The problem with AI anything is it is still extremely unreliable. I had an argument with an AI opponent and it definitely won the argument from my perspective, but the system decided I won for some reason. It felt completely arbitrary and made me not trust the judgement of the app.
Which bot did you debate with? Some bots will automatically let you win under a condition(for example easy mode will let you win as soon as you point out a faulty point/fake info). If you do try it again, would you mind sending a screenshot in the discord server?
Thanks a lot for testing it :D
p.s.: I have thought of adding a voting system, so that the AI judge wouldn't have absolute power over the winner. But that'd only work with a spectator feature
Once shareholders are involved it's no longer enough for the company to make enough profit to sustain itself, it now needs to make more profit each year.
There might be a period of growth in the beginning when investment leads to development of new features and refining the platform, and more users join. But eventually it hits a point of maximum market saturation. The product is as feature rich as it can be, the user numbers have reached their limit.
It's at that point that enshittification begins. More ads, the minimum amount of money spent to maintain the system, locking features behind premium subscriptions, prices go up. Just look at youtube, netflix etc. At this point youtube in particular has become unusable, and the content is nothing like the stuff you used to watch on there, it's all long video essays full of sponsors as that's what the company promotes and encourages, but not what people really want to see.
As a person not from america, the fact that this is the main view is worrying to me. Over here in the UK it's 100% normal to just use the rule of thumb that as long as you try not to get burnt, it's healthy to get some sun. No sunblock needed unless you know you'll be out in it for many hours without shade like if you go to the beach or a long walk.
In general, norther countries need more protection from the sun, not less. The rates of skin cancer go up significantly as you move north. My guess is partly cultural, but I don't know for sure the cause. When it is dark all winter, people want to spend as much time in the sun as they can during summer, perhaps. The fact that you also get more natural summer exposure due to longer days is probably part of it.
This is a very common attitude in northern Europe, but it’s dangerous. I recently saw a dermatologist, I live at approximately the same latitude as the UK, east of there. He strongly advised sunblock, especially for children. You so very rarely see children wearing it during the summer. You are really playing with your health if you ignore these dangers.
Ozone: hey, at least we managed to ban CFCs internationally.
If we can do that, it's confusing how we can't incrementally tackle climate change with selective international agreements that would make the most impact for the socio-economic burden.
The high cholesterol level is likely correlated to vitamin d.
A lot of these studies came out of heart disease investigations within the black community. In the US there is just more compared to West Africa, and after controlling for weight, income, diet, etc., they guessed the difference was likely sunlight and outdoor time.
Followup studies found similar findings, albeit less pronounced with white and middle eastern people.
> Sunscreen also blocks our skin from making vitamin D, but that’s OK, says the American Academy of Dermatology, which takes a zero-tolerance stance[1] on sun exposure: “You need to protect your skin from the sun every day, even when it’s cloudy,” it advises on its website. Better to slather on sunblock, we’ve all been told, and compensate with vitamin D pills.
The vast, vast majority of Google results do not support your claims. I’m glad you found one that did, and I’m all for more studies, but “it’s really not that hard to google” is both condescending and doesn’t move the argument forward. You are the one making an argument against the established widespread medical opinion; the onus is on you to prove your argument, not on me to prove your argument for you.
“ There is little evidence that sunscreen decreases 25(OH)D concentration when used in real-life settings, suggesting that concerns about vitamin D should not negate skin cancer prevention advice. However, there have been no trials of the high-SPF sunscreens that are now widely recommended. What's already known about this topic? Previous experimental studies suggest that sunscreen can block vitamin D production in the skin but use artificially generated ultraviolet radiation with a spectral output unlike that seen in terrestrial sunlight. Nonsystematic reviews of observational studies suggest that use in real life does not cause vitamin D deficiency. What does this study add? This study systematically reviewed all experimental studies, field trials and observational studies for the first time. While the experimental studies support the theoretical risk that sunscreen use may affect vitamin D, the weight of evidence from field trials and observational studies suggests that the risk is low. We highlight the lack of adequate evidence regarding use of the very high sun protection factor sunscreens that are now recommended and widely used.”
