A report published in Nature Human Behaviour (hard paywall): Sleepers track informative speech in a multitalker environment

An article published in the Sydney Morning Herald (soft paywall): Your brain is listening and processing while you sleep

A press release published in Mirage News (no paywall): Active sleep is more than just counting sheep

So... here's an article I read in my newspaper earlier this week: "Why the media is unable to report on a case that has generated huge interest online". As you might imagine, this left me quite unenlightened. I had no way of knowing or guessing what this case was, or who was involved. It was only a few days later, in conversation with some people I work with, that I found out what had happened.

And this is the first chance I've had since then to sit down and research the story for myself.

In short, Cardinal George Pell, the most senior Catholic Church official to stand trial for sexual abuse, has been convicted of sexual abuse offences relating to his time as Archbishop of Melbourne in the late 1990s.

• From the National Catholic Reporter: "Cardinal Pell found guilty of sex abuse, expected to appeal, reports say"

• From the Washington Post: "Australian court convicts once-powerful Vatican official on sex-abuse-related charges"

• From the Daily Beast: https://www.thedailybeast.com/vatican-no-3-cardinal-george-pell-on-trial-for-historical-child-sex-charges (I can't confirm this one - it's reportedly geo-blocked for Australian readers)

However, the Victorian court hearing the case has imposed a suppression order on the case, which applies in every jurisdiction in Australia. We have seen no reporting of the case as it proceeded, and no reporting of the outcome.

Before some people start assuming that this is protecting the Church, it's related to the right of an accused person to a free trial. Cardinal Pell is facing another trial in a few months for further charges of sexual abuse on a minor (relating to his time as a priest in Ballarat in the 1970s), and the court feels that reporting the outcome of this trial will potentially influence any possible jurors for that trial. Those possible jurors should go into that trial without any preconceived ideas of the accused person's guilt - and reporting that he is guilty of similar charges will undermine his right to a fair trial.

• From the Washington Post: "A top cardinal’s sex-abuse conviction is huge news in Australia. But the media can’t report it there."

• From the New York Post: "Australian media barred from covering cardinal’s conviction for sex abuse

All that we in Australia are being told is "George Pell removed from Pope Francis's cardinal advisory body". It's obvious why he was removed... if you know about the conviction.

Intro

Hello everyone.

Due to @Kat’s ever-failing health, I will be analyzing the data instead of her this time around. If you have no idea what this is about, see the demographic survey that was posted on the day of Tildes’ half-year birthday. She’s done this before, so let’s see what's new.

The original survey was answered by 404 people, while the half year survey was answered by 293. Though the total number of replies was lower, the completion rate was actually higher: 293 responses from 422 unique visitors, or 69.4%, up from the first year’s 404/599=67.4%. The decrease in answers is most likely attributed to the change of the default sort from “Activity, all time” to “Activity, 3 days”: the response rate held fairly consistent for the first three days, then plummeted after the third as the topic stopped being able to gain any publicity. Though response rates on the original were not high after the first three days, there was a steady trickle up until the survey stopped accepting responses.

While the numbers are relatively big (for a community of this size), do take anything found with a healthy dose of scepticism. Even though the original dataset she shared with me does not contain any identifiable information (all I can see are randomly-generated user strings) the specifics of that data will not be posted, as was mentioned during the original survey. This is because I am unable to be certain I can sufficiently anonymize it. Typeform has created a summary of the data on a per-question basis with substantially more datapoints than this thread, which you can find https://themeerkat.typeform.com/report/H2TtYg/rVf75AqbKaPncy6y.

Explanation

I will compare the statistics with a similarish reference set based on the six most common territories, all of which are above one percentage of the survey answers. That means when I compare on the general populace, I will base it on numbers from USA, Canada, UK, Australia, the Netherlands, and France.

This means it will be weighted like this:

I’ll clean up my data sheet and post it in the comments later. You all are absolutely encouraged to fix it because it will most likely contain errors.

The interesting stuff

What has changed in the first half year?

Age

This time around an age range was used instead of an exact numerical input, but if we were to assume that everyone is aged in the middle of their age range (so 20 for 18-22 year olds, for instance), the average age of a user would be 26.84 years, or 26 years, 9 months, and 4 days old (roughly). So we’ve grown a bit younger than last year, on average.

Gender and identity

Gender distribution seems to be roughly the same. We see a small decrease in percentage of heterosexuals, divided roughly evenly on the remaining categories. We also see a significant increase in the amount of transgender users, but since the amount reported is small, that could also just be statistical noise. The percentage of polyamorous people has remained exactly the same. For pronouns, there are only three users who prefer it/its, and zero who prefer any neopronoun set: every “Other” was offering commentary on the question rather than answering it. Similarly, almost all of the “Others” for orientation were expressing that they didn’t understand the specifics of the options given.

All in all, little has changed.

Territorial

In both surveys, three options dominated: the USA, the UK, and Canada. On that end, little has changed, though it seems that all of the Swedes disappeared, with zero answering the half year survey as compared to eight for the first one. Wonder what they’ve been busy with.

Native language

Unsurprisingly, about everyone speaks English. What is more surprising is the lack of native multilinguals: fewer than 6% of Americans who natively speak English also natively speak a second language. For comparison, that’s 10% for Australians, 21% for Canadians, and 13% for the UK. This represents an overall decrease in geographic diversity, with users coming from 36 different countries as compared to 42 the first time.

