you are being reactionary. asserting that “people did school just fine before phones. emergency is the only reason i can think of or know about and therefore the only actual reason,” does not essentially differ from any other argument of the form “X was fine before the advent of techology Y, therefore technology Y is at best redundant and probably harmful.” that’s not even an argument, it’s just the form of a thought-terminating cliche. there are even kids now running their diabetes pump off their phone. it’s also the case that a small minority of young people are legitimately “addicted” to their phones. when a student recedes from the educational setting, it does not differ whether it’s into tiktok or a book. and they’re doing that for psychological reasons that need to be addressed at the root, not by furthering controlling and mandating the body and mind. you are advocating for a blanket application of discipline and punishment solely on the grounds that you are unimaginative and ignorant.
I get that you’re trying to make a point but if you ever say reading a book and watching TikTok is the same thing again I’ll use your email address to donate to Kamala Harris.
it’s less different for more reasons than you’d probably like to think. but yeah, i do think reading is much preferable, and was making the point that when it comes to being distracted from education, it doesn’t really matter via interaction with what medium.
I totally understand and see the contours of your point I just want you to know that I swear to fucking God I’ll make the DNC think you’re the world’s biggest liberal if you ever do it again.
the worst part is that my partner is an educator and this was a genuine example she gave when describing to me the conversation her colleagues had about their upcoming no-tolerance cell phone policy and exceptions they’d need to generally try to abide by to not overpolice the kids.
It doesn’t, especially. The phone is a bridge between the continuous glucose monitor and the pump. Pairing two devices to a common piece of technology is easier to troubleshoot and less error-prone than trying to make the two devices talk to each other directly, and allows some of the work to be offloaded to a general purpose computer rather than having to build all of that into the devices themselves. These are things that have to work, so reducing the number of things they have to do is a safety feature. The phone can also share data from the monitor whenever it’s online, versus the old situation where you’d have to bring your monitor in and hope your care team remembers to download the results.
Some pumps do pair directly to the monitors, but that often locks you into a specific configuration of monitor and pump and often costs more.
It just seems to me like adding the phone and an app is adding an extra failure point and that having a dedicated device would be more reliable. Take out the general computer entirely and just have a box with a display and a knob. But then again I am not a glucose pump designer.
That is largely what most of the pumps are, but it’s basically a device that’s constantly embedded in your body and drip-feeding you insulin (and a button for dumping a larger amount when you’re eating). Mechanically, it is very much as simple as it gets: insulin storage, delivery system, and a little computer controlling a valve.
Generally, the spots where you can reliably measure your glucose and the places where you can stick the pump for weeks at a time are not especially close. Continuous monitoring means the pump can adjust the dosage (and shut off when you’re in range) without your input, which prevents tons of complications.
The pumps already require a tube between the actual device and the needle that goes into your body, and they’re compact but by no means form-fitting. Adding sensors, displays, and other functionality there means more bulk, worse quality of life, and if the sensor fails that’s the whole device dead. Separate sensors mean if you brush your shoulder against a door a little too hard, you just replace the relatively cheap monitor instead of the whole system.
Phones are built to talk to shit over Bluetooth and have lots of extra space to build in fault tolerance and fancy graphs and whatever other garbage, leaving the little miracle tech alone to do one thing really well. A Bluetooth radio is really small, but the little computer that needs to live next to it to do anything with the signals adds bulk that’s hard to balance with quality of life.
It is such a marginal use case it is irrelevant. 2024 JAMA says “Among youths, the reported prevalence of type 1 diabetes (per 1000) was 3.5 (95% CI, 2.8-4.4)”. And not all of those have fancy insulin pumps.
As an accommodation, it would be plausible to lock down a phone to do whatever the minimum required is for this and nothing else. No social apps, no telephony, no camera. Networking disabled or severely restricted.
I find the deployment of people with chronic health conditions as a gimmick to win a badly constructed arguments very distasteful.
I find the deployment of people with chronic health conditions as a gimmick to win a badly constructed arguments very distasteful.
people with disabilities that impact blanket policies when children get faced with ignorant teachers or administrators are not a gimmick. they’re people whose existence highlights that you’re just being reactive instead of actually wanting to solve underlying issues of western schooling.
