Yeah, I know I shouldn’t expect much from a site like that, but since it’s shared here I felt like I should shine a little light on the deeper issues.

This kind of superficial “journalism” rage-baiting boomers for clicks is really frustrating to me. Shit like this is brain-rot at least as bad as Tiktok is. It has always existed, but the extent to which it has replaced actual analysis and investigation is depressing.

Yes, the parents are partially at fault, of course. But as you indicated, there are significant societal pressures that force families into dynamics like this and it’s not realistic to expect an overwhelming majority to be able to resist it, alone. And since we’re not about to engage in class-based eugenics, it’s up to society to give them a serviceable ladder to climb out of their situation.

So, TLDR; I wanted to shine a light on deeper issues, so that people don’t think that this is solely a moral failing of parents, and that they DO understand that we have a collective responsibility to help families.

Found the illiterate bootlicker ☝️

I mean, that’s kind of my point - in situations like that, it seems like using Tiktok is small potatoes compared to the more significant issues that’d cause problem behavior. The Tiktok consumption is just another symptom, and if it wasn’t tiktok it’d be some other escape mechanism.

To me, the article seems lazy, complaining about a superficial problem without spending effort to even consider or mention underlying root causes that could give rise to it and must be solved first.

And to be clear I’m not blaming the parents, they’re not the “root cause” I’m talking about. They’re victims too, in large part. They and their kids are stuck in a harmful cycle, and people with the ability to break that cycle are unwilling to do so.

What does “on tiktok” mean?

Unsupervised with their own accounts? I feel like that’s difficult to believe. Watching a few tiktoks before dinner with their parents? That doesn’t really strike me as a problem.

While I don’t entirely disagree with the author, I feel like this is a far too superficial look at what is a larger societal problem: young people have checked out.

He makes the argument that mental health is in decline, and I’m not sure if that’s true or we’ve just removed the stigma from therapy… But of more concern to me is that young people just DGAF, and I think that’s because older generations have left nothing for younger generations to inherit, besides ruin. Kids 5-7 aren’t gonna understand that, but they’re gonna pick up the vibes from their parents.

Typical capitalist race to the bottom to appease investors with short term decision making

There is nothing about the Vision Pro that prevents that from happening other than they haven’t implemented it.

The ability feature to automatically give you information about arbitrary things you’re looking at isn’t a requirement for “true AR”.

I’m not really defending vision pro, it seems pretty limited. But that doesn’t make it “not true AR” and MR doesn’t mean “crappy/inferior AR”

They are the same thing. I think that they’re confusing it with the difference between “passthrough” AR (you watch an opaque display showing video of the outside world) and “see through” AR (which uses a transparent display that you look through to see the outside world).

You’re describing the difference between “passthrough” AR, and “look through” (or “optical”) AR.

AR and MR or more pretty much interchangeable.

They got a hololens, but like 8 years later, for the same price, and still just as useless.

But it’s like… Wow, communist [whatever] in the capitalist country don’t perform well according to capitalist metrics. Shocker.

What an inane thing for them to say.

Even setting aside the complete failure of free market competition, leaving small companies to choose between failure and getting bought up.

I’m not sure you understand the words you’re using.