This is 100% the response. I work with kids in mental health and the “kick the can to the parents” response is so shortsighted
Apple and android controls aren’t that difficult to understand. Roblox parental controls aren’t that difficult to understand. Could it be simpler by unifying these things under one framework? Sure - I’ve worked with tons of parents who fall under the trap that Roblox is safe because they set iOS parental controls. I feel for them because they aren’t “tech” people and apple conditions them to expect a setting to be universal across the operating system, so it’s quite a shock when they find out their child has been texting with some groomer from Roblox chat.
The parents who are doing that will continue to do that. Improving those controls will help those parents and I agree efforts should be made for them. But for every one of those parents I encounter I get about 4-5 more who don’t bother to set any kind of parental control or filter on their children’s devices. When their 9 year old starts talking about pornhub and I give them resources on setting up parental controls it almost always falls on deaf ears. They simply don’t give a fuck. They can’t be bothered to spend 20 minutes figuring out how to set it up, even if I offer to walk them through it.
It is the new form of parental neglect, the modern version of a latchkey kid
Yes but massive censorship and the constant surveillance of children is also not good for the children ultimately. We need to bring the question of “does this help create a world that we want children to grow up in?”
Are we really going to argue “since some parents won’t adequately parent their children, we’re going to create a massive censorship and surveillance apparatus and the Government will tightly control what everyone is allowed to view or talk about online”?
I might dryly suggest that it is prudent preparation for the computing environments they will encounter in their future jobs. Like the way expensive prep schools have children wearing business casual...
Android doesn't have parental controls, does it? The closest thing I'm aware of is Family Link, which is a Google service that requires parent and child to have a Google account.
It'll take legal responsibility being placed on the parent, and one parent being prosecuted and convicted for child neglect, in order for that attitude to change.
I don’t know if it was the pod8 or what but the idea that you pay several hundred dollars (or more) for hardware to only need a monthly subscription fee to make it actually function is absurd.
Also this is absolutely insane in the currently climate. I would be interested in data from analysis of my “output” but there is not a chance I would trust any company in the modern age to not sell the resultant data. If I develop signs of colon cancer or something is that going to silently impact my insurance rates because of data brokering?
I grabbed a broken 2019 i9 and repaired it. I thought I had fucked up the repair because it kept thermal throttling but after researching a bit and eventually comparing to a known good machine it appears that I did fine and no, it just does that
At least on the cx (I don’t see a point in upgrading for years) if you root webos you can redefine buttons on the remote. It’s great because I was getting infuriated by accidentally starting streaming apps that I never use and the cell phone apps as a remote alternative are utter trash from a usability standpoint.
I just can’t understand why there is a need for a remote app to do anything besides start to a tv remote. Well, I can, the poison apple of advertising as an additional revenue stream, but it’s still infuriating. I have an older Roku TV and that app has progressively gotten worse. it used to just be ideal, start, auto connect to the last connected tv, and immediately go to the remote. Now it’s a bunch of promotional content by default and you have to tab over to the remote. LGs is far more obnoxious and difficult to navigate. Absolutely inexcusable for displays that can cost $2500+
Diet is part of the problem but a big part of the issue is the inherent sedentary lifestyle associated with American infrastructure and suburban development. If you design tons of housing in a way that encourages people to utilize cars as much as possible, invest as little as possible into infrastructure like public sidewalks and bike lanes, etc then don’t be shocked when your populace becomes fat and lazy, especially when you combine this with a carbohydrate/sugar rich diet. The EU has a worsening diet. Japan eats more carbs than America. What’s the difference? They naturally walk much more as part of their daily routine because their governments invest in communities rather than stealing tax money to launder to military contractors.
Whenever I travel outside the USA I am always astounded at how little effort I need to put into getting my daily steps vs when I am at home. At home it is a concentrated effort
Big difference in carbs like sugar and say bread, though. Certainly not an expert on Japanese diet, but I don't think they consume a lot of sugar. Their deserts are famously rather savoury.
