The US health industry gets ever spookier

Posted by on

The health insurance industry has joined forces with data brokers to vacuum up personal details about hundreds of millions of Americans. The companies are tracking race, education level, TV habits, marital status, net worth, postings on social media, slowness paying bills, and what you order online. Complicated computer algorithms then produce
predictions about how much your health care could cost them.

Are you a woman who recently changed your name? You could be newly married and have a pricey pregnancy pending. Or maybe you’re stressed from a recent divorce. That, too, the computer models predict, may run up your medical bills. Are you a woman who has purchased plus-size clothing? You’re considered at risk of depression. Mental health care can be expensive.
Low-income and a minority? That means, the data brokers say, you are more likely to live in a dilapidated and dangerous neighborhood, increasing your health risks.

Insurers contend that they use the information to spot health issues in their clients — and flag them so they get services they need. And companies like LexisNexis say the data shouldn’t be used to set prices. But as a research scientist from one company told me: “I can’t say it hasn’t happened.”

There sems to be a new privacy scandal every week. We worry about Chinese and Russian spying, but it emerges that we are spied on by our fellow citizens, arguably more thoroughly. The Federal government requires the health industry to strictly adhere to client privacy (The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, only protects actual medical information). The insurance industry is not only incredibly bureaucratic and inefficient, but it seems it is breaking the law as well. Chance of such a powerful group of companies being held to account? Zero. On top of this the client has to deal with a system designed to avoid paying out, and which ties the customers up for weeks or months of futile correspondence and time wasting (Cigna for instance).

Epicurean answer: the single payer systems used in France, Germany, UK etc. which cost half or three quarters as much as the American system and have better outcomes. My doctor told me that he was not in the health business just for money, but to help people (I absolutely believe him), but he is not usual. The health system should not prioritize money over patient health. Lousy system!

Hurry up – the human workers will soon be gone!

Posted by on

Robots modelled on the human hand could soon be deployed on British farms to pick cauliflowers and other vegetables. Harvesting cauliflowers is not straightforward: each head must be assessed, to ensure that it is suitably white and compact, and then carefully prised from its stem, with a few outer leaves still attached to protect the head until it is ready to eat. The human hand is perfect for this task, which is why many farmers prefer to have it done manually – and why scientists at the University of Plymouth stuck closely to it when designing a robot replacement. Their GummiArm – currently being trialled in Cornwall – has jointed arms, cameras and sensors in its “fingers”, which enable it to assess when the caulis are ready. And it isn’t only a brassica-picker: chief designer Dr Martin Stoelen says it could be used to harvest other vegetables, and even repurposed for weeding. For farmers, the technology could be transformative. Harvesting represents up to half of the costs of brassica production. (The Daily Telegraph snd The Week, 17 March 2018)

The techies had better hurry. Soon the Brexiters will have chased the (mostly) East European workers out of the country and we will only have chemically polluted brassicas (free of EU regulations and therefore possibly toxic) sitting unharvested. Even more worrying is the presumed exit of plumbers, carpenters, electricians, plasterers, painters, roofers, glaziers, metalworkers. “Shooting yourself in the foot” as a phrase doesn’t quite describe the disaster.

Concentration camps for prostitutes

Posted by on

One dark chapter in the American story gets left out of the history books: the American Plan, which detained tens, and possibly hundreds of thousands of women from the 1910s through the 1950s.

Under the plan, conceived during World War I to protect soldiers from “promiscuous” women and the diseases they possibly carried, women were surveilled, picked off the street, detained without due process, imprisoned sometimes for years, and forcefully injected with toxic mercury treatments for sexually transmitted infections they were merely suspected of having. The American Plan laid the groundwork — and sometimes, the actual foundations — for some women’s prisons and arguably led to the mass incarcerations of today. Progressive luminaries like Eleanor Roosevelt and Margaret Sanger endorsed the plan, as did Earl Warren, forcing its victims, disproportionately women of color, to fight back on their own.

From the incarceration of citizens of Japanese ancestry to the detention of prostitutes, not to mention the treatment of black people, one has to wonder what the Supreme Court of the United States has been thinking in its role as “defender of the Constitution” and of civil rights. It has made some honourable decisions, but the gross misreading of the Constitution in the matter of gun ownwership, and the crass idea that “corporations are people” and can freely use shareholder funds to subvert democracy, suggests that, while legal training in the US might be good, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the Justices collectively use their intelligence, common sense, moderation or simple human kindness to good effect.