Religion

Compared to the world at-large, we sure are a god-denying folk. A whopping 52% of us consider ourselves atheists, whereas the sample data puts it at 12.1%, so we’re far from the norm of our fellow citizens.

We got a few interesting answers in the “other” section of the religion part of the survey. We got a few interesting ones I had never heard of before, like “Discordian”. But generally speaking, around half of them were either “none” or one of the actual options. Two stood out to me though.

To the one Chinese user who filled it in as “The heck is chinese traditional”: I have no idea either.

To the one Australian user who wrote “Left-hand path Heathen”, you be yourself, mate.

Politics

The average has barely moved in the last half year—we’re still slanted very much to the left. Unlike the first survey, there was no freeform input this time around, so the specifics are hard to discuss.

Computers

We have seen a drastic fall in the percentage of Windows users. It was at 60%, and is down to 43%. Nearly all of this has gone to Linux, which is now at 38%. That’s quite large, especially compared to the reference data, which has Linux use among web users at 1.23%. It’s like a herd of penguins in here.

Mobile phones

Compared to half a year ago, not many of us have switched mobile OS. Compared to the calculated data, we like Android slightly more than average. 62% vs 72%.

Not much interesting in the “other” section, though I will give a salute to the one American user still holding out on Windows 10 Mobile.

Work

We have a pretty even distribution with three exceptions. “Computer software”, “Never employed”, and “IT”. Nearly 3/4 who answered “Never employed” are currently students.

Among the students, we only have one student that proudly smokes and has no interest in quitting. The campaigns seem to be working.

Tildes usage

If we look at the users who visit Tildes multiple times per day, we see a few interesting trends. Nearly all of them use Android, and nearly all of them are employed. Beyond that it all seems surprisingly… average.

Overall, people rated Tildes as a platform as-it-stands a 5.7/7 (0.81), and their optimism for the future of the site at a 5.4/7 (0.77). The most important reason they use the site (of the options given) is “Minimal, fast design” at a 4.6/5 (0.92), with “Privacy-consciousness and lack of trackers” right on its heels. 20.8% of users have ever contributed money to Tildes (surprisingly high, compared to most donation campaigns), with about half as many making a recurring donation.

Despite @Kat’s insidious attempt to influence the data, “waves” as a demonym only received 5.5% of the vote. The leader for that, overwhelmingly, is “no demonym at all”, with a combined 49% of the votes and 18.5% of respondents strongly preferring the site not to have a demonym. Second place, the generic “users”, only has 15.8% in comparison. The first Tildes-specific demonym present is Tilders/~​rs, with 13.4%.

Most notably, about ⅔ of users would prefer Tildes to be remain invite-only long-term.

Freeform questions

The survey had three freeform questions: “What do you like most about Tildes, thus far?”, “What do you like least about Tildes, thus far?”, and “What is the most pressing missing feature/‘pain point’ for you about Tildes in its current state?” All the comments fill over 30 pages, so it seems like we really have a lot to say. You can download and look at all of the raw answers here, if you’d like. They’ve been shuffled to ensure privacy.

Likes

A large majority of the comments boil down to “a quality of discussion where disagreement is discussed in a respectful and level-headed way”. A very significant amount also point out the lack of “low effort content and trolls” as a good thing. A significant amount also mention the simple and quick-loading interface. We also have one user who believes he can find a twerk team on Tildes.

So on this, @Deimos can feel proud for what he has done. Though you know what really makes the site good? There is one comment that properly gets it: “The people, d’awwww.”. Yes, that includes you.

Dislikes

But not everything is perfect, though negatives about Tildes seem to be a lot less unanimous than the positives. There are a few that repeat a bit more often than others: the biggest one is “left centrism in discussions” or “echo chambers”, though in a close second, as with any political discussion, is its exact opposite with complaints about “too much discussion about left-centrism in discussions”—notably, though, in the question “Do you feel as though Tildes has a good mix of political opinions, for your personal preferences?”, the leading answer was “Yes” with 63%. A small amount of users also think we have too many software developers.

Beyond that, the main complaint that stands out is “lack of users and content”, which I am sure will improve in time.

Missing feature/pain point

This too is very varied. A lot of the comments are actually about features that have been introduced since the survey was done, like bookmarking. Honestly, it’s not that many complaints compared to just likes and dislikes.

The “majority” seem to be on a lack of tag autocompletion, USA-centrism, and the lack of a mobile app.

There was one more section: “If you would like to offer any long-form commentary, criticism, or feedback regarding Tildes, you may do so here.” Due to its nature, I’ll let you read through them yourself in the raw data, if you’re interested.

Closing words

First of all, to everyone who took the time to answer: thank you! I hope this post and the survey has brought some fun to everyone. If there’s an interest, I am sure that Kat, myself, or someone else will make another one at the one year anniversary. We already got some feedback in the previous thread, but we’re always open for more.

I will do some additional data comparisons on request. I might be a bit occupied this weekend, though, so that will come when it comes.

I’m trying to organize a series of statements which reflect the primary pressures pushing civilization towards collapse. Ideally, I could be as concise as possible and provide additional resources for understanding and sources in defense of each. Any feedback would be helpful, as I would like to incorporate them into a general guide for better understanding collapse.

​

We are overwhelmingly dependent on finite resources.