(And by bread I mean non-American bread that does not contain sugar, or relatively little (mostly low-end commercial stuff for shelf-life).)
most of the sedentary lifestyle of the US is intentionally done, as a silently understood truth, to avoid violent crime without getting caught by title vii lawsuits
the only places that dont need to build suburbs with 10 mile buffer zones from other people are cities like SF and NY that exclude people via rent prices or other place like alaska, obvious reasons
i have had (white) frends visit LA/hollywood and get arrested for walking on sidewalk, taken to local police station and told yes this is for your own safety, you are free to go but do not walk around here
It is the case that we've structured things like suburbs around avoiding something that frightens much of American society, but it isn't violent crime.
> most of the sedentary lifestyle of the US is intentionally done, as a silently understood truth, to avoid violent crime without getting caught by title vii lawsuits
Because the political playbook is to argue in bad faith and conservatives are much better convincing their base of that than democrats. Why are many of them convinced that left wing violence is a scourge when right wing violence outweighs it by an overwhelming majority [0] unless you do mental gymnastics after tons of mass shootings (as Kash Patel, who one would think would be aware of related trends to domestic terrorism, so eloquently put it: “I’m sorry. Dylann Roof?”[1])
you can find inflammatory rhetoric from any human being ever, that is obviously true, but it’s also disingenuous to act like trump is not the most inflammatory and devisive leader America has had in modern history. Look at how he responded to the murders of the Hortmans in Minnesota relative to how Biden responded to his assassination attempt or how most (if not all) democratic lawmakers are responding to this
And while political violence is abhorrent Kirk was no angel. In the aftermath of this his views on gun violence have been echoed widely but he is a man that called for political opponents (namely Joe Biden) to face the death penalty [0]. That page outlines much more. So are his calls for political violence including the death of his opponents, inflammatory language like slurs[0], encouraging violence against immigrants and transgender athletes[0] “reserved”? I would hate to see what you consider out of line then
> it’s also disingenuous to act like trump is not the most inflammatory and devisive leader America has had in modern history.
I'm not from the US, and do not have a horse in this fight, but I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of people in the US who believe that the most inflammatory and divisive leader America had in modern history was Obama. The main difference between Trump and Obama is that Trump is teared apart by the media, while Obama was cuddled by it.
(btw, speaking from my non-US experience, when a leader is cuddled by the press, it is a bad sign, not a good one)
Of course, the press does cuddle its darlings. Compare any first-term Trump's press conference with Biden's press conference: a pack of wolves that screamed and shouted suddenly morphed into cute fawning puppies: "what kind of ice cream do you like, mr president?"
Regarding your accusation that I work for Kremlin, you should be ashamed of yourself to say such things to a person who was literally beaten by Putin's polizai for protesting his policies. In your simplistic mindset, anyone who has a differing opinion from you surely must be a paid troll working for evil people. It is very fitting that you exhibit this attitude in a discussion about a person who was killed for his views. Should I be shot, too? I surely have it coming, right?
The word you are looking for is coddle, not cuddle. You cuddle a pet or a spouse. You coddle your favorite politician with preferential coverage.
Good on you for protesting his policies. But maybe don’t spread his propaganda for free? I never celebrated, excused or wished death on anyone. Shame on you for implying that.
No, thank you, but the word I needed was something that would describe a warm, loving embrace, like when you take a pet in your arms and caress it (I even pushed this metaphor further in the next comment, about loving puppies), and I believe that "cuddle" is the exact word for that.
Well, it is indeed jarring when supposedly objectively and truth seeking journalists suddenly turn into adoring fans, so maybe my metaphor works on more than one level.
>I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of people in the US who believe that the most inflammatory and divisive leader America had in modern history was Obama.
You want to know why a lot of those people, who are reactionary by nature, thought Obama was so divisive?