I fear that, for all the blah about liberty we cannot rely on a Trump Supreme Court to protect us against the drift toward authoritarianism, even less now that Trump has nominated to the Court a hard Right Constitutional literalist who was alledgedly willingly implicated in the un-American Bush torture policy. Epicurus deplored militarism, bullying and loss of individual freedom in his day. We should oppose it now. The United States is lurching in the same direction as, say Poland. Getting it back looks more difficult every day. Too many citizens simply don’t care. Tell me I am being too gloomy!

Obesity linked to 12 cancers

Posted by on

Obesity plays a role in as many as 12 types of cancer, according to a major analysis of the causes of the disease. The report by the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) found that while smoking remains the biggest cause of cancer, it may soon be overtaken by obesity in many countries. In an earlier version of the report, released a decade ago, the WCRF identified seven cancers linked to obesity. Now, it says, the evidence points to 12: liver, ovaries, prostate (advanced), stomach, mouth and throat, bowel, breast (post-menopause), gall bladder, kidney, oesophagus, pancreas and womb. The report says that up to four in ten cancer cases are preventable, and urges non-smokers to adopt a ten-point health plan, which includes cutting down on bacon and processed meats, being physically active and reducing alcohol intake.

One point of view is that, if someone becomes “over-heavy” it is their choice, their (shorter) life, and that it mostly affects poorer people with fewer options. The problem with this viewpoint is that, whether you pay taxes in Britain to support the health service, or you pay healthcare insurance in America, the effect is the same – treating the voluntarily obese puts the cost of health up for everyone, along with their taxes in the UK. And that doesn’t include the cost of bigger ambulances and gear for handling huge bodies. I have grave misgivings about endlessly subsidizing the self-indulgent who don’t or won’t look after themselves or exert a modicum of self-discipline. A daily walk, at the very least, is free. Vegetables won’t kill you. Go on, make an effort!

Thought for the day

Posted by on

In the 2015-2016 election cycle, the fossil fuel industry in America received over $20 billion in federal subsidies. These subsidies are not only encouraging economic behavior that is decimating our environment but they are putting the welfare of a dying industry above the future of life as we know it.

Were Londoners right to protest Trump?

Posted by on

On Thursday, 12th July 2018, I took the train from my small hometown into London. I was only planning a nice paddle boat ride in a lake in Regent’s Park, to celebrate graduating from university. Instead, I was greeted with huge crowds, who had gathered to see Trump’s helicopter land in the park. Many of these people were simply reporters. But many more were protestors. They held signs like, “Children need cuddles, not cages,” or “Refugees Welcome, Trump go home.”

It’s no secret that the overwhelming majority of Brits disapprove of Trump. Whether you poll Leavers or Remainers, Labour-voters or Conservatives, Trump-hatred in Britain is more widespread than in even the most liberal of US states. Part of this is due to the unpopularity of Trump’s policies, such as the Muslim travel ban, the Mexico wall, or the Jerusalem embassy move. But I suspect what the British disapprove most of Trump is his character: his dishonesty, vanity and narcissism. Trump’s unsavoury personality is largely why his visit drew more ire than say, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, despite the former being the leader of a democracy, and the latter being an absolute monarch. Pro-Trump Britons are keen to point this out, viewing the protests as nothing more than liberal hypocrisy. They also view aversion to Trump as a manifestation of British snobbery against Trump’s cruder, more down to earth style.

However, Trump’s British defenders miss the point of the protests. They weren’t simply to protest Trump- realistically, the protests couldn’t change Trump’s mind on issues such as climate change or the Iran Deal. What they were about was protesting the British government’s treatment of Trump. And on that, the protestors were absolutely right. The British government is coddling Trump in the hope of a post-Brexit UK-US trade deal. But such efforts will be in vain for several reasons. We won’t be able to start negotiating trade deals independently of the EU until the end of the transition period. Until then, we will remain a de facto member of the EU Customs Union, where EU-negotiated free trade deals and the EU’s common external tariff will continue to apply. By the end of the transition period, Trump will be up for re-election. If he loses, the Democrats have said a trade deal with the EU will be prioritised before a deal with the UK. And even in the unlikely event Trump wins re-election, his protectionist instincts, sheer incompetence and unpredictability, and the UK’s commitment to maintaining EU standards in the Chequers agreement will prevent such a deal from being made. Long story short, a UK-US trade deal is a pipe dream.