Fossil fuels account for 87% of the world’s total energy consumption. 1 2 3

Economic pressures will manifest well before reserves are actually depleted as more energy is required to extract the same amount of resources over time (or as the steepness of the EROEI cliff intensifies). 1 2

​

We are transitioning to renewables very slowly.

Renewables have had an average growth rate of 5.4% over the past decade. 1 2 3 4

Renewables are not taking off any faster than coal or oil once did and there is no technical or financial reason to believe they will rise any quicker, in part because energy demand is soaring globally, making it hard for natural gas, much less renewables, to just keep up. 1

Total world energy consumption increased 15% from 2009 to 2016. New renewables powered less than 30% of the growth in demand during that period. 1

​

Transitioning to renewables too quickly would disrupt the global economy.

A rush to build an new global infrastructure based on renewables would require an enormous amount resources and produce massive amounts of pollution. 1 2

​

Current renewables are ineffective replacements for fossil fuels.

Energy can only be substituted by other energy. Conventional economic thinking on most depletable resources considers substitution possibilities as essentially infinite. But not all joules perform equally. There is a large difference between potential and kinetic energy. Energy properties such as: intermittence, variability, energy density, power density, spatial distribution, energy return on energy invested, scalability, transportability, etc. make energy substitution a complex prospect. The ability of a technology to provide ‘joules’ is different than its ability to contribute to ‘work’ for society. All joules do not contribute equally to human economies. 1 2 3

​

Best-case energy transition scenarios will still result in severe climate change.

Even if every renewable energy technology advanced as quickly as imagined and they were all applied globally, atmospheric CO2 levels wouldn’t just remain above 350 ppm; they would continue to rise exponentially due to continued fossil fuel use. So our best-case scenario, which was based on our most optimistic forecasts for renewable energy, would still result in severe climate change, with all its dire consequences: shifting climatic zones, freshwater shortages, eroding coasts, and ocean acidification, among others. Our reckoning showed that reversing the trend would require both radical technological advances in cheap zero-carbon energy, as well as a method of extracting CO2 from the atmosphere and sequestering the carbon. 1

The speed and scale of transitions and of technological change required to limit warming to 1.5°C has been observed in the past within specific sectors and technologies {4.2.2.1}. But the geographical and economic scales at which the required rates of change in the energy, land, urban, infrastructure and industrial systems would need to take place, are larger and have no documented historic precedent. 1

​

Global economic growth peaked forty years ago.

Global economic growth peaked forty years ago and is projected to settle at 3.7% in 2018. 1 2 3

The increased price of energy, agricultural stress, energy demand, and declining EROEI suggest the energy-surplus economy already peaked in the early 20th century. 1 2

The size of the global economy is still projected to double within the next 25 years. 1

Our institutions and financial systems are based on expectations of continued GDP growth perpetually into the future. Current OECD (2015) forecasts are for more than a tripling of the physical size of the world economy by 2050. No serious government or institution entity forecasts the end of growth this century (at least not publicly). 1

​

Global energy demand is increasing.

Global energy demand has increased 0.5-2% per year from 2011-2017, despite increases in efficiency. 1 2 3

Technological change can raise the efficiency of resource use, but also tends to raise both per capita resource consumption and the scale of resource extraction, so that, absent policy effects, the increases in consumption often compensate for the increased efficiency of resource use. 1 2 3 4

​

World population is increasing.

World population is growing at a rate of around 1.09% per year (2018, down from 1.12% in 2017 and 1.14% in 2016. The current average population increase is estimated at 83 million people per year. The annual growth rate reached its peak in the late 1960s, when it was at around 2%. The rate of increase has nearly halved since then, and will continue to decline in the coming years. 1 2

​

Our supplies of food and water are diminishing.

Global crop yields are expected to fall by 10% on average over the next 30 years as a result of land degradation and climate change. 1

An estimated 38% of the world’s cropland has been degraded or reduced water and nutrient availability. 1 2

Two-thirds of the world (4.0 billion people) lives under conditions of severe water scarcity at least one month per year. 1

​

Climate change is rapidly destabilizing our environment.

An overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree humans are the primary cause of climate change. 1

A comparison of past IPCC predictions against 22 years of weather data and the latest climate science find the IPCC has consistently underplayed the intensity of climate change in each of its four major reports released since 1990. 1

15,000 scientists, the most to ever cosign and formally support a published journal article, recently called on humankind to curtail environmental destruction and cautioned that “a great change in our stewardship of the Earth and the life on it is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided.” 1

Emissions are still rising globally and far from enabling us to stay under two degrees of global average warming. 1 2

​

Climate feedback loops could exponentially accelerate climate change.

In addition to increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, many disrupted systems can trigger various positive or negative feedbacks within the larger system. 1 2 3 4 5

​

Biodiversity is falling rapidly.

The current species extinction rate is 1,000 to 10,000 times greater than the natural background rate. 1 2

World wildlife populations have declined by an average 58% in the past four decades. 1

​

The marginal utility of societal complexity is declining.

Civilization solves problems via increased societal complexity (e.g. specialization, political organization, technology, economic relationships). However, each increase in complexity has a declining marginal utility to overall society, until it eventually becomes negative. At such a point, complexity would decrease and a process of collapse or decline would begin, since it becomes more useful to decrease societal complexity than it would be to increase it. 1 2 3

One thing (amongst many) that always bothered me in my 6+ years of using Reddit was their lax rules about posting clickbait articles and straight up misinformation. In my opinion this was something that contributed to the rise of radical communities and echochambers in the website.

