 |
|
|
|||||
When people complain about a lack of work-life balance, theyre typically feeling that they are spending too much time working. They may be spending a lot of combined time at the office and commuting, or just putting in a lot of hours both at work and at home. Fixing that problem cant be done abstractly, though. If youre going to address the balance of work and life activities, you have to start getting specific about where your time is going and where you really want it to go. Think about how you’re spending your time. At work, youre spending time in meetings, writing documents, engaging with clients, or doing particular technical tasks like coding. Similarly, your non-work life consists of other activities like going to the gym, spending time with family, going to concerts, or reading a novel for pleasure. Start by taking a look at where your time is going right now. If you keep a good work calendar, then flip through a few weeks and track the hours youre spending on different tasks. If you dont have a good record of the time youre spending at work, then start logging the time spent on different work tasks. How much of the time youre spending on work tasks is really necessary? Are there activities that are discretionary that you could replace with something else (potentially a non-work something else)? Are you wasting time shifting among tasks or doing other things inefficiently? Perhaps more importantly, you also need to think more clearly about what activities should go in your life bin. What are the activities or hobbies you wish you had more time for? Who are the people you want to spend more time with? You spend time on specific work tasks, because those end up on your calendar. You have to define life specifically enough that it ends up on your calendar as well. Then, create a calendar that includes both work events and life events. Dont just log your meetings, tasks (and commute time), but also time for working with your kids on their homework, going on a date with your partner, hanging out with friends, going to the gym, or reading a book. It may seem like micromanaging your life to start scheduling these personal events, but if you dont start doing things differently, the balance of the way you spend your time is not going to change. This approach also helps you to recognize when your work responsibilities have become overwhelming. If you truly dont have the time to do any of your life activities, then your job may be asking too much of you. Sit down with your supervisor or a mentor and talk through what youre currently doing at work. Ask for help prioritizing tasks so that you have more opportunities to do other things that are important to you. Your supervisor might even change some of your responsibilities to make the load more manageable in a reasonable amount of time. Ultimately, by scheduling the time for these life activities (and actually doing them), you are shifting your habits to include more regular life activities. You wont necessarily have to create a specific calendar for your life forever. As you start engaging in more non-work activities, that will shift the nature of your daily and weekly routine in ways that are likely to become self-sustaining.
Category:
E-Commerce
TikTok agreed to settle a landmark social media addiction lawsuit just before the trial kicked off, the plaintiffs attorneys confirmed. The social video platform was one of three companies along with Metas Instagram and Googles YouTube facing claims that their platforms deliberately addict and harm children. A fourth company named in the lawsuit, Snapchat parent company Snap Inc., settled the case last week for an undisclosed sum. Details of the settlement with TikTok were not disclosed, and the company did not immediately respond to a request for comment. At the core of the case is a 19-year-old identified only by the initials KGM, whose case could determine how thousands of other similar lawsuits against social media companies will play out. She and two other plaintiffs have been selected for bellwether trials essentially test cases for both sides to see how their arguments play out before a jury and what damages, if any, may be awarded, said Clay Calvert, a nonresident senior fellow of technology policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. A lawyer for the plaintiff said in a statement Tuesday that TikTok remains a defendant in the other personal injury cases, and that the trial will proceed as scheduled against Meta and YouTube. Jury selection starts this week in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. It’s the first time the companies will argue their case before a jury, and the outcome could have profound effects on their businesses and how they will handle children using their platforms. The selection process is expected to take at least a few days, with 75 potential jurors questioned each day through at least Thursday. A fourth company named in the lawsuit, Snapchat parent company Snap Inc., settled the case last week for an undisclosed sum. KGM claims that her use of social media from an early age addicted her to the technology and exacerbated depression and suicidal thoughts. Importantly, the lawsuit claims that this was done through deliberate design choices made by companies that sought to make their platforms more addictive to children to boost profits. This argument, if successful, could sidestep the companies’ First Amendment shield and Section 230, which protects tech companies from liability for material posted on their platforms. Borrowing heavily from the behavioral and neurobiological techniques used by slot machines and exploited by the cigarette industry, Defendants deliberately embedded in their products an array of design features aimed at maximizing youth engagement to drive advertising revenue, the lawsuit says. Executives, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, are expected to testify at the trial, which will last six to eight weeks. Experts have drawn similarities to the Big Tobacco trials that led to a 1998 settlement requiring cigarette companies to pay billions in health care costs and restrict marketing targeting minors. Plaintiffs are not merely the collateral damage of Defendants products, the lawsuit says. They are the direct victims of the intentional product design choices made by each Defendant. They are the intended targets of the harmful features that pushed them into self-destructive feedback loops. The tech companies dispute the claims that their products deliberately harm children, citing a bevy of safeguards they have added over the years and arguing that they are not liable for content posted on their sites by third parties. Recently, a number of lawsuits have attempted to place the blame for teen mental health struggles squarely on social media companies, Meta said in a recent blog post. “But this oversimplifies a serious issue. Clinicians and researchers find that mental health is a deeply complex and multifaceted issue, and trends regarding teens’ well-being aren’t clear-cut or universal. Narrowing the challenges faced by teens to a single factor ignores the scientific research and the many stressors impacting young people today, like academic pressure, school safety, socio-economic challenges and substance abuse.” A Meta spokesperson said in a statement Monday the company strongly disagrees with the allegations outlined in the lawsuit and that it’s confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people. José Castaeda, a Google spokesperson, said Monday that the allegations against YouTube are simply not true. In a statement, he said Providing young people with a safer, healthier experience has always been core to our work.” TikTok did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday. The case will be the first in a slew of cases beginning this year that seek to hold social media companies responsible for harming children’s mental well-being. A federal bellwether trial beginning in June in Oakland, California, will be the first to represent school districts that have sued social media platforms over harms to children. In addition, more than 40 state attorneys general have filed lawsuits against Meta, claiming it is harming young people and contributing to the youth mental health crisis by deliberately designing features on Instagram and Facebook that addict children to its platforms. The majority of cases filed their lawsuits in federal court, but some sued in their respective states. TikTok also faces similar lawsuits in more than a dozen states. By Kaitlyn Huamani and Barbara Ortutay, AP technology writers