More importantly, the prospect of such a trade deal isn’t worth appeasing Trump. As the protestors rightly noted, Trump behaves immorally routinely. He trusts the word of the Russian President above the advice of his own intelligence agencies, choosing to even give away Israeli intelligence to the Russian foreign minister and Russian Ambassador. He lavishes praise on brutal autocrats while sidelining America’s democratic friends in Canada, the EU and NATO. He needlessly separates migrant children from their parents. He treats women, minorities, and anyone who refuses to view him completely uncritically with the utmost disdain. Even if a trade deal with the US was possible, it wouldn’t be right to pursue it with Trump as president.

The backlash to the protests in London from parts of the British Right reveal a staggering hypocrisy. In general, the Right speaks of the need to preserve freedom of speech, and against the dangers of political correctness and over-sensitivity, and perhaps with some justification. Yet simply a few people protesting isn’t acceptable. If you disagree with the protests, or feel they are inappropriate, that’s fine- they probably won’t make much difference anyway. But the sheer outrage against the anti-Trump demonstrations shows how thin-skinned much of the Right is nowadays.

The overall point is that the British government needs to be told it is mistaken in its approach to Trump. That doesn’t mean everything all anti-Trump protestors believe is right. I certainly disagree with the more radical anti-Trumpers who were calling for an abolition of all profits, borders and armed forces. But in times like these, middle class liberals like myself should find common cause with the socialist left in protesting the Trump presidency, and post-Brexit Britain’s over-dependence on it. If subservience to Trump is what British sovereignty looks like, we can only hope the EU welcomes us back with open arms.

Good news

Posted by on

Ten years ago, Richard Thaler, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, and law professor Cass Sunstein, published a book that suggested a brilliant idea: by exploiting simple quirks of human nature – our susceptibility to peer pressure; our tendency to put off coming to a decision – you can nudge people into making the right choices. Indeed by doing so, as governments around the world have found, you can make huge savings at little cost.

In Britain, the Behavioural Insights Team (or “Nudge Unit”), set up by David Cameron, has had some remarkable successes. Reminder letters telling people that most of their neighbours have already paid their taxes (an appeal to herd instinct) have boosted tax receipts. Sending encouraging text messages to pupils resitting their GCSE exam has boosted exam pass rates. Text reminders sent to jobseekers, and signed off with the words “Good luck!”, have resulted in far fewer people skipping job interviews. (Mary Ann Sieghart, The Sunday Times)

We don’t hear a lot about behavioral economics, but this is a good example of it. David Cameron did do one good thing during his premiership!

Longevity? No thank you!

Posted by on

The oldest recorded person, Frenchwoman Jeanne Calment, died in 1997 aged 122 years and 5 months. Since then no one has equalled or surpassed her. (Yet. Some very rich people are working on it for some reason)

A study conducted by Tom Kirkwood at Newcastle University’s Institute for Ageing in the UK, published in Science and based on demographic records from Italy, shows that the inexorable rise in death rate with age appears to reach a plateau around 105 and remain level thereafter. There is a debate about the existence of such “mortality plateaus”, but ageing looks overwhelmingly likely to be driven by the build-up of damage in cells and organs, which is, one presumes, fairly relentless.

However, everything we are learning about the biology of ageing makes it implausible that the body has some inbuilt program that acts specifically to bring life to a close at a set age, so if we can find better ways to combat the build-up of damage and enhance our potential for survival, then there is every reason to expect Calment’s record to be overtaken.(Edited version of an article in New Scientist, July 7,2018)

This assumes that everyone wants to live to over 105, or even 100! Imagine, you have lost all your friends, you are dependent on nurses and doctors to keep you going, your memory is not what it used to be, your teeth, hair and eyesight probably gone! In other words the quality of life is pretty awful. No, no, no – bump me off long before then. There are too many people in the world in any case. Don’t burden the young more than they are burdened already. No to ever longer lives!

