“Marketing” here being entirely incidental is the point, that the products appeal to youth simply by existing. To my knowledge, there aren’t any literal advertisements going around to young people like those ridiculous Juul ads 5 or so years ago. Talking about specific types of imagery or colours on packaging, or the types of flavours used in a flavoured product as “marketing” is using an umbrella term to suggest intent to actively market to kids, but that isn’t a thing that’s happening.

I figured out that the swipe down doesn’t need to begin from the actual notification bar, like it does on my older Android phones. I can just naturally extend my thumb up to halfway up the screen and swipe down from there. Doesn’t work if I have scrollable content already on screen though

I’m talking about the WHO’s recommendations in their capacity as an advisory body on public health following their analysis of IARC research, not the research itself. Many of the studies do make substantial corrections for the participant candidates. I don’t think that’s necessarily translated through to the recommendations, which should be given in the context of existing public health outcomes.

The WHO agrees that two thirds of adults in countries like USA and Aus are overweight. They agree that obesity is an extreme risk factor for cancer. They agree that non-nutritive sweeteners confer at least a short term benefit to weight loss. They agree that the cancer risk associated with those products is comparatively insignificant. So they should be careful not to potentially mislead media and the the public about that specific causal relationship. It has directly resulted in the misleading headline of this post.

But then couldn’t you just as easily say rather than ‘people use diet products because they’re overweight’, that ‘people are overweight because they use diet products’ ? I’ve certainly heard both propositions before. “Never seen a skinny person drinking Diet Coke”

I didn’t, but I just found a few papers showing a relationship between awareness/use of nutrition claims/labels and obesity.

https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-019-7622-3

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306919214001328?via%3Dihub

That second one sums up my logic pretty well:

The analysis revealed that people with excess weight display a high level of interest in nutrition claims, namely, short and immediately recognised messages. Conversely, obese individuals assign less importance to marketing attributes (price, brand, and flavour) compared with normal weight consumers.

Generally people that engage with products marketed as “diet” options are more likely to be people that want to improve their diet. In turn those people are more likely to be overweight. And people that are not overweight are more likely to select based on other product attributes.

Edit: The use of low-calorie sweeteners is associated with self-reported prior intent to lose weight in a representative sample of US adults - https://www.nature.com/articles/nutd20169

In cross-sectional analyses, the expected relation between higher BMI and LCS [low calorie sweetener] use was observed, after adjusting for smoking and sociodemographic variables. The relation was significant for the entire population and separately for men and women (see Table 1). The relation between obesity (BMI ⩾30 kg m−2) and LCS consumption was significant for LCS beverages, tabletop LCS and LCS foods (see Figure 1a). Individuals consuming two or more types of LCSs were more likely to be obese than individuals consuming none (42.7% vs 28.4%) and were more likely to have class III obesity (7.3% vs 4.2%).

My assumption isn’t completely absent of context. From the article: “The FDA reviewed the the same evidence as IARC in 2021 and identified significant flaws in the studies, the spokesperson said.”

But that’s not really what I meant. The issue I have is about language and presentation of info, not research methodology. Most people aren’t going to read WHO’s ~100 pages of recommendations on aspartame. We get CNBC’s interpretation, and some clickbaity editor has left their stink on it.

“WHO says soda sweetener aspartame safe, but may cause cancer in extreme doses” is both a more pertinent headline for countries in the west and from what I can tell, closer to being in alignment with what the WHO are actually saying.

Of the basis WHO is using here, most if not all longterm studies (the kind you’d want for assessing things like cancer risk) are based on observational evidence. That is, a study where the participants typically aren’t asked to do anything they don’t already normally do. For this topic, that means generally speaking the participants are going to be people that already normally drink low calorie sweetened beverages.

It doesn’t really seem like they’re accounting for the fact that this means that the participant candidates are going to skew towards people that are overweight, which is like the 2nd highest risk factor for cancer generally.

I can’t really make sense of their recommendation. The data required to recommend for or against just isn’t there. The totality of short term data is all very showing a very strong association between sweetened drinks and weight loss. Wish they’d just explain this stuff properly so we didn’t have to rely on the dumbass media to interpret advice meant for medical professionals

Maybe the situation just doesn’t call for use of a triggering word for the same reasons why swear words are less effective when used casually or arbitrarily in many situations. The meaning attached to the swear word is literally derived from the absence of its use in normal daily situations. In turn the use of the word alone is triggering for most that participate in this established convention - that’s the intended design for their use of the word. There’s plenty of forums where exclusively adults talk to eachother without swearing or where a blunt reference to SA would be weird.

When conversation about these topics is warranted, the person tabling it might feel compelled not to trigger other participants and self-censor as a measure towards that outcome. This might not actually prevent victims of SA from being inherently triggered by any discussion on the topic, but it at least signals to them that the organisers of the discussion have considered / are sympathetic to their position, which may encourage their participation in a way that enhances the discussion.

Personally I participate in communities where this topic comes up often and due to the established convention for the mode of discussion in that community, it sounds quite grating to me when someone uses the word rape, because I understand that convention and that it was established for the benefit of others (SA victims), not me.

Just some child begging for attention while the adults are talking by compromising an admin account and posting shock sites. “Lemonparty, haha!” is how I might’ve reacted 20 years ago, these days more just sad how they had this opportunity and couldn’t come up with anything more creative to do than just be generally annoying

I don’t think there’s much keeping users outside that demographic away, more so that the fediverse is a tech solution to the reddit problem, so naturally the people that flock to lemmy are the type of person that looks for tech solutions to the problems they experience in daily life.

My mother just had her illegal IPTV streaming box stop working recently, was her solution to find an alternative? No, she simply stopped watching her shows and did other things instead, and complained about it. And that’s with full denial of service, not just limited/compromised service like reddit users currently experience.

It wasn’t until her tech-savvy nerd son set up another IPTV box for her that she was able to resume consuming the content she wanted to, and similarly lemmy won’t really take off until it reaches a critical mass where enough tech-savvy nerds have shown regular people Lemmy as the tech solution to the problem they’re facing. What’s holding up progress with that at the moment is that the reddit problem for most people isn’t significant enough for a regular person to be in a position to do anything about it, even if they are directly inconvenienced.

Just wait and the problem will resolve itself when proper mod tools are released and beehaw refederates with open instances. In the meantime you can still read and interact with beehaw posts, but only with a separate copy of the post which is only seen by other lemm.ee users. The post you linked to creates a false sense of urgency where unless you can interact fully (i.e. as if beehaw is federated with lemm.ee), then there’s no situation where you should read or interact with those posts at all, or that you can’t interact at all. That’s not really true, as some comments on the post pointed out

Got my Pixel 7 yesterday and love the stock launcher, but I just can’t stay away from Niagara. It’s just too efficient

I switched to a Pixel 7 today from a Xiaomi Android phone. I always felt my existing phone was too big, and when looking for a new one the first thing I did was go to gsmarena and search for a phone released relatively recently with a smaller screen. Literally the only result was the Iphone SE.

The Pixel phone is practically the same size as my existing phone, just a tad smaller and just a tad heavier. But there is a significant difference in the gesture support, which is usually something I don’t bother with. The result is that the basic system navigation and app switching can be done with my right hand only, in its normal holding position. The swipe from the left to go back a screen can be done from the bottom of the screen, so I don’t need to stretch my thumb up and across to do it from the middle of the screen.

Stretching unnaturally is still required to swipe down from the top of the screen, or I guess if third party app design puts buttons in the top left. But as a software solution to this hardware problem which also preserves the larger screen size for cases where that’s useful or desired, I think it’s pretty good.