In this post I'll talk about Clickbait, Unreliable studies, and Misinformation. I'll give examples for each one and suggest a way to deal with it.

Clickbait-

Let's start with the most benign one. These days most big websites use clickbait and hyperbole to gain more traffic. It's something that they have to do in order to survive in today's media climate and I sort of understand. But I think that as a community in Tildes we should raise our standards and avoid posting any article that uses clickbait, instead directly link to the source that the article cites.

An example would be: An article titled "Life on Mars found: Scientists claim that they have found traces of life on the red planet".

But when you read the original source it only states that "Mars rover Curiosity has identified a variety of organic molecules" and that "These results do not give us any evidence of life,".
(This may be a bad/exaggrated example but I think it gets my point across.)

On Reddit the mods give these kinds of posts a "Misleading" tag. But the damage is already done, most of the users won't read the entire article or even the source, and instead will make comments based on the headline.
I personally think that these kinds of posts should be deleted even if they get a discussion going in the comments.

Unreliable studies-

This is a bit more serious than clickbait. It's something that I see the most in subjects of psychology, social science and futurism.
These are basically articles about studies that conclude a very interesting result, but when you dig a bit you find that the methodologies used to conduct the study were flawed and that the results are inconclusive.

An (real) example would be: "A new study finds that cutting your time on social media to 30 minutes a day reduces your risk of depression and loneliness"
Link: https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-instagram-snapchat-social-media-well-being-2018-11

At first glance this looks legit, I even agree with the results. But lets see how this study was conducted:

In the study, 143 undergraduate students were tested over the course of two semesters.

After three weeks, the students were asked questions to assess their mental health across seven different areas

Basically, their test group was 143 students, The test was only conducted for 6 months, and the results were self-reported.

Clearly, this is junk. This study doesn't show anything reliable. Yet still, it received a lot of upvotes on Reddit and there was a lot of discussion going. I only spotted 2-3 comments (at the bottom) mentioning that the study is unreliable.

Again, I think that posts with studies like this should be deleted regardless if there is a discussion going in the comments or not.

Misinformation-

This is in my opinion the biggest offender and the most dangerous one. It's something that I see in political subreddits (even the big ones like /r/politics and /r/worldnews). It's when an article straight up spreads misinformation both in the headline and in the content in order to incite outrage or paint a narrative.

Note: I will give an example that bashes a "left-leaning" article that is against Trump. I'm only doing this because I only read left-leaning to neutral articles and don't go near anything that is right-leaning. Because of this I don't have any examples of a right-leaning article spreading misinformation (I'm sure that there are a lot).

An example would be this article: "ADMINISTRATION ADMITS BORDER DEPLOYMENT WAS A $200 MILLION ELECTION STUNT"
Link: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/11/trump-troops-border-caravan-stunt

There are two lies here:

1. Trump administration did not admit to anything. (The article's use of the word 'Admit' is supposedly justified with 'They indirectly admitted to it'. I personally think this is a bad excuse.)
2. Most importantly, the 200 million figure is pure speculation. If you go to the older article that this article cites, the 200m figure comes from a speculation that the operation could cost up to 200m if the number of troops sent to the border is 15,000 and they stay there for more than 2 months.
   In reality the number of troops sent was 8,500 and they stayed for only a few days/weeks.

A few days after this article was published it turned out that the operation costed 70 million. Still a big sum, still ridiculous. But it's almost a third of what the article claimed.

The misinformation in this example is fairly benign. But I've seen countless other articles with even more outrageous claims that force a certain narrative. This is done by both sides of the political spectrum.

Not only do I think that we should delete these kinds of posts in Tildes, in my opinion we should black list websites that are frequent offenders of spreading misinformation.
Examples off the top of my head would be: Vanity Fair, Salon.com, of course far right websites like Fox News, Info Wars and Breitbart.
A good rule in my opinion would be: If three posts from a certain website get deleted for spreading misinformation, that website should be blacklisted from Tildes.

In conclusion:
I think we should set some rules against these problems while our community is still in the early stages. Right now I don't see any of these 3 problems on Tildes. But if we don't enforce rules against them, they will start to pop up the more users we gain.

I'll be happy to know your opinions and suggestions on the matter!

I have poor vision and I rely heavily on a Firefox plugin called Stylus to make websites readable - in particular the trend for low contrast and small text. That includes Tildes.

I updated it to v1.5.0 and now the styles I set for Tlldes no longer work - most other sites still appear to work but I've not checked them exhaustively.

I immediately tried rolling back a release or two (1.4.23 and 1.4.22) but those versions no longer work for any site. I tried randomly downgrading to even older versions but the same result. I think I'm stuck with the latest version..

I notice in the browser console there are 2 errors reported on Tildes e.g. on this page I see:

Content Security Policy: The page's settings blocked the loading of a resource at inline ("script-src"). new_topic:1:1
Content Security Policy: The page's settings blocked the loading of a resource at inline ("style-src"). new_topic:1:1

Using the Firefox Developer tools Inspector - I see my style settings for Tildes injected by Styuls (after the body) but they do not work any more.

Since only Tildes so far is not working with my Stylus settings I guess there is also a recent change to Tildes that is causing Stylus to fail.

This is a rather serious issue for me as all the colour options in the setting are low contrast and cause eye strain which becomes painful without the Stylus settings.

