That’s what you’re doing, is taking your personal definitions and trying to redefine what nsfw has been defined for in multiple communities in and before Lemmy. That would also be illegal and is irrelevant since we’re talking about tits, dicks and nudity in the context of nsfw, not unions.
Do what you like, a quick glance at your history shows you crop artist names out of comics all the time and are a mid tier troll so I doubt you’ll be a problem long term if you keep it up anyway.
They didn’t say it was adult content, they said it was nsfw. Unless your workplace allows you to hang up photos of cocks and wet arses? Mark your nsfw.
On a completely unrelated note, may I present the horrors of oral hygiene? No? Please yourself.
You said the data says otherwise which you then used to support that opinion. The data doesn’t say otherwise.
Want me to pull out of study from 20 years ago with decades of proven data?
Almost like that was in my original comment that you then replied to with a study as if it were compelling, so spare me the sassy comment. Don’t claim the data says otherwise when it doesn’t if you don’t want to be called out on it.
This is for college students (aka students educated enough to learn on their own already), reads like a promotion for AI, has a limited sample size and does not translate to school kids at all and from the study itself:
Finally, the study’s limitations include its single-institution sample, short duration, and reliance on proxy behavioral indicators. Ethical concerns around informed consent, data privacy, and AI dependency also warrant closer attention. Future research should pursue longer-term and cross-institutional designs, employ multimodal behavioral measures, and develop governance frameworks that align technical gains with equity, autonomy, and critical capacity.
This “”study”” seems to spend more time opining on AI learning frameworks than actually measuring scores on standardised testing and only dedicates a minimal amount of the paper to the results. It also states in paper that higher achieving college students saw less benefits (poorer performing student, AI can bump your grades enough to be noticeable for a unit/pass an exam).
Did you read this study or google something in order to provide a study? This study does not support the claim that “these kids will perform traditional learning by miles”.
AI hasn’t even been around long enough for any meaningful data to be collected surely. Also, post this “data” you’ve twice now claimed exists.
I would have guessed (older) blokes who would take someone assuming their male dogs is female as a slight.