>but it's because of the cost of raising children and not the children themselves
that's the equivalent of saying "if I control for skin colour I observe no discrimination". The cost of raising children both financially and in time, is intrinsically linked to raising children.
It is often asserted that spousal relationships suffer from the routine chores that come with raising children, and that is not going away. Don't control for the thing you want to measure.
We haven't decided that yet (she's only 3 months old at this point). We'll discuss that when/if she decides she wants to be on social media. Hopefully by then there will have been more studies into the effects of social media use with age, and we can make an informed decision :)
I have done the same thing as OP. The kid doesn't get photos put online outside Google Photos, and those are only shared with family members who know not to leak them.
For me, old enough is "when you can demonstrate meaningful understanding of the negatives of the platform". "I want to because my friends use it" isn't enough. "I want to but I'd only use [Snapchat-style ephemeral data] so people can't make fun of me with it" is much closer, as is "I want to because I want to talk to my friends but I wouldn't connect with people who aren't my friends".
So it's not a hard number, but my guess is that it's going to be about 13, like others have said.
Whole cans are easy to recycle, but doing so requires melting the metal back into stock and noxious chemicals to clean the metal.
That is all very expensive and environmentally unfriendly compared to potential for reuse of strong bottles.
Unless you force a redesign so that cans are reusable.
(No more tab - instead a bottle cap, standard shape, no crushing, heavier, thicker, more expensive.)
There exists aluminum bottles - Coke at one time sold their soda in them (I think it was some kind of commemorative edition or something like that).
That would have the same benefit as bottles: The ability to drink only part of the contents (like people do with water). The downside is that you can't see what is inside (an important factor for many people when they purchase - especially water).
I'm not going to defend Mormon beliefs, but I will play devil's advocate. Many Mormons view tithe as giving back to the community of which they're a part. And that community, they believe, will provide value to them, in turn. And generally, it does... as far as I can tell from the outside.
I'll also play devil's advocate and suggest that perhaps some people also get value from their psychics. As far as I can tell from the outside, some psychics essentially serve as life coaches for their clients.
And just as some people find religion comforting with regards to their passed relatives ("I know Grandma is in heaven!") others may find similar comfort talking to Grandma via a psychic -- even if both are total fabrications.
One additional difference is that the psychic is being personally enriched by the money, whereas the Mormon leaders are not being personally enriched. (At the highest levels they get a stipend, of around 120k/year last I checked). Now this is not true of other churches necessarily, but it is true of the Mormons.
Tumors can be seen as made of cells which eschew cooperation with the rest of the body, and instead selfishly multiply, to the detriment of the whole and ultimately themselves.
It is my belief that advertising is a cancer on the society; it's exploiting - and in the process, destroying - every vulnerable individual and social heuristic. It involves uncooperative behaviors like manipulating people and lying to them.
The analogy here is that since entities making up the advertising industry eschew cooperation and embrace exploiting others for short-term gains, they're not going to magically start playing fair and cooperating within the industry. Therefore, to the extent you expect advertisers (including adtech) to scam you, they'll scam each other just the same - as seen in this article.
This, fortunately, somewhat limits the effectiveness of that industry.
I came up with this analogy few years ago, when I read accusations that Optimizely designed their A/B testing suite's UI in a way that promotes drawing statistically unsound conclusions from A/B tests, misleading you to believe that the tested intervention worked - and thus making you think Optimizely is successfully helping you learn things. My own personal observations from working alongside one social marketing team also confirmed the soundness of this analogy.
My wife and I are 47 and love it. Our teenage kids enjoyed it when we watched it with them recently. My dad, a boomer, actually doesn’t care all that much for it. It happens to be a good story irrespective of when you were a child or young adult. Shrug.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here - there's nothing wrong with enjoying it, there's nothing wierd about younger people enjoying it and that still doesn't really change the fact that movie targets nostalgia of a certain demografic. Considering it's success, it does that very well.