As an accommodation, it would be plausible to lock down a phone to do whatever the minimum required is for this and nothing else. No social apps, no telephony, no camera. Networking disabled or severely restricted.
pointless, ludicrous, silly, puritanical. you’re worried about the very possibility of a type 1 diabetic with a fancy insulin pump sneaking tiktoks in algebra that they need a dedicated piece of specially locked down technology for it.
Your argument in favor of disallowing kids from using cell phones in school is “ask folks who went to school before cellphones were ubiquitous, how crucial they actually are”
I don’t really have a dog in this race because I’m unconvinced of either side, but that’s a poor argument. You should actually present a response to how each of the problems that are currently solved by phones would otherwise be addressed.
Would have been interesting to have video evidence of bullying to take to teachers and parents instead of being shut down with “don’t be a tattle-tale”.
Cellphone bans in school are about one thing and one thing only: eliminating, or at least significantly reducing the number of, recordings of 911 calls made by children during the next school shooting. Look at how hard they are still trying to cover up Uvalde.
That’s silly. The reason behind these bans is because teachers currently need to fight the phones for the student’s attention. The machines designed to be as addictive and distracting as possible are derailing education and keeping kids from paying attention. Secondly, doing that is a move for public opinion which does not matter at all. There are countless policies that are incredibly unpopular that won’t change because the American political system is designed to resist grassroots pressure.
There are also cell phone bans coming into place in places that don’t have a culture of school shootings. My understanding is that they are generally considered disruptive. I was surprised to learn that they had ever been allowed; when I was in school there was a blanket ban on electronic devices regardless of whether or not they could communicate or record audio-video.
There really aren’t lot of good reasons, actually. Ask folks who went to school before cellphones were ubiquitous, how crucial they actually are.
Emergency is the only reason, and even then the argument stands that there are responsible adults abound, sorta negating a cellphone for an emergency.
you are being reactionary. asserting that “people did school just fine before phones. emergency is the only reason i can think of or know about and therefore the only actual reason,” does not essentially differ from any other argument of the form “X was fine before the advent of techology Y, therefore technology Y is at best redundant and probably harmful.” that’s not even an argument, it’s just the form of a thought-terminating cliche. there are even kids now running their diabetes pump off their phone. it’s also the case that a small minority of young people are legitimately “addicted” to their phones. when a student recedes from the educational setting, it does not differ whether it’s into tiktok or a book. and they’re doing that for psychological reasons that need to be addressed at the root, not by furthering controlling and mandating the body and mind. you are advocating for a blanket application of discipline and punishment solely on the grounds that you are unimaginative and ignorant.
I get that you’re trying to make a point but if you ever say reading a book and watching TikTok is the same thing again I’ll use your email address to donate to Kamala Harris.
it’s less different for more reasons than you’d probably like to think. but yeah, i do think reading is much preferable, and was making the point that when it comes to being distracted from education, it doesn’t really matter via interaction with what medium.
I totally understand and see the contours of your point I just want you to know that I swear to fucking God I’ll make the DNC think you’re the world’s biggest liberal if you ever do it again.
I’m also a nunchuck master and can mimic pretty much any animal. In case you weren’t scared enough already.
How much chuck could a nunchuck chuck if a nunchuck could chuck chuck
ooooh can you do a bunny?!
Sorry, I couldn’t respond because I was mimicking it perfectly and bunnies can’t type
Ok, I got a good laugh out of this one.
I’m not denying that this is happening, but why oh god why does the diebetes pump require a cell phone to operate?
It doesn’t, especially. The phone is a bridge between the continuous glucose monitor and the pump. Pairing two devices to a common piece of technology is easier to troubleshoot and less error-prone than trying to make the two devices talk to each other directly, and allows some of the work to be offloaded to a general purpose computer rather than having to build all of that into the devices themselves. These are things that have to work, so reducing the number of things they have to do is a safety feature. The phone can also share data from the monitor whenever it’s online, versus the old situation where you’d have to bring your monitor in and hope your care team remembers to download the results.