Thanks for any help you can offer.

Deimos and I were discussing the use of "ask" topic tags this week, and we agreed it might be a good idea to get a consensus on these.

At the moment, Tilders are using four "ask" tags on topics:

• ask

• ask.survey

• ask.recommendations

• ask.help

(There may be more "ask" tags created in the future, but these four are what we're all using at the moment.)

Anything that's a question gets tagged with "ask". Some specific types of question will then get tagged with "ask.survey" or "ask.recommendations" or "ask.help", depending in the type of question being asked.

• "ask.survey" is for questions about preferences and favourites. "What's your favourite horror movie?" "What's the best place you ever visited?" "What's your favourite type of holiday?" The asker is collecting data about people's likes and dislikes (even if they're not going to publish the results in a report later!).

• "ask.recommendations" is for questions asking for recommendations. "What's a good browser to use?" "What book should I read next?" "Which brand of phone should I buy?" The asker is looking for people to recommend things to them.

However, Deimos and I wondered about "ask.help". One interpretation we came up with was that "ask.help" is for questions looking for a specific answer, where it should generally be possible for people to think "yes, this is the right answer to the question". This would include questions seeking help learning about an academic topic, such as happens in /r/AskScience and /r/AskHistorians over on Reddit. Another interpretation we came up with was that "ask.help" is for questions looking for guidance on doing something, like a "how to" type question. This would be more like the types of questions in /r/Help and like the Help menus in software and the F1 key - helping people get things done.

What do you think about the "ask" tags? In particular, what should the "ask.help" tag be used for? In general, are the existing "ask" tags okay? Do we need more "ask" tags? Do we need different "ask" tags?

OC from me when I was a college student. Also a good excuse to watch some cartoons and call it study ;-P Mods - feel free to move this if this isn't the appropriate sub. Thanks!

Who Has the Power? He-Man and the Masters of Marketing

Once upon a time the sole purpose of children’s television was to educate. But this changed in the 1980s when the Federal Communications Commission refused to enforce a ban on children’s programming tied to commercial products. Mattel took advantage of this to market a line of toys with their show He-Man and the Masters of the Universe. This was the crown jewel of the toy-based children’s programming in the 1980s and made Mattel over a billion dollars in revenue from toys and accessories. The program sparked controversy over marketing and violence in children’s programming.

The F.C.C. and Deregulation
In 1969 the F.C.C. found that the ABC children’s show Hot Wheels to be nothing more than an episode-length commercial for the Mattel product. The commission banned product-based programs saying that they are not designed to entertain or inform the public (New York Times, February 3, 1986). This regulation was enforced throughout most of the 1970s, but the F.C.C.’s position on children’s programming changed drastically during the 1980s to become market-driven. By 1986 this change was explicit when F.C.C. Chairman Mark Fowler told the New York Times that “‘The public’s interest determines the public interest.’”
Fowler had replaced Charles D. Ferris as chairman when President Reagan took office. Ferris had been a proponent for government-mandated children’s programming aimed at specific age groups (New York Times, July 25, 1982). Ferris said in the article:

We are well aware that it is not in the economic interest of the broadcasters to aim this kind of programming at an audience amounting to 16 to 18 percent of the population- age 12 and younger- but if the obligation falls evenly on all, then no one is particularly disadvantage.

For 27 years Captain Kangaroo served this function for CBS, but in July 1982 it went off the air leading New York Times reporter Holsendolph to ask “how could the situation reach a point where no children’s fair is regularly scheduled on weekdays on the commercial networks?” Like Ferris, Holsendolph did not realize that the door was being opened for commercialism. But Bob Keeshan, aka Captain Kangaroo, had an idea of what was coming, “‘Frankly, I think the needs of our nation’s children are just too important to be left to the networks and their profit motives, or to Mark Fowler’s market concept.’” With Fowler’s F.C.C. backing off from enforcing bans and also calling for deregulation of the industry, the market was ripe for the picking and the toy-maker Mattel was ready and waiting.

Marketing to Children
Before the popular show He-Man and the Masters of the Universe ever existed, the toys were designed and sold starting in 1982. He-Man was not the creation of a lone artist at Mattel but rather the product of marketing research. According to a People Weekly article by Carl Arrington, the research began as a response to the highly profitable Kenner Star Wars action figures. Mattel conducted 17 studies on everything from boys’ play habits to the preferred hair color of the hero (blond). Mattel examined such classic works as Joseph Campbell’s Hero with a Thousand Faces to develop archetypes for the characters. The characters were given a fantastic flair because the research indicated a preference for high-fantasy and made it easy to capitalize off of the success of the Star Wars toy line.

The first toys came with mini-comic books that explained some of the background behind the characters. Originally, He-Man was a wandering barbarian similar to Arnold Schwarzenegger’s character in Conan the Barbarian but this changed as the toy-line evolved. The toys were priced around $5 apiece and the accessories ranged between $20 and $40. Mattel eventually made 70 characters and urged kids to collect them all.

He-Man and the Masters of the Universe first aired in September 1983. Prior to that almost all children’s shows were on the networks (ABC, NBC and CBS), but with the number of independent TV stations tripling since 1972, a new market had opened up. He-Man took advantage of this by airing on 166 independent networks. The toy companies shared the cost of the programs with the producers. The producers then made a deal with a syndicator, who traded air time with the station managers for the use of the show. The syndicator then sold some of the air time to advertisers and funneled the cash back to the producer. Many independent TV stations also received a cut of the toy profits for airing a show, a practice the F.C.C. condoned (New York Times, February 3, 1986).