Late to rise, early to die

Posted by on

Night owls tend to die slightly earlier than early risers – possibly because they’re so often forced to defy their body clocks. Researchers from Britain and America tracked about 430,000 people who were asked whether they preferred mornings or evenings. Over a six-and-a-half-year period, those who said they were “definite” evening types were 10% more likely to die than those who described themselves as “definite” morning people. Night owls were also more prone to depression, diabetes, neurological disorders and other health problems.

The researchers attribute the difference to society being organised around schedules that suit early risers. Forced to get up, say, in time for work at 9am, night owls become sleep-deprived, which has a knock-on effect on their health. A partial solution may be for night owls to take low doses of the sleep-regulating hormone melatonin – but not without first consulting their GPs. (reported in The Week)

As someone who has had a lifetime of insomnia (on some occasions failing to go to sleep for four nights in succession) I find it strange that in general lack of sleep is not taken seriously, doctors included. My own answer is very regular and strenuous exercise, in my case in the gym. It involves walking at 4.4 mph for 2.5 miles every time, plus other strength exercises. This doesn’t necessarily help sleep itself but it sets mind and body buzzing and gets you through the day satisfactorily, if sometimes grumpily. My other observation is that all remedies, including pharmaceuticals, wear off and you have to alternate with other methods. But this is boring for good sleepers. I promise not to mention it again on this blog.

Ireland is joining the modern era

Posted by on

Ireland is to hold a referendum on a clause in its 1937 constitution that implies that a woman’s place is in the home – and not in the labour market. Article 41.2 says that “by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved”, and adds that mothers should “not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home”. The government has now passed a motion proposing the “outdated” clause be removed; some politicians, however, have argued that it should instead be made gender neutral, in order to give full-time carers of both sexes constitutional protection. This referendum, and another on abolishing the law against blasphemy, will be held this autumn, on the same day as Ireland’s presidential election.
(Reported in The Week, 13 July 2018).

Taken along with the vote on the recent Irish vote on abortion (and assuming this new referendum will bring the country into line with modern practice), this is potentially good news at a moment when all we get is bad news about most things in sight. Epicureanism stands for equality of men and women.

There is a point of view that says that children do best when they can come home after school to a parent, not an empty house. The other side of the argument is that women should be able to choose: work outside the home or not. This should be a personal right and should not be dictated by men, the Catholic church or the Constitution.

Indecent wealth, indecent poverty

Posted by on

80% of private wealth in the United States is inherited. The richest 1% now own 41.8% of the wealth, while the poorest 90% hold only 22.8%. When you look at the differences between white and black citizens the gap is stark. For every dollar owned by a white family, a black family of colour earns less than a dime. The median wealth of white households in 2013 was $141,900, while black families had just $11,000 median wealth, Latinos $13,700. The average wealth figures by race would be even more skewed if the vast wealth of the richest minority were included.

Along with busting the budget, Trump and the Republicans in Congress have recently made the situation even worse, while assuredly being able to raise even more election money.

Historically, societies with such extremes of wealth and poverty have not survived. As examples look at France and Russia before their revolutions, Egypt, China and the Maya. One might add others, including ancient Rome. The difference is that the American rich have bought Congress, have persuaded the poor whites that their interests are identical to theirs, and that sensible things like a single-payer health service are “communist” plots. They have also sold the fairy tale that they too could be super-rich with luck (very possible years ago but the odds against it are now humungous). Moreover, the rich have cleverly persuaded the poorly educated that the liberals want to take their guns away. The ubiquitous nature of guns stacks the odds heavily in favour of the status quo, and against any form of serious reform.

Yes, in terms of naked self-interest and consuming greed, the American (Republican) super-rich have done a stunningly good job for themselves. Epicurus would be shocked: his mantra was moderation. He might well ask “What on earth do you need all that money for?”

So much for the ‘Mediterranean diet’

Posted by on

Children in Italy, Greece and Spain are now the fattest in Europe. More than 40% of boys and girls aged nine are either overweight or obese. Sweets,junk food and sugary drinks have displaced the region’s traditional diet based on fruit and vegetables, fish and olive oil. (World Health Organisation)

One study suggests that your bank balance is the important factor. Researchers at the Mediterranean Neurological Institute in Italy, who carried out a study of more than 18,000 men and women over four years, found a 15 per cent reduction in cardiovascular risk for those on the Mediterranean diet, but only if they earned £35,000 a year or more. For the less advantaged, the benefits of the diet weren’t seen at all.