Some pumps do pair directly to the monitors, but that often locks you into a specific configuration of monitor and pump and often costs more.
It just seems to me like adding the phone and an app is adding an extra failure point and that having a dedicated device would be more reliable. Take out the general computer entirely and just have a box with a display and a knob. But then again I am not a glucose pump designer.
That is largely what most of the pumps are, but it’s basically a device that’s constantly embedded in your body and drip-feeding you insulin (and a button for dumping a larger amount when you’re eating). Mechanically, it is very much as simple as it gets: insulin storage, delivery system, and a little computer controlling a valve.
Generally, the spots where you can reliably measure your glucose and the places where you can stick the pump for weeks at a time are not especially close. Continuous monitoring means the pump can adjust the dosage (and shut off when you’re in range) without your input, which prevents tons of complications.
The pumps already require a tube between the actual device and the needle that goes into your body, and they’re compact but by no means form-fitting. Adding sensors, displays, and other functionality there means more bulk, worse quality of life, and if the sensor fails that’s the whole device dead. Separate sensors mean if you brush your shoulder against a door a little too hard, you just replace the relatively cheap monitor instead of the whole system.
Phones are built to talk to shit over Bluetooth and have lots of extra space to build in fault tolerance and fancy graphs and whatever other garbage, leaving the little miracle tech alone to do one thing really well. A Bluetooth radio is really small, but the little computer that needs to live next to it to do anything with the signals adds bulk that’s hard to balance with quality of life.
It is such a marginal use case it is irrelevant. 2024 JAMA says “Among youths, the reported prevalence of type 1 diabetes (per 1000) was 3.5 (95% CI, 2.8-4.4)”. And not all of those have fancy insulin pumps.
As an accommodation, it would be plausible to lock down a phone to do whatever the minimum required is for this and nothing else. No social apps, no telephony, no camera. Networking disabled or severely restricted.
I find the deployment of people with chronic health conditions as a gimmick to win a badly constructed arguments very distasteful.
people with disabilities that impact blanket policies when children get faced with ignorant teachers or administrators are not a gimmick. they’re people whose existence highlights that you’re just being reactive instead of actually wanting to solve underlying issues of western schooling.
pointless, ludicrous, silly, puritanical. you’re worried about the very possibility of a type 1 diabetic with a fancy insulin pump sneaking tiktoks in algebra that they need a dedicated piece of specially locked down technology for it.
That was a whole bunch of nothing beyond calling me something I’m not. Very not worth engaging further.
you didn’t even make an argument man, you said some old man yells at cloud nonsense about how your experience means you’re right.
also i didn’t “call you” a reactionary. i said you are being reactionary. there’s a difference.
Thanks for proving you aren’t worth interacting with.
i hope you can at some point bring yourself to actually contemplate this matter.
Your argument in favor of disallowing kids from using cell phones in school is “ask folks who went to school before cellphones were ubiquitous, how crucial they actually are”
I don’t really have a dog in this race because I’m unconvinced of either side, but that’s a poor argument. You should actually present a response to how each of the problems that are currently solved by phones would otherwise be addressed.
🆗
Would have been interesting to have video evidence of bullying to take to teachers and parents instead of being shut down with “don’t be a tattle-tale”.
Cellphone bans in school are about one thing and one thing only: eliminating, or at least significantly reducing the number of, recordings of 911 calls made by children during the next school shooting. Look at how hard they are still trying to cover up Uvalde.
That’s silly. The reason behind these bans is because teachers currently need to fight the phones for the student’s attention. The machines designed to be as addictive and distracting as possible are derailing education and keeping kids from paying attention. Secondly, doing that is a move for public opinion which does not matter at all. There are countless policies that are incredibly unpopular that won’t change because the American political system is designed to resist grassroots pressure.
There are also cell phone bans coming into place in places that don’t have a culture of school shootings. My understanding is that they are generally considered disruptive. I was surprised to learn that they had ever been allowed; when I was in school there was a blanket ban on electronic devices regardless of whether or not they could communicate or record audio-video.