Many critics called the show “a program-length advertisement” for the toys. The Boston-based Action for Children’s Television, who lamented the end of Captain Kangaroo and advocated a government mandate to ensure children’s programming earlier in the decade, was infuriated that the F.C.C. had allowed the market to determine children’s programming. They said that programs based on toys constituted a commercial. Peggy Charren, the group’s president, said “‘What makes matters worse is that most of the products are being advertised on children’s television as well, making it hard to distinguish between product and programming.’” The president of the National Association of Broadcasters, Edward O. Fritts, said that the complaints were “‘an outrageously shortsighted and overly idealistic approach,’” and he added that the industry had made incredible progress in children’s programming (New York Times, October 12, 1983). Dr. William H. Dietz, chairman of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ task force on children and television, also opposed the programs. “‘They sell a product while claiming to be entertainment. And kids don’t know the difference. It is unfair and deceptive advertising. It is unethical to do that, in my opinion,’” said Dietz (New York Times, February 3, 1986).

The Success of the Show and the Toys
The show became the No. 1 children’s program in America and was aired five days a week, something that had never before happened with a children’s program. Besides the 166 U.S. stations that aired the show, 37 foreign countries were invaded by He-Man. It quickly became a favorite of boys age 4 to 8, but around 30 percent of the viewers were female, according to the show’s executive producer Lou Scheimer (New York Times, December 18, 1984). He-Man had 9 million viewers after only 15 months on the air, wrote Patricia Blake in a 1985 Time Magazine article.

The show was a cultural phenomenon and parents everywhere were berated with demands for the toys from their children. Paula Higgins recalled how her son wanted the toys so badly that she took him to five toy stores in search of the He-Man action figure. She noted in her New York Times column that “He-Man and company have an advantage over their Star Wars counterparts, [because] they are on a cartoon five afternoons a week, every week.” Although she approved of the cartoon she did not like the marketing. She wrote “I also know I do not like what is happening, but this is all new territory for us. Our son has never got caught up in this kind of advertising hype before” (New York Times, April 29, 1984).

In 1984, Mattel had sold $500 million in toys and another $500 million in other merchandise, such as He-Man toothbrushes, underwear, lunchboxes and bed sheets. That year the toys were so popular that Mattel had to hire freight airliners rather than ships to get the toys over from Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Mexico to meet demand (New York Times, December 18, 1984). This was just the beginning of a wave of toy-based cartoons such as G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero, the Transformers and the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

Violence and Morals
The 1980s was also a decade of concern about violence on television and most particularly violence in children’s programming. The National Coalition on Television Violence found that the new Walt Disney cable network was showing cartoons that contain violence unsuitable for children. They stated that 19.3 violent acts were shown in Disney cartoons each hour (New York Times, April 23, 1984). Disney’s cartoons paled in comparison to the violence in the military themed shows. Children’s shows like Rambo and G.I. Joe were at the center of the violence debate, but He-Man was not exempt. The He-Man show sparked debate among concerned parents who feared its extreme popularity spread violent play. At a viewing of He-Man at the Christ Church Day Care, Peggy Marble, a mother, said that she was concerned the show promoted violence and “unusually aggressive play” (New York Times, December 12, 1985).

Filmation, the studio that produced He-Man, hired Stanford University Communications Professor Donald Roberts as an educational consultant to ensure that the popular show kept the violence to a minimum. Roberts said that none of the characters get killed or seriously hurt, in a Time Magazine article by Patricia Blake. Furthermore, Roberts said that He-Man deplores violence and thus the battle scenes are “‘really anti-battle scenes.’” To combat the charges of violence that were occurring within the industry, the He-Man program also incorporated a moral message at the end of every show, much like another popular show of the time, G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. Filmation President and He-Man Producer Lou Scheimer defended the show by saying that they have done episodes addressing drugs, child molestation and gun control (New York Times, December 12, 1985).

A 1982 National Institute of Mental Health study found that violence on TV was directly related to children’s violent behavior off-screen. Dr. Jerome L. Singer, professor of psychology at Yale University, said “‘It is true that some shows, like He-Man, have a kind of moral. But our observations of young children have been that they don’t get it. What we have noticed is that the play with toys like He-Man tends to be rather aggressive’” (New York Times, December 12, 1985).

Conclusion
The debate over toy-based programming continued longer than the popularity of Mattel’s He-Man, whose sales dropped $250 million in 1986 as kids lost interest. In 1990, Congress passed the Children’s Television Act that limited commercials to 12 minutes of every hour of programming. However, the F.C.C. declined to define shows based on toys as commercials. Instead, they ruled that a program is only a commercial if an advertisement for the related toys is run during the breaks. This provoked the ire of Peggy Charren, president of the Action for Children’s Television, who said “‘The problem is not with the four or five minutes of advertising time. The problem is the 26 minutes that the ad agency, the program producer and the toy company have prepared’” (New York Times, November 9, 1990).

He-Man’s catchphrase that he booms out at the beginning of every episode is “By the power of Grayskull, I have the Power.” And he does, or at least Mattel does along with the rest of the toy industry. By uttering the magic phrase, He-Man transforms himself from wimpy Prince Adam, his alter-ego, into a muscle-bound barbarian with flawless super powers. In much the same way, toy companies like Mattel transformed themselves from mere manufacturers of play-things to marketing giants with muscles that bulged five days a week.

