I’m not sure. Imagine you want to answer the research question of how people come to adopt certain beliefs. You can probably answer that robustly by monitoring absolutely all their cultural inputs - including throughout childhood where these inputs likely have high impact, but where consent for such an experiment is likely impossible. Every book they read, every website they visit, every person they listen to. I think if you constrain this experiment to a more reasonable level of information gathering, you’ll miss important details.
You could get permission from the parents to install the recording devices, but until the child is grown up the data could be kept locked away somewhere completely inaccessible. Then when the child is old enough to grant permission you unlock that data for use. This sort of pattern should work for all studies involving children.
Honestly though, most of these kinds of studies would probably just stop at getting permission from the parents.
Personally, when I'm in this situation, my phone is out and face down on the table to avoid the discomfort of it digging into me from my pocket. I've also noticed that other people use their phone less when I explicitly take it out and put it to the side. Also, even though I take it out, I never use it unless the conversation has asked for it, like searching an answer for something.
I assumed they were saying that they'd received an email ad, not that google served an ad. I could be wrong though. I wouldn't trust what meta says here considering their past history, but there are reasonable alternate sources in this case. Keyboard replacements on phones are notorious for logging, or either participant could have an app logging screenshots.
The moon has helium-3 which would be useful for fusion. Getting it back to earth would be easier than getting off earth, you have the possibility of cargo rail guns which only needs materials to fire which you can source on the moon.
At least one good use is for video games where the text of some dialogue is determined when you run the game. For example in a game I work on player chat is local and voiced by tts configured by the player for their character.
Taking this as true, wouldn't that mean that a lack of published papers on this topic is light evidence of being in a simulation? Also that it would be fairly dangerous to bring the subject to the public's attention.
That's due to a lack of theory and useful abstractions in the tools used to modify genes. We're so early on in the development of that field that if this were computers, we'd still be assembling devices by arranging logic gates by hand. Custom cosmetic gene therapy is a great way to incentivize the better tools.
The alternatives then are self service, or private businesses providing assistance? If we want to endorse the former then educating people on the best way to painlessly end their life might be a good idea, the latter though seems like a bad idea with some very badly aligned incentives.
Ignoring the entire discussion of whether young children should use social media for the moment, this is hilariously unenforceable, which in an odd way makes me in favor of it. Telling children they "can't" do something, and then not doing anything to stop them from doing it is a great way to ensure they learn how to get around these kinds of barriers.
Laws that make everyone (or in this case, every social media company) guilty aren't unenforceable, they're super-enforcable and result in a constructive ban.
