Eisenhower had a decorated military history, excellent for commander in chief. As did Grant.

That wasn’t the question.

But Michelle Obama has basically no relevant qualifications.

What qualifications should be relevant? And why does close confidant and advisor to a president for 8 years not count in your mind?

Eisenhower would like a word. As would Hoover, Grant and the orange man.

has absolutely zero qualifications

This is completely false.

As some have touched on, this also means that the MAGA crowd will believe that by extension they are also entitled to immunity and will act accordingly.

Kling is the one “making drama”

You don’t disagree with Kling enough to object. This is clearly demonstrated here.

Edit: Let me a little more clear. Kling is the one bringing politics into it. The change was simple (one word!) and technically correct. It would be like if I said “I want our new logo to be red” and you said “don’t bring politics into it” when really I just like tomatoes and sunsets.

people can have different views. you might not like them but it’s their views, not yours

Yes, they can. And I can also view their views with disdain… or even horror and choose not to support their efforts, whatever they may be.

What you are really saying here is that you to some degree don’t disagree with Kling and so it’s this particular view you find acceptable to let pass. If it were something like “people should be fine eating small children” you might react differently.

Can you provide some context?

This Mastodon post discusses it and has links to the PRs: https://ruby.social/@denis/112718132053579597

This one for SerenityOS shows Kling’s response to a very minor and neutral change.

He’s only unpopular because of bots, trolls, and the likes of fox “news”.

And a years-long campaign by Republicans to tap into people’s prejudices against old people. Never mind they’d struggle to name one actual policy position they’d disagree and haven’t bothered to learn of all the things they’d wholeheartedly support if they were just aware of them.

If Biden was 15 years younger he would be ahead of Trump.

So IOW people are just ageist.

Which one is the drag queen?

I would interpret the American Academy of Pediatricians stance as being supportive. But that’s open to interpretation, I suppose.

https://www.aap.org/en/patient-care/media-and-children/center-of-excellence-on-social-media-and-youth-mental-health/youth-advisory-panel/youth-advisory-panel-feedback-to-policymakers/

It’s literally cited on the HHS page about it: https://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/priorities/youth-mental-health/social-media/index.html

So you acknowledge that you don’t have the skills necessary to interpret papers so… what, you decide that Nature adequately represents their findings enough to dismiss them? Even though you say there is little evidence of a causative link? Even though the surgeon general says they feel there is and cites that evidence to back it up?

I mean… what?

It’s a pity you aren’t worth responding to. Have a nice day!

Tell me you didn’t read the article without telling me.

Why would you conclude that? Because it conflicts with your “vibe”?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

Do I really need to point out that you yourself are “literally just posting vibes” ?

You didn’t even bother investigating whether or not they had justified their stance with science. I’m not convinced you made it past the headline, much less read any of the content that article linked to.

The funny thing is I actually did read two of the studies I quickly found and which you too can find. But you seem more interested in adhering to a certain… vibe.

Have a nice day.

Edit: You know I was busy and totally forgot.

The very first result on my search engine, if you search for “effects of social media on children’s mental health” is the HHS.gov website, specifically this page: https://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/priorities/youth-mental-health/social-media/index.html

And wouldn’t you know, right there are 5 separate papers cited to support 1. that social media is widely used; and 2 it “presents meaningful harm to youth”

No, it’s just based on vibes.

You didn’t bother looking, clearly.

Edit: I’m not saying I’m familiar with what the studies say, although some draw a clear link with adverse mental health impacts on kids. Not sure how far that goes. I’m also not saying I agree with the SG or the need for warning labels, but to say this is based on “vibes” is, ironically, speculative at best.