Coverage of F.C.C. deregulation was prevalent but its impact on children’s programming received less coverage than other aspects such as the Fairness Doctrine. Controversy of toy-based children’s programming focused on violence and the extreme popularity of the toys and the shows. F.C.C. regulations were usually only mentioned as a backdrop for these stories.

While the debate over market-driven children’s programming began over 20 years ago it remains a concern in today’s society. Prepubescent cries of “buy me this toy” can be heard in any toy store in the country, no doubt inspired by a TV show that has followed the He-Man marketing strategy. Today, parents and doctors are more worried about the marketing of high-fat and high-sugar foods during children’s programs. The Institute of Medicine recommends legislation banning ads for such bad food during children’s shows. At a time when 31 percent of children are obese this message is one of “urgency,” according to J. Michael McGinnis, chairman of the IOM committee. ‘The prevailing pattern of food and beverage marketing to children in America represents, at best, a missed opportunity, and, at worst, a direct threat to the health of the next generation,” according the IOM report (USA Today, December 7, 2005).

Humanity has wiped out 60% of animals since 1970, major report finds

Don't misread the headline like I did when I saw it! This isn't about extinctions: we haven't killed off 60% of species. We have reduced the population of all animals by an average of 60%.

Designing, coding, moderating, promoting and doing all the business admin on Tildes must be fairly thankless. But without all this effort we'd not be able to enjoy discussions with each other & share all this interesting content. I don't feel that much appreciation is really shown on here (except maybe miss-voting on all Deimos' comments).

But it is a little awkward, spurious thanks all over the place would just be noise. I thought I'd make a topic especially for people to say thanks in. I'm really enjoying Tildes content and discussion. Plus I'm a big believer in the goals of Tildes as laid out in the docs.

So I'd like to say a big thank you to Deimos and other useful contributors! Thanks for making the site we have to use today and dreaming of the hopefully better possible site we'll see in the future.

I'm also hoping to start a discussion on what enthusiastic Tildes users can do to most usefully help make Tildes good now and better in the future.

A list of stuff we can do:

• Obviously posting lots of good content and interesting discussions. Voting honestly and using comment labels judiciously.

• You can donate and currently we can see Tildes Patreon is at $375 a month. Deimos posted some more figures recently.

• We all regularly get invite codes and bringing in more people who can get excited (and maybe also help) is obviously good.

• The issue tracker and bug reports are all public so you can make suggestions, vote or comment on existing ones and perhaps more usefully see if you can work out how to reproduce reported bugs.

• As of a bit over two months ago Tildes is open source. This means you can track down bugs from the issue tracker or even contribute code for new features.

RFC:

So are other people liking Tildes? What is it you like? Are you excited enough to want to help out?

Also is there anything useful users can do I've missed? In these already mentioned areas what's actually most useful to do? Are some things of negative use? Could Deimos change his process to make more use of community help? Is there anything Deimos could delegate that people would be willing to volunteer on? Gitlab Walmart greeter would be cool but is anyone willing to do it?

I almost posted this in ~news but wasn't really sure so feel free to move the post if I got it wrong.

The new jobs report is out:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

I consistently feel like the media just runs with the unemployment rate and ignores the other very important numbers. I think that the economy isn't really "booming" for ordinary Americans and I think that the numbers in the job report that aren't widely talked about are eye-opening.

These numbers used to be talked about a LOT more immediately after the 2008 recessions and during the OWS protests.

To be clear, I'm happy the stock market is up but I don't think it's "trickling" down all that much.

Some examples:

Long-term unemployed are not finding work:

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little changed at 1.4 million over the month; these individuals accounted for 22.9 percent of the unemployed. (See table A-12.)

There are ~4.5 million people who are working part-time who want to work full time, and that number is rapidly growing with ~250,000 added since last quarter:

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) increased by 263,000 to 4.6 million in September. These individuals, who would have preferred full-time employment, were working part time because their hours had been reduced or they were unable to find full-time jobs. (See table A-8.)

More than 1.5 million American's gave up looking for work:

In September, 1.6 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, essentially unchanged from a year earlier. (Data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)

I volunteer with several small nonprofits. A few weeks ago, one of them got a spam message from a "volunteer" offering to create a free website for the organization and disclosing a connection to DonorComplete. There was no unsubscribe link. I hit Google, which eventually led me to a thread on TechSoup where I commented with what I had found to that date under the same user name: http://forums.techsoup.org/cs/community/f/24/t/43439.aspx This & other results showed that the "free" website is linked to historically very expensive hosting (historically , ~ $20-$40/mo, now showing about $10/mo) for a static website with very limited support or options.

My research continued intermittently, but there appears to be a network of over 100 domains (active, expired, dormant and/or returning server errors) connected to spam efforts over roughly the last 6 years, questionable marketing tactics dating back to ~ 1998, 4 overlapping corporations with one man as a central figure, several throwaway email addresses and a couple that seem to be dedicated & longer running, a handful of apparently dedicated servers and several shared servers with many connected domains hosted. The messages target nonprofit organizations and churches, with 4 textual variations posted via email, mailing lists, and comments. The first archived comments I found targeted FOSS project mailing lists. Based on the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, many small nonprofits used their service years ago, but it looks like the spammers' services have been largely abandoned over the last few years - probably why the new campaign started ~ June.

