The headline says

A record 35% of people aged 18-24 were classed as ‘inactive’ this year, driven by a mental health crisis.

The FT article references this as its source of data - https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/neet-statistics-annual-brief#dataBlock-58d70635-dc1a-4172-997b-fb5bc73d7166-tables .

But that source says

The percentage of the population defined as ‘not in education, employment or training’ (NEET) in 2023 is estimated to be 11.9%. This is 0.5 percentage points lower compared to the same period in 2022 where the estimated figure was 12.3%.

So where is FT getting its figures from? Or did they just pretend that training is the same thing as inactivity? (•_•)

He’s got a book to sell or a gig or something. He’ll try getting into headlines in any way possible right now.

He’s just trying to sell books now. Ignore him.

Oral b pro 1, 2 or 3. They use the same motor and batteries as their most expensive ones, which is really the only bit that matters. Everything else is just gimmicks to justify the price… Bluetooth connections and other bullshit.

And don’t bother with official heads either. Generics work fine. Just remember to change them often.

Yes, I admire her so much for doing this. She’s a real hero.

This is actually the world’s oldest cat flap. True fact.

Parents should say no, and now this will make it easier for them to do so :)

The advertising standards authority use a nutritional profiling model. If the food is High in Fat, Sodium, Suger (HFSS) it gets a higher score. Some points are deducted if it is high in fruit, veg or nuts. If the food is above a certain point threshold different advertising rules apply.

This applies to preprocessed food. Not ingredients you would use to prepare your own food.

I don’t know about your other questions but some of the other rules are interesting…

You can’t use licensed characters or celebrities to advertise to under 16s.

You can’t condone or promote unhealthy lifestyle or eating habits. Ie. Eating a massive bucket of ice cream in front of the playstation.

You must not take advantage of a child’s vulnerability by appealing to emotions such as pity, fear, or self-confidence, or by Suggesting that having the advertised product somehow confers superiority, for example making a child more confident, clever, popular, or successful.

You must not present your price in a way that suggests children or their families can easily afford it. “Only”. “just”. Etc

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-nutrient-profiling-model

This is brilliant! You must have been practicing for a long time to draw so well.

He chose a word poorly. Get him!

Just some good ol’ oppression of the prol’s through class.

It’s a bad headline dude. Really misleading.

My girlfriend’s a model. She goes to another school.

Vote.

It was a genuine question. I have no argument here. I don’t know the best term in this situation.

Some members of the staff also felt their compensation was better than they might otherwise have earned in India, the defense argued.

Is this a real lawyer? They clearly have no legal case. I hope the book gets thrown at them.

Would you say ‘women doctor’ in this scenario?

The processor in 3 is a pretty sizeable improvement over 2. A quick and dirty a/b test I did found frames rendered in 13ms on q2 would render in 9-10ms on q3, so that’s a good 20 - 30% faster, even though it’s rendering a lot more pixels.

I think the important bit for meta though is making sure their range of headsets all have decent passthrough. No one is going to develop MR apps, and it’ll never take off, unless the whole user base can use them.

Personally I’d take the better lenses and resolution of the q3 over better passthrough though.

Lol. I’m glad you’re not my dad. The horror.

Maybe. But I don’t think it’s anything other than a big defeat for them. Nothing beats being beamed into people’s living rooms to give you accessibility and credibility. Even if they become more extreme online there’s a lot of competition in that space.