years, parents were asked to report on their child’s time spent sitting or lying down while watching screens on the most recent weekday (school days) and on the most recent Saturday and Sunday. Four types of devices/media were considered separately: (1) watching videos on a TV (TV programs, DVDs, Blu-ray); (2) watching videos or playing games on computers; (3) watching videos or playing games on tablets or smartphones; and (4) playing video games on consoles.
We’re having this sort of conversation at the school that I work at, which serves remote communities and other disadvantaged students. One of our states is currently making noise about reducing “screen time” for schools without much distinction about what it involves.
And here’s us, an online only school that serves kids that otherwise wouldn’t be able to access education at all or some types of classes at best, left wondering where that might leave us if our state decides to zombie its way into similar policy decisions.
Edit: Downvotes for pointing out that government policies without nuance around what "screen time" means hurts kids who have no alternative education options, apparently?
Feels like there’s a lot of projection going on there.
I’ve worked with a lot of professionals over the years who chose to work part time (and have done myself too). Various reasons, but mostly it boiled down to valuing their time and wellbeing more than grinding full time.
The thing about “living standards” is, like many standards they change depending on your priorities.
AI aside, I think the biggest thing we could do is stop thinking about education as a profit centre. We’re not multiplying humanity if we’re only doing it for the fraction that can afford it.
Edit: Having more of a look I see you’re making this freemium, which is a good thing.
Europe is tricky because of the EU but yes "poverty in Asia" is as meaningless as "poverty in Africa". At least care enough to know the specifics otherwise there is no point except grandstanding.
Also thanks for engaging with my comments but I said what I said.
I think there’s a lot of value in some of this (and as the owner of a somewhat spicy brain I relate to the desire for processes that help), but it feels like at least some of this (c|sh)ould be scripted and not LLM’d.
I’ve been watching some of the GitHub App promos, and it feels like because you have an app with access that knows how to agent, that’s the first method within reach, even if it isn’t necessarily the best one.
Funny, I had the opposite experience with MiniMax and Mimo when using OpenCode. MiniMax got stuck with looping through broken tool calls all the time and MiMo just powered through things and for the most part just worked.