What exactly do you think my claims are? I'm not the one who made the original claim, only supported the claim that american dermatologists have a zero tolerance policy for sun exposure.
Either you think there's a more representative opinion for American dermatologists than the AAD or what seems more likely is that you don't understand the argument that I was supporting.
The evidence I actually wanted proof for was the original commenters’ assertion that sunblock somehow raises cholesterol to unhealthy levels.
The quote you chose from the article (which I did read, for what it’s worth, but was also very light on sources) strongly suggested that sunblock blocks Vitamin D production. The science on that is unclear, but prior research suggests it doesn’t; that said, it warrants more research. I took your choice of that quote specifically to mean that was a claim you were making. If that wasn’t the case and you simply meant to show that the AAD suggested not being in the sun without sunblock, then I agree.
The science on melanoma being very bad is pretty cut and dry, on the other hand.
I never disagreed that American dermatologists tend to follow a “zero tolerance” policy for sun exposure without sunblock. They would very much like you to get sun with sunblock, though.
The cholesterol thing sounded like sarcasm in my ears.
Apart from that, zero tolerance makes no sense - do they really recommend to wear sunscreen on a cloudy winter day? - but it is somewhat debatable that some people still underestimate the destructive effects of overexposure.
And the elefant in the room is of course your skin type.
Couple of my friends have skin of the fitzpatrick type with reddish hair, light skin and many dark spots.
For them sunscreen is a must when I wouldn't even think about it.
Another interesting tangent: wasn't there a somewhat potent carcinogenic in most sunscreen products?
I didn’t sense sarcasm. I could’ve misinterpreted.
Cloudy days still have plenty of UV, depending on where you are (especially near the equator).
Skin type matters, of course, and I would probably be less heavy handed with the recommendation, but the “zero tolerance” issue wasn’t the original point as I understood it.
[edit] Quote from the very article you posted:
“It's important to note that these results are from one study (Valisure), which hasn't yet been validated. Strangely, they also detected benzene in blank test tubes (no sunscreen), leaving some to question if the testing methods contributed to the levels detected.
Toxicologists note that even if you applied the worst sunscreen on the Valisure list to your entire body, you'd be exposed to less than half the amount of benzene you breathe in normal city air in a day. Benzene is also very unstable, so it's unclear how much would be absorbed through the skin.
Don’t let this study convince you to skip sunscreen altogether. Although benzene is a potential risk, it pales in comparison to the known, real risk of UV radiation. Instead, take the time to check that your preferred sunscreen isn’t on the list of contaminated products.”
I just criticized someone for not doing their own simple google search and now you're asking me to google for you as well? I'm really not sure what result you're hoping for here.
You really shouldn't be so sure of anything you're too lazy to validate yourself. If you're too lazy now, chances are you were too lazy to validate it when you formed the opinion to begin with.
“My thing is true, even though the vast majority of medical professionals and societies disagree with me. And I don’t have to prove it to you, as that is best left as an exercise to the reader” is lazy, and a terrible argument.
Even if you didn’t validate the established guidelines, that doesn’t actually make you lazy; as humans, we cannot possibly hope to empirically validate every single thing we are told, as that would be madness. We often rely on various sources to validate claims for us by running solid, peer-reviewed studies and then we read those, and the vast majority of those studies do not agree with you, though more studies definitely need to be run, particularly with higher SPF sunblocks and mineral sunblocks.
There’s a lot of doctor cartels in the US that emphatically force singular ideologies - babies sleeping on bellies die instantly, mothers who can’t nurse are creating sickly autistic monsters, everyone must take statins, etc. See parallel comment for source, or visit a dermatologist.
There is no cartel that says babies sleeping on their bellies die instantly, or that mothers who don’t breastfeed are creating sickly autistic monsters. Literally not a single doctor who should be allowed to practice has said any of that, as it is far too extreme and one sided.
Investigating those issues? Sure. Possibly even believing it’s safer to sleep a baby not on their belly, or that mothers should breastfeed if they can because it is likely to be healthier for the baby? Absolutely.
But almost the entirety of your comment is an appeal to extremes, which is a logical fallacy.
This is not an American centric view. Dermatologists in many countries throughout Europe, especially northern countries, strongly advise the use of sunblock.
