altacc

Are those imperial or metric washing machines?

Everyone's experience is singular and of that time. Go back in time and you'll find people saying "we didn't need TV/radio/magazines/cars/etc..." and that the new technology of the day was a plague on our society. Times change, we have to work out how new technology fits in, not shun it.

As to "The more time and energy you can give to your kids, the better off they will be.". That is very simplistic and like most things is more complicated than you first think. Children get used to being entertained, be it by a tablet or a parent. There is a downside to both, in that it is also good for a child to be able to entertain themselves and comfortable by themself. (Tablets & TVs aren't a child entertaining themselves.) From my personal experience, intensive parenting where attention is maximized on the child isn't healthy for either parent or child.

All this to say that simplistic takes tend to fall apart once they meet the complex variety of reality.

Definitely a thread where I want to know if a commenter has children or not. Before becoming parents many people have opinions about raising children that afterwards turn into understanding of actually why parents act the way they do.

But I still don't like the idea of this tablet at all, for various reasons, mainly screen time, developmental impact, subscription & ads and vendor lock-in.

Edit: yes, I have children. They don't think they have enough screentime and we think they have too much. Probably means it's about right.

It appears you have the incorrect definition of incel.

Price change and supply are not linear. I see the price of oil as largely a human decision, based on how much people are willing to pay for oil and its derivatives, or buy oil for thinking they can sell it for more later. It's linked to supply/demand but not directly controlled through a formula. You can look at the profit statements of oil companies around the world to verify that there is indeed much more money being made when supply is limited.

In the UK there is a yearly survey regarding crime and I've not read it for a few years (I've emigrated) but a regular theme used to be that people interviewed personally felt safe and weren't likely to be victims of crime but thought everyone else in the country was less safe and everywhere they didn't live had higher crime than it did.

The public perception of crime is persistently incorrect for many if not most people and this incorrect, emotional rather than evidence-based view of the world is unfortunately what drives political pressure.

You're wrong on so many counts here but it seems obvious you're not in a place to listen to reason. Your confirmation bias has to be very strong to think you know better that the majority of neutral genocide experts.

This made me smile, reminds me of my 90s, early 00s in web development & hosting. Where tiny offices above shops spread out as the business grew; racks were thrown in cupboards; the noise was constant and the heat was unbearable in the summer; the pigeons nesting on the shit covered Victorian window sill had the best seat in the office and nobody really knew what they were doing but we were all incredibly cocky about being wunderkids working on the coolest new stuff that nobody else understood. Good times!

The way this administration works is that anyone in a decision making position has been swapped for a self-serving yes-man who will do whatever Trump wants. Anyone they can't replace who won't deliver is briefed against or investigated until they quit or can be fired. Facts that might influence the decision play no part in the process.

The easy acceptance of this authoritarian governing style has been one of the most damaging to the idea of democracy. America's democratic institutions have great marketing but many of us outside the country and not subjected daily to that marketing have long known it is an particularly weak form of democracy and open to corruption, demagoguery and populism. Americans have a susceptibility to authority and hierarchical normalisation, has left them open to this.

This word bloat is why I can rarely read non-fiction books even if their topic is interesting. I want the summary and then option to read more detail if I want, not have to go through pages and pages of padding before getting to the interesting ideas or facts. There was interesting information in the article but the idea that it takes up a third of his book, with multiple interviews about the process is the opposite, is exactly what I'd avoid reading.

In much of Europe you don't need ID for those, except a driving license, which happens to be an ID but primarily exists to prove you are qualified to drive. If you look young you are asked to prove your age if buying cigarettes or alcohol but the requirements for that are relatively low.

Until recently in the UK you did not need any ID to vote, that was introduced recently as an echo to the US stolen election conspiracy, as demagogues love to steal ideas from each other.

> only about 10 lines of JS

Ah, the good old days when we wrote JS function to do something, or copied from dHTMLZone. These days the first 10 lines of JS is loading hundreds of lines of JS libraries. (Yep, I'm an old man yelling at clouds!)

Putting it kindly, this is an incredibly optimistic interpretation of how historically the government and police have used their powers. There is a long and consistent history of UK police abusing powers, stretching legal definitions and using technology to target those outside the original mandate of a law or investigation.

Antiterrorism and anti-disorder laws sold to the public as needed to prevent serious threats have been used extensively outside of what I think most would consider reasonable to surveil people, restrict freedoms and harass. The prime example are the stop and search laws, used to search a large numbers of people, predominantly based on racial stereotype, with zero impact on terrorism.

Remember that the Met police is known to be institutionally racist & sexist. It is not an organisation to be trusted.

They're hoping people read this as the nonsense notion that they'll only scan criminal's faces. Reality is that everyone's face will be scanned, processed and stored.

Are you asking for data to show there's reduced media coverage about climate change? If you look at the article there's a graph in there from Media Matters showing the decline. This isn't reddit, here you're expected to do more than read the headline ;)

Yep, all Airtable staff should immediately start sending out their CVs. BS has a process: buy, butcher, enshittify, kill, repeat.

The statement from the lobbying group is a classic example of PR deny, deflect, distract, confuse. The statement is basically "we're not the cause of the problem but if there were a problem we're doing everything we legally should so it's not our fault but we're also working to reduce this theoretical problem, which of course does not exist and isn't our fault".

The effects of salmon fishing in Norway aren't limited to the local communities, it influences the whole area, back to the county government. Politicians lose a lot of support if they go against the money because despite driving our electric cars to our cabins and loving going to walks in nature, us living in Norway really, really like the good life and don't want anything to impact that. (To be fair, this also applies to the majority of the planet's population.)

That this has received so few points & comments says something about how nobody cares about this.