I've filed complaints with two of the registrars, and at least one of the recently active domains appears to be in non-hosted status. Would there be any interest in my posting a thread with the details of what I've found so far (spreadsheets and mind maps in progress)? Would anyone be interested in helping me present the data in a more easily digestible format a la r/dataisbeautiful? Or can anyone recommend an easier way to report the registrant tied to the spam? I'm not trying to start a witch hunt, but these people seem to have flown under the radar for a long time, and I know many small nonprofits aren't tech savvy enough to recognize the warning signs these folks present.

Adjustment Day is a parody, at least I hope it is, of a United States dystopia. The concept is rather ambitious, but the author rises to the task. The prime conspiracy theory behind the book is that throughout history, civilization has periodically weeded out young men of 18-24 through war and whatever other means available to keep society from returning to the dark ages. Who does this in the U.S? Why, your government, of course.

In this version of the conspiracy, the young men turn the tables. Most of the book is about what happens after Adjustment Day. I've only read Fight Club and Choke by Palahniuk before this. All I can say is the cynicism and nihilism of those two books seems increased tenfold in Adjustment Day. Do you have a conservative conspiracy theory that you think about from time to time? They're all in here. I'd even bet that the author comes up with some you've never heard before.

In a satire that is as biting as The Sellout, Palahniuk presents several characters who live through the aftermath of the event, including the originator of it. But instead of nobody talking about it, (like in Fight Club) everybody is talking about this new bizarre movement/social-political revolution. As you go down this rabbit hole of irrational rationalization, it's easy to lose sight of what is going on. Scenes and characters are switched at the beginning of random paragraphs, causing me to back up every few pages.

A good example of Palahniuk's treatment of infrastructure is given by a new form of money that comes out of the movement:

Officially, the order called them Talbotts, but everyone knew them as skins. Rumor was the first batches were refined from, somehow crafted from the stretched and bleached skin taken from targeted persons. People seemed to take a hysterical joy from the idea.
Instead of being backed by gold or the full faith of government or some such, this money was backed by death. The suggestion was always that failure to accept the new currency and honor its face value might result in the rejecter being targeted. Never was this stated, not overtly, but the message was always on television and billboards: Please Report Anyone Failing to Honor the Talbott. The bills held their face value for as long as a season, but faded faster in strong light and fastest in sunlight. A faded bill held less value as the markers along the edges became illegible.

Because the money had a shelf life, people had to work all the time. At the top of the hierarchy were the young men who had put their lives on the line during the Adjustment Day revolution. They would get the money from some source and give it away to their workers and people they knew, spending it all as fast as they could.

If that sounds ridiculous, you haven't even scratched the surface of this world. Chief among the topics are racism and prejudice toward everyone you can imagine. All in all I found the book a little tedious. Palahniuk puts the crazy theories in the mouths of people who voice them so convincingly that it becomes surreal. If you're a fan of the author you might like it. But practically every paragraph seems engineered to be offensive in some way, to someone.

Let's just hope Chuck is making all this stuff up.

Probably I'm not alone in such situation when a good person you know believes in something really harmless but still ridiculous in the depth of your mind.

For example, that astrological sign seriously defines compatibility of people, or WTC was demolished intentionally in the US, or GMO is bad because in some experiment rats reportedly stopped reproducing and therefore someone wants to shrink certain human populations by popularizing GMO.

None of such beliefs actually do something directly harmful but sometimes just the fact people you know believe that is almost disgusting. Any proof would be discarded as an "official", biased one, profitable for those who have money and power.

What should be done in such a situation? What would you do if your otherwise perfect friend seriously considered Earth flat?

Hello! I'm an avid fan of the board game Scythe and I've played quite a few games now. While everything seems very well balanced and thought out, no one in my group has ever managed a win using the Saxony faction. Some have come close, but never enough to beat Rusivet and Crimea (the usual victors). If there are some other Scythe fans here, what are your tips and tricks besides focusing on combat?

Some info on our general playstyle:

• Most people go for all their enlist actions
• Factions always have a star or two from combat in the end
• Everyone wants their factory card, all the time

Thanks!

EDIT: I'm going to play a game this evening, will report back on what went on.
EDIT #2: It turns out Saxony wasn't played becuase we used the expansion factions. Coupled with airships, I don't think I can explain it all!

One of my favorite topics in Psychology is personality and there happens to be a very good Five Factor test that is free to the public domain with all 3,000+ items available for download. Some notes about the IPIP NEO-PI:

Purpose of this On-Line Inventory

• The primary purpose of this on line inventory is to educate the public about the five factor model of personality.
• More specifically, the report explains the likely consequences of one's standing on five broad personality domains.
• These broad domains cover normal differences in personality that should be obvious to people who know you well.
• Secondarily, this inventory estimates your standing on the 5 broad domains and 30 subdomains of personality.
• The inventory does not reveal hidden, secret information about you nor does it assess serious psychological disorders.
• The report is designed to be objective, not pleasing or flattering.
• Measurement error, misunderstandings, carelessness, and mischievous responding can invalidate the report.
• If knowledgeable acquaintances disagree with the test results, then the results are wrong.

Link to the questionnaire:
https://www.personal.psu.edu/~j5j/IPIP/

More about the International Personality Item Pool:

https://ipip.ori.org/