locococo

excellent point. When all you have is a hammer everything becomes a nail.

Homes are already pre-fabricated to the largest possible extent.

Just printing walls out of concrete that won't even have great surface properties is a curiosity at best.

from the rocket perspective, sure, but not so much from the perspective of your cargo.

In many cases the cargo is more precious than the rocket so you need reliable rockets.

Sure there are trade offs, and your position is understandable. Self reliance and freedom are important but I don't see the value in not being able to call for help when help is needed.

As a parent you can still make the decision to not pick your child up if they are tired and want to be picked up.

My kids spend a lit if time outside, riding bikes running around the forest...

If they have an accident it's useful to be able to get to them quickly.

Please spare me a response about the qualities of facing adversity and walking home 3 miles with a broken collar bone.

If you lack the imagination of how location information is useful then that is ok. Companies offer it because it is, and people want it

It would have helped because I was walking home from my music lessons. My dad was supposed to pick me up but he was late. This was before cell phones were widely available and I was about 10 years old.

Predators don't just snatch you up like in some movie, they watch their targets first, or lure them away.

People/children have a gut feeling when something is not right and can call for help.

Will it be 100% effective, no, but it will drastically improve response times just by knowing the exact/last location.

The choice on how to act when your child is in trouble is still yours. It's very obvious to me that a lot of people engaging here don't have children. There is a lot of idealistic posturing. Do you really think a child takes developmental damage by feeling cared for and protected?

I am speaking from experience as a father of two. The watch teaches the kids to reach out when they feel overwhelmed. They are fully in control of their own destiny. They don't always end up where they planned they were going and that is perfectly ok for me because they can reach me if there is an issue.

I grew up in europe, and I had two instances where I came close to being abducted as a kid. You are naive if you think parents are overreacting. once you become the statistic the statistic is meaningless to you

this is exactly the case. Kids gain more freedom not less

What are you smoking? No choice is removed from anyone. Survival is the primary objective, what do you think it is? Limiting electronic device usage?

false dichotomy, as a parent I alone cannot ban guns, but the little things I can do to assure my child can reach me when needed I will do.

I am happy for you, I am sure the sane logic could be applied to get rid of car and home insurance

no freedom is removed from the child. It's a failsafe they can chose to contact the parents when they feel overwhelmed and then the decision from the parent can still be made to not help. If anything children will be given more latitude to be independent. Safety at any cost is a very silly phrase. If something happens to your child and $250 could have prevented it the cost seems very small and the statistics very personal

Parents have a lot to contend with as it is. Making live easier by preventing the temporary loss of a child and the anxiety for both parties is a benefit. If anything this gives kids more freedom, anyone not understand this should have a set of kids first.

I think what we need to remember is that there are two issues with your ststement.

1. Companies need consumers to sell to. If no one earns enough money to buy then the companies gave a problem. 2. If people cannot feed themself from working for others then becoming a subsistence farmer and forming tight knit communities is the best way to survive.

People can exist without companies, the reverse is not true.

The issue is simply companies taking advantage of people. We like to call it the market, but the market only works when there is a balance. I am simply advocating for a balancing force. Government or Unions usually fill this role.

I would equally challenge you to go to a warehouse and listen to peoples stories about their working conditions and personal stories.

it's not how it works if there is a monopoly. E.g amazon is the only employer. I think this is where the local and federal governments should step in. If someone is working for 40 hours and needs foods stamps then the companies should be required to reimburse the government. It's a disgrace for society to take advantage of people like that.

Boeing does not exist in isolation. There are many other companies in the labor market. What I am referring to is a well understood dynamic. It's unclear to me what your counter point is here.

Your response neglects simple facts. You are missing that certain vocations are not as popular to women as they are to men. I doubt this is inherently an issue with the education systems. I think what corporate America has been focusing on heavily recently was DEI, which is fine, but it seems that has caused management to lose focus on other matters impacting quality. I've seen this first hand where a high ranking VP announced his highest priority is diverse hiring, again this is fine, but it's a choice in priority setting that sends a clear message if tradeoffs need to be made down the chain.

I am not against DEI or blaming diverse hires for issues. I think management in corporations sometimes does poorly identifying metrics that measure what success means to a company. Is it a 50/50 mix of women and men or to uphold the highest quality standard.

Counter point. My CS program had a class specifically for low level programming that required massive amounts of debugging C code using GDB. That same program also required students to take an OS class in C where the knowledge from the low level programming class came in very handy.

For higher level languages I don't think much of an introduction is warranted since it's just using tools provided to you by the IDE and should be left to the students to figure out.

Check if your electricity provider offers a renewable energy plan. My electricity provider does and it adds about $15 per month.

maybe the affordability issue where people need more than one job in the US is showing up here.

I grew up in Europe and it's not a European mentality issue. There are very serious social issues at play here.

Geographic proximity makes Europe a prime destination for all the people who don't have the means to immigrate to the US.

Europe has taken in many young men from war torn countries and those men have different standards that sometimes are not compatible with western standards.

You can be all high an mighty and cast blame. But the actual issue is that there are different economical sets of immigrants.

Europe has immigrant ghettos where police are too scared to even be present.

Obviously there are many great immigrants from all backgrounds that are trying to make a better live for themselves, but we can't deny that there are issues.

The US and Europe are very different in terms of actual immigration in terms of population. The US has immigrants from many different nations and cultures that actually are less stratified. Europe on the other hand has a more homogeneous immigrant population which is the cause for more friction.

All this to say, Europe i headed into a different direction than the US for the reasons stated above.

I don't disagree but I think what we tend to forget is thst children mimic their parents.

I've noticed that my kids will go outside more when I walk the dog more. They either join me or go outside on their own.

The same applied when I work in the yard.

the benefit of the cloud is the elasticity. People neglect sometimes that businesses had to scale their infrastructure to peak demand before the cloud. If your workloads don't have peaks it's an easy problem to solve.

Only considering market forces and saying the market will fix itself is a shortsighted argument. We live in a society and the market does not factor in societal impacts in terms of the "greatest good". Markets need a balancing counter force to make sure eggs are not only available to the rich and the poor are exposed to malnutrition. I say this because in the US we have this dominant idea that there is nothing better than not interfering with the market while forgetting that the market is only valuable to society if it serves our greater good. The statement that price controls do more harm than good is not true in a general sense. When society chips in to save banks no one seems to have a problem with that, try to make eggs affordable is blatant overreach.

I would be interested to hear how you ended up with that conclusion, especially if it has any factual foundation.

It is interesting that parents are not granted the autonomy to make these decisions by the law. If the police have such a great concern about the safety in the neighborhood to the degree that children can't be outside someone has failed at their job. Arresting people for letting their kids walk outside just to spread fear is shameful.

Someone showed a picture in an educational context with no intent of harming but to educate and lost their job because of it. People seem to be losing all sense of being reasonable in their response to things they or someone else find "offensive".

The fake outrage is really disgusting back to the dark ages.