Even though all study participants followed the Mediterranean diet, those with higher incomes tended to eat food that had more heart-protecting antioxidants and polyphenols, and which was grown with fewer pesticides. Those with lower incomes had less access to a wide variety of fruits, vegetables and whole grains, and tended to buy foods that had lower nutritional value (International Journal of Epidemiology, doi.org/cbhh).

“The real extra virgin olive oil that was used in the Predimed trial is about 8 euros per bottle,” says Marialaura Bonaccio at the Mediterranean Neurological Institute. “So the question is, do I get the same benefits from a bottle of olive oil that costs 10 euros, as compared to the lower quality one that I paid 2 euros for?” She suspects that the difference in benefits may come down to higher quality foods that cost far more. “It’s a real paradox. When the Mediterranean diet was discovered, it was the diet of the poorest people in Italy and Greece. Now, it’s the diet of the rich people,” she says.

By the way, the World Cancer Research Fund is warning that as many as 12 different kinds of cancer are now linked to being overweight. It has launched an online tool to help people assess the risk posed by their diet and lifestyle.

All this sounds very familiar: health linked to income. Many people think that obesity is a matter of choice and no business of anyone else’s. Well, it is actually. Aside from anything else it increases national health costs for everyone, rich and poor. But it also reduces the quality of life and its length for poorer people. Not much point in championing the interests of the less well off if you are also indifferent to their health and longevity.

Trending today: Persuasion Art (a modern poem)

Posted by on

I have always wanted to be an artist.
I have dabbled in painting, drawing, singing, acting,
Pottery, writing, poetry, verse and music composition.

But these days the most celebrated art is
Concept Art.
How could I muscle in on it?
Unmade beds have been done, along with
Sitting opposite someone, stock still, saying nothing all day.
Blue paintings are old hat, and putting Coca Cola logos on ancient
Chinese pots is an art already established as meaningful.

And then it came to me! I recently realized that
I had already devised a new trend in the art world:
Persuasion Art.
And I had been doing it all my life!

Who persuaded twenty-five housewives to separately pick up a foreign hitchhiker in rural America?

Indeed, who inveigled his way for three whole working days
Into the office of the Chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations
Committee and sat in on all the meetings, convincing all and
Sundry that he was a journalist?

Who persuaded numerous concerned mothers that their daughters
Were safe in his hands?

Who looked sufficiently competent (hah!) that a reluctant bank manager
Agreed not to foreclose on his business?

Who persuaded 120 restive suppliers to extend their credit for six months?

Who persuaded an Oxford college to offer a definite place to a young man who had not yet taken A Levels, was the world’s worst mathematician, and who had minimal Latin?

Who convinced a committed and successful economist to abandon her career and devote herself to music, while knowing nothing about it (along with said Persuasion Artist)?

Who talked his way out a severe Army reprimand when (falsely) accused of over-enthusiasm with a group of elderly ladies in a Cypriot village?

And who claims that his incompetence as a soldier finally convinced the British government that the draft was a menace to national security?

And now, Dear Reader, to persuade you that this is a poem……….

Cementing the Oligarchy

Posted by on

“My judicial philosophy is straightforward. A judge must be independent and must interpret the law, not make the law. A judge must interpret statutes as written and a judge must interpret the Constitution as written, informed by history and tradition and precedent.”
(Brett Kavanaugh, nominated by Trump for the Supreme Court yesterday).

Sounds correct, sounds innocuous. But in reality Kavanaugh‘s actual record appears to favour the Oligarchy, the banning of abortion, support for party gerrymandering, skepticism about immigrants and their rights, indifference to the environment and the plight of the poor and the black, the dumbing down of schooling and the elevation of ignorance, lack of belief in global climate change and human rights, and the literal interpretation of a Constitution over two hundred years old. This is not unusual – it describes a right-wing, politicized conservative lawyer, not a man wanting to do his best for all the people.