It's because they couldn't stomach being led by someone who wasn't white.
>The main difference between Trump and Obama is that Trump is teared apart by the media, while Obama was cuddled by it.
You'll notice that Obama was roundly (and rightfully) criticized by the left for his actual policies, and was criticized by the right for his skin color. For those who focus on policy ramifications, Obama was repeatedly critiqued. The problem is the right wing media machine couldn't outright drop a hard -er or call him "boy", so they had to use emotional cues to insult him personally. Forget about actual policy, especially because his signature policy, the Affordable Care Act, was copied verbatim from enacted GOP legislation.
> It's because they couldn't stomach being led by someone who wasn't white.
I tend to think that many white people voted for Obama in part because he was black. Like, we elected this guy, can we now finally put aside the question of racism? And then, somehow, instead of putting aside the question of race, it was dialled up to 11, with all these diversity quotas and DEI initiatives.
Btw you too are guilty of furthering this division: your instant reaction to criticism of Obama was to play the racist card! Of course, the only reason someone can criticise mr Obama is because they don't like the color of his skin!
>the only reason someone can criticise mr Obama is because they don't like the color of his skin!
I have roundly criticized Obama for the last 17 years since he was elected. I was critical during his tenure, and critical of his actions after his tenure. He doesn't get a pass.
I voted for him in 2008, not because he was black, or because he was a Democrat, but because I was sick of no-bid contract loving Neo Cons whose stock portfolio was antithetical to national security, and thus I wanted and voted for change.
But let's look at his actions and what I disliked.
Drone strikes? Yup. Critical of those.
Bailing out Wall Street? Yup. Some of those bankers should have been jailed, versus bailed out with golden parachutes.
Continuing the forever wars in the Middle East? Of course I critiqued those.
Ignoring actions by our "friends" in the middle east that furthered Arab hatred of the US? Absolutely hated that too.
Trying to pacify Putin after his attacks in Georgia, invasion of the Donbas? Yes. Was particularly hard on him for this.
Not standing up to the GOP reactionary wing? Yes, I blamed that on him too.
Failed healthcare policy? Of course I have issues with that.
Let's stop pretending that Obama was some sort of liberal or far leftist. The dude was pretty center-right by world standards, and only considered remotely left because the GOP had spent the Bush II administration pushing the Overton window about a hundred quadrillion light years to the right.
I could go on. But as someone who spent some time in GOP heavy rural areas during one of Obama's campaigns, I can tell you a lot of the people in those areas routinely began their critiques of Obama with a word that starts with an N and ends with an -ER.
Well it kind of can. see all the other companies who have done exactly this with no repercussion: Mazda, Chevrolet, Chamberlain, etc. See companies like Eufy and Philips that sell products advertised working within a local intranet only and then change their mind after the fact (in Philips case over a decade after, when some users had invested hundreds or even thousands into the hue ecosystem).
There appears to be no regulation protecting consumers from this abusive behavior. If it does exist it is not enforced whatsoever.
In no cases can any contract overrule the law. However, you are correct that the law is not being enforced, because it is exceedingly difficult for an individual person to tackle a massive company like BMW. The point of Rossmann's video, if I understand it correctly, is that we shouldn't just keep letting them get away with it, and actually defend our rights.
Indeed. It’s the price of the car itself that makes it more difficult to challenge - which is why people often go for lower monetary compensation through the small claims track (which has a max claim value variable depending on country)
More significant ones, obviously, that discourage them from engaging in such anticonsumer behavior. One should not have to engage in individual legal action to to get what they paid for
That said I applaud you for taking them to charge. Good for you. I assume you had to return the devices? I wonder how this would work for people who invested 5, 7, 10+ years ago. I would hope the same.
Yeah, I had to return the devices. The compensation awarded was based around the claimed “lifespan” of the lighting. i.e 8 years remaining of the 10 year claim.