Musk wants X to be an everything app but I don't think anyone else wants that. People are happy with it as social media they can either rage on or ignore. Limiting Money to Premium users is a terrible business decision as it limits customer base when it needs the opposite.

An everything app is Musk's dream and he talks about it like it's some high goal, a new idea that he wants to push forward. Whereas in Asia everything apps are part of daily life. Having recently spent time in Asia I have an app on my phone that does everything from my immigration arrival card, payments in store, person to person transfers, processes bills, pay road tolls and road tax, invest, order food, buy movie tickets, get insurance, book a holiday and the list goes on. Some in the West dream of a tech based future, whilst many in Asia are already living it.

Private equity is often mining a company for money for a few years before discarding it or rolling it up with something. Quick results, not long term stability & growth. Profitable income from the company is not always a goal, often the money is to be made in asset stripping, financial engineering, management fees, etc... then reducing with layoffs, underinvestment, vendor abuse, etc... until nothing is left but a husk that is profitable enough on paper that it can be sold on.

In relation to what they're doing, Israel is doing very well with its propaganda. Imagine what the coverage & public opinion would be if this was any other Western ally or other country. e.g.Yugoslavia & Russia/Ukraine for when the West paid attention. Rwanda, Darfur, the Uyghurs were remote but the public opinion was that they were bad. There was no "The Hutus have a right to self defense." or "Sudan has a right to exist."

Israel was very early in developing a military propaganda unit focused on social media. It was very effective, as well as providing a safe & air conditioned office for a chosen segment of their population's military service. Combined with their extensive political, religious & social lobbying they still control the majority of the narrative. Even when obvious war crimes are committed, investigated & accepted as the truth by allies, the narrative is always forgiving. Their talking points still take priority in the majority of the social and traditional media, even when presented with evidently more truthful counterpoints.

The site lists "Approved" companies that have not been enshittified by private equity. What springs to mind for me are scissor manufacturers Ernest Wright and Whiteley. They maintained quality, relied on expert workers and aim to keep high quality staff for their career and hire people to learn manual skills.

The result of this is high prices and waitlists for many of their products, which is the exact opposite of what private equity and conglomerates want.

Another interesting example from the UK is Howies. They were bought by Timberland, which then in succession got bought by VF, a big US conglomerate. The Howies brand was small and insignificant globally so the management of Howies were allowed to buy the company back and it continues as a niche

Private equity companies exist in a range of sizes, some buying big multinational brands and others buying small local brands. It's a omnivorous predator and it's down to the owners of companies to resist the temptation of money.

This is what I'm talking about! The discussion is about Israel and you've shifted it to being about Jewish people so you can make baseless declarations of antisemitism.

You're kinda proving my point here. Criticizing Israel is criticism of a country, not a people. Racism or antisemitism is not a factor in criticism of Israel unless there is proof of that as motivation. Actual proof, not a bad faith assumption, which is what unfortunately actually happens. Many people purposely come up with reasons conflate the two to use bad faith judgements & declarations which can then be used to devalue legitimate criticism.

This is a huge amount of Whataboutism mixed with exactly the problem I mention, which is moving the definition of antisemitism and putting words in the mouth of the speaker to hit that definition.

To pass your test, which is common out there, whenever Israel is criticized we must also: prove that we care about EVERY cause in the world; acknowledge every other conflict in the world; compare against every aggressive country in the world; declare support for Israel's "right to exist" and "right to defend itself" (which are nothing by proxies for aggressive expansionism); declare our criticism is limited to certain actions; denounce every opponent of Israel to an excessive degree; and make caveats that we have Jewish friends.

This is nonsense and this is exactly the nonsense that Israeli propaganda encourages as it suppresses criticism of Israel.

Everyday people talk in generalizations about countries, people, companies, etc... in exactly the way you claim they don't. Israeli supporters especially do it all the time, especially when talking about Iran. The hypocritical double standard is incredibly obvious to anyone not blinkered by pro-Israeli and pro-Zionist propaganda or self interest.

To overlap the Israel & Jewish issues: on Israel and also antisemitism, the Overton window in the west (especially US, UK & Germany) is located well inside the pro-Israeli, pro-Jewish side of the spectrum, especially if you compare it to what you can get away with saying about Muslims, Muslim countries and people of colour. Just think about what would happen if somebody said that in order to stop Israel committing genocide they should be bombed back to the stone age. They'd not only be uproar but that person would be driven out of their job and never serve political office in the US. But that's exactly what the US president and head of the armed forces said. The uproar was very one sided.

There is a prejudice, but it's opposite to what you think it is.

I suspect that many people, like me, now hear "antisemitic" as "anti Israel" and assume it's a politically motivated slur without justification. This is not good. As racism and actual antisemitism continues to be very real, any conflating or exaggeration of a real problem diminishes people's willingness to address the real problems.

I have heard at least one interview with Steve Bannon where he says that Trump isn't delivering what many political operatives and financiers want but they see him as laying the ground for the next administration, who will restructure the government & US more efficiently.

They need "normal people", or rather they need normal people's money to funnel to the small number of people who make most of the winnings on these sites. Gambling companies' profits rely largely on addicts who spend big and to get those addicts hooked you need a lot of people to have a go.

This doesn't solve the problem and selling on the internet has become easier in the last 8 years. As we've seen recently with the Swatch Watch Riots and Pokémon Cards, professional and have-a-go scalpers are happy to stand in line for hours and resell on the internet for massive markups.

The censorship is a massive issue though as it effectively means that private companies can overrule the law if they effectively monopolize critical infrastructure. Private companies are even less accountable to individuals than governments are when there is no real market choice.