Category:
E-Commerce
The Trump administration has not shied away from sharing AI-generated imagery online, embracing cartoonlike visuals and memes and promoting them on official White House channels. But an edited and realistic image of civil rights attorney Nekima Levy Armstrong in tears after being arrested is raising new alarms about how the administration is blurring the lines between what is real and what is fake. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noems account posted the original image from Levy Armstrong’s arrest before the official White House account posted an altered image that showed her crying. The doctored picture is part of a deluge of AI-edited imagery that has been shared across the political spectrum since the fatal shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by U.S. Border Patrol officers in Minneapolis However, the White Houses use of artificial intelligence has troubled misinformation experts who fear the spreading of AI-generated or edited images erodes public perception of the truth and sows distrust. In response to criticism of the edited image of Levy Armstrong, White House officials doubled down on the post, with deputy communications director Kaelan Dorr writing on X that the memes will continue. White House Deputy Press Secretary Abigail Jackson also shared a post mocking the criticism. David Rand, a professor of information science at Cornell University, says calling the altered image a meme certainly seems like an attempt to cast it as a joke or humorous post, like their prior cartoons. This presumably aims to shield them from criticism for posting manipulated media. He said the purpose of sharing the altered arrest image seems much more ambiguous than the cartoonish images the administration has shared in the past. Memes have always carried layered messages that are funny or informative to people who understand them, but indecipherable to outsiders. AI-enhanced or edited imagery is just the latest tool the White House uses to engage the segment of Trumps base that spends a lot of time online, said Zach Henry, a Republican communications consultant who founded Total Virality, an influencer marketing firm. People who are terminally online will see it and instantly recognize it as a meme, he said. Your grandparents may see it and not understand the meme, but because it looks real, it leads them to ask their kids or grandkids about it. All the better if it prompts a fierce reaction, which helps it go viral, said Henry, who generally praised the work of the White Houses social media team. The creation and dissemination of altered images, especially when they are shared by credible sources, crystallizes an idea of whats happening, instead of showing what is actually happening, said Michael A. Spikes, a professor at Northwestern University and news media literacy researcher. The government should be a place where you can trust the information, where you can say its accurate, because they have a responsibility to do so,” he said. “By sharing this kind of content, and creating this kind of content it is eroding the trust even though Im always kind of skeptical of the term trust but the trust we should have in our federal government to give us accurate, verified information. Its a real loss, and it really worries me a lot. Spikes said he already sees the institutional crises around distrust in news organizations and higher education, and feels this behavior from official channels inflames those issues. Ramesh Srinivasan, a professor at UCLA and the host of the Utopias podcast, said many people are now questioning where they can turn to for trustable information. AI systems are only going to exacerbate, amplify and accelerate these problems of an absence of trust, an absence of even understanding what might be considered reality or truth or evidence, he said. Srinivasan said he feels the White House and other officials sharing AI-generated content not only invites everyday people to continue to post similar content but also grants permission to others who are in positions of credibility and power, like policymakers, to share unlabeled synthetic content. He added that given that social media platforms tend to algorithmically privilege extreme and conspiratorial content which AI generation tools can create with ease weve got a big, big set of challenges on our hands. An influx of AI-generated videos related to Immigration and Customs Enforcement action, protests, and interactions with citizens has already been proliferating on social media. After Renee Good was shot by an ICE officer while she was in her car, several AI-generated videos began circulating of women driving away from ICE officers who told them to stop. There are also many fabricated videos circulating of immigration raids and of people confronting ICE officers, often yelling at them or throwing food in their faces. Jeremy Carrasco, a content creator who specializes in media literacy and debunking viral AI videos, said the bulk of these videos are likely coming from accounts that are engagement farming,” or looking to capitalize on clicks by generating content with popular keywords and search terms like ICE. But he also said the videos are getting views from people who oppose ICE and DHS and could be watching them as fan fiction, or engaging in wishful thinking, hoping that they’re seeing real pushback against the organizations and their officers. Still, Carrasco also believes that most viewers can’t tell if what they’re watching is fake, and questions whether they would know “whats real or not when it actually matters, like when the stakes are a lot higher.” Even when there are blatant signs of AI generation, like street signs with gibberish on them or other obvious errors, only in the best-case scenario would a viewer be savvy enough or be paying enough attention to register the use of AI. This issue is, of course, not limited to news surrounding immigration enforcement and protests. Fabricated and misrepresented images following the capture of deposed Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro exploded online earlier this month. Experts, including Carrasco, think the spread of AI-generated political content will only become more commonplace. Carrasco believes that the widespread implementation of a watermarking system that embeds information about the origin of a piece of media into its metadata layer could be a step toward a solution.The Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity has developed such a system, but Carrasco doesnt think that will become extensively adopted for at least another year. Its going to be an issue forever now, he said. I dont think people understand how bad this is. Kaitlyn Huamani, AP technology writer Associated Press writers Jonathan J. Cooper and Barbara Ortutay contributed to this report.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||