They didn’t turn up. But I have had other rulings where the company sent a representative, and many where they settle beforehand - not that it is any of your business. I’m just a savvy consumer, as are my friends and family.
It's the two of you talking in circles. You lie (>>which they lost because they breached consumer law), deflect and don't bring anything tangible to the discussion besides anecdotes. Everyone who cites "consumer laws" in this thread ignores the lived reality of consumers in the EU.
It’s an everyone sucks here situation. Gawker was undeniably shitty for outing thiel and posting a sex tape of hogan and then refusing to take it down. But the impact of the lawsuit was basically that if a billionaire has a vendetta against your media org they can fund a lawsuit even if they are in no way involved. And it’s rumored that Thiel funded several suits, not just hogans, discreetly. Even with hogans he was challenged but was allowed to keep funneling cash to take gawker down
The end result of that is that media orgs are now far more cautious about posting “exposes” of powerful people. Gonzo journalism in America is basically dead except for a handful of independent outlets that have much less impact, funding, and reach. Now it’s substacks of people that used to work for the intercept and rolling stone because media with money is playing it safe posting articles about trumps latest antics and 12 vacation spots you have to check out before you die.
It's not an everyone sucks situation. A relatively powerful organization well known for playing bully finally picked on someone who happened to be stronger than they anticipated and got what was coming to them.
It's not like they decided to fess up and play nice once they were caught red handed. They decided to double down and act even shittier in court thinking they were still the big bad bullies and finding out the hard way courts don't really like that sort of attitude.
Absolutely no one would be taking Gawkers side here if the victims happened to be more sympathetic. The facts of this case were pretty one sided, as shown by the win in a notoriously difficult to win sort of case. The behavior of Gawker in court was absurd on top of it all.
If this were a case of a SLAPP lawsuit or burying them in legal costs over a series of marginal cases I would agree. It was not. It was simply one of their victims finding the means to finally stand up to an organization that abused it power consistently and with malice. The bully found out the hard way they weren't the biggest bully on the block, and refused to back down.
Nothing of value was lost. Very little of what Gawker was doing was in the public interest. It was life-ruining clickbait at it's worst.
> But the impact of the lawsuit was basically that if a billionaire has a vendetta against your media org they can fund a lawsuit even if they are in no way involved.
Please GMG went to shit when they switched to pushing out absolute click bait trash. And that's driven by how dead traditional website ads are. Only medium with viable ad revenue has been videos for a long time.
Otherwise most of those sites werent anything they needed protection from billionaires besides Gawker. Kotaku was supposed to be a gaming site but instead became an opinionated rag piece that rivals the NYPost.
It was all for the eyeballs chasing whatever pennies are left in website ads.
I don't ever remember Kotaku being a gaming site, even back in 2008 (give or take my memory may off) - always just seemed full of circlejerking garbage back then.
That was after the GMG Union kicked in, they went to mailing in their work once that one happened. That was the second stage of the destruction of Gawker.
Apple and android controls aren’t that difficult to understand. Roblox parental controls aren’t that difficult to understand. Could it be simpler by unifying these things under one framework? Sure - I’ve worked with tons of parents who fall under the trap that Roblox is safe because they set iOS parental controls. I feel for them because they aren’t “tech” people and apple conditions them to expect a setting to be universal across the operating system, so it’s quite a shock when they find out their child has been texting with some groomer from Roblox chat.
The parents who are doing that will continue to do that. Improving those controls will help those parents and I agree efforts should be made for them. But for every one of those parents I encounter I get about 4-5 more who don’t bother to set any kind of parental control or filter on their children’s devices. When their 9 year old starts talking about pornhub and I give them resources on setting up parental controls it almost always falls on deaf ears. They simply don’t give a fuck. They can’t be bothered to spend 20 minutes figuring out how to set it up, even if I offer to walk them through it.
It is the new form of parental neglect, the modern version of a latchkey kid
reply