Although Epicurus taught indifference to politics, I believe times have changed (giant understatement!) and that the future of the planet itself is at risk. It wasn’t in the 4th Century B.C. Right wing conservatives poohpooh this mamby- pamby stuff and joyfully continue the plunder and the dismantling of what democracy we have left. This is short-sighted, immoral and distressing.

All un-Epicurean. Epicureanism stands for moderation and the greater good of all people. It stands for humanism and the rights of man, not a party or a rich group of corrupt election donors and politicians on the make. It respects the poor and the excluded, amd seeks to restrain aggressive capitalism and greedy bosses.

The gulf between Left and Right is becoming too wide. The government doesn’t care; on the contrary it rejoices in the turmoil. This could end very badly, if not addressed.

How to raise children, Epicurean-style

Posted by on

It goes without saying that raising children is one of the most important things humans do. But there is so much bad advise on how to raise your children. In this post I’ll try to address what both the liberal secularists and the religious conservatives get wrong on parenting, and how to do it in an Epicurean fashion. Bearing in mind that this is written by someone who isn’t a parent, so comments and criticisms are more than welcome!

  1. Encourage independence of thought and action. Teaching your children independence has a vast array of benefits. It makes them more intelligent by giving them decisions that have consequences. It teaches them to learn things for themselves. It makes them happier, particularly if they make a decision that goes well. It instills a mindset of tolerance; as they learn to value their freedom, they believe in freedom for others. Most importantly, it allows them to learn from their mistakes.
  2. Trust your children as much as you can. Children can only act responsibly if they are given responsibility. Constantly questioning your children or disbelieving them will only cause friction. A healthy relationship has to start somewhere.
  3. Avoid being over-protective. This is a difficult one because parents naturally want to prevent their children from being harmed. But children are happier when they are freer. In Germany, children are encouraged to climb trees and spend a lot of time outdoors, even if the chances of them getting injured are higher. The idea that children should be protected from a little cold or rain is ludicrous in my view.
  4. Enstill your children with a strong set of morals. Post-modern moral relativism has gone too far in my view. Children need to know the clear difference between right and wrong, even given situations that are quite complex. Without this, children will always seek ways to bend the rules.
  5. Don’t pander to children. The most egregious example of parental pandering in the modern age is in food. Many parents will only cook a small choice of food because that is what their children like, supposedly. Whether its cutting bread a particular way, or always boiling vegetables to the same softness, parents are encouraging children to be particular. Rather, parents should expose their children to as wide a variety of food as possible. And while its often best not to force your children to eat it, you must not prepare a more familiar alternative. Hunger as a punishment for fussiness is perfectly appropriate. On a broader note, children must not expect to get their favourite toys or anything they see that they like. There’s nothing wrong with a little bit of generosity. But for the most part, if children want something, they should have to earn it.
  6. Allow a little bit of immaturity. The idea that children must always behave like adults is insane and unrealistic. Children are by nature sillier than adults. As long as that silliness is not hurtful or totally beneath the age of the child in question, it should be allowed. One of the benefits of having children is that it cheers up people that would often otherwise be very sombre.
  7.  Don’t shy away from sex/nudity. One of the most preposterous contradictions of the morality of the modern age is that graphic violence is far more acceptable for child viewing than anything that could be construed as sexual. Instead of censoring all nudity and sexual content, parents should educate their children to be mature on such matters. If they don’t, the children will find out for themselves sooner or later. The only way for people to grow up with healthy attitudes towards sex is by proper parental instruction.
  8. Give your children an academic and cultured upbringing. Take them to as many museums, art galleries and theatres as possible. Read them Shakespeare, Homer and Dickens. Watch intriguing and important films with them. Put classical and jazz music on the radio. You’ll find this will give them a huge boost in life: you will always impress on when being interviewed for a job or writing a university application if you have a broad range of interests. You’ll also make your children more interesting people.
  9. Challenge your children, without being impossibly pushy. Children need to be taught the importance of ambition and aspiration. They need to be taught to work hard to achieve success. But there is a danger in pushing them beyond what is realistic. If that happens, children will feel demoralised and inadequate. This may manifest itself in mental health problems later in life.
  10. Regulate children’s use of technology. The overuse of technology, and in particular social media, can be detrimental to children’s happiness and mental development. Technology can be a wonderful resource, both for entertainment and information. But allowing children to whittle hours of their lives away online is a recipe for disaster.