I mean I'm reading the same thing they did and it's not that unfavourable an interpretation of what you said.
If anything this comment only doubles down on it. You've already assumed the kids are going to be homeless, rather than the point I was making that there are times where this law will 100% conflict with a teacher's safe-guarding duty, yet they will be forced by law to endanger the child anyway.
And there should be programs for these youths to help them out.
You want government employees determining whats okay for the kids, but have parents take any repercussions. Either parents are responsible for their kids decisions, or teachers, can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Exactly how are these kids meant to find out about these programs to help them if there's literally nobody they know that they're allowed to disclose this information to without their parents immediately finding out about it?
You say "government employee" like as though it's a tax collector you're putting in charge of these kids.
At least in the UK, teachers have to undergo a lot of safe-guarding training before they're even allowed to teach. They're supposed to protect your child's safety, even from you if required. That's serving the tax-payer, and this law jeopardises their ability to do so in that scenario.
Therapists have an obligation for confidentiality, teachers are public servants, they should serve the tax payers.
Yes, because children (without the aid of parents) can afford a therapist. That's your worst take so far.
Also, you missed the second part there where you can bypass all of this by simply fostering an environment where your child feels safe to tell you this in the first place. If your child isn't telling you something that fundemental about themselves, it's because they don't feel safe to do so.
You do understand that there are parents who would make their children homeless (or worse) over issues of sexuality and gender right?
Is it that important to be able to snoop on every facet of your child's life that you support turning what should've been a safespace for children who find themselves in the above scenario into yet another place they're forced to hide.
Also, if you're at the point where you're resorting to using the law to force secrets out of your children, rather than having them trust you enough to just tell you, you should probably question your relationship with your children.
With what I've seen of the US, I can see why many people over there would unironically hate cars. Car-centric planning has all but ruined the walkability of most US cities to the point of making it almost obligatory to own a car.
Come over to Europe and you'll be able to see the difference that planning has had clear as day.
I'd absolutely recommend watching Alec's video, but that's not a half-bad summary of the main point.
Think about it hard enough and it does make sense that for something as cheap and easy to produce as a light bulb, it stands that the consumer and manufacturers alike stand to benefit from a shorter, but more energy/cost efficient implementation, than a longer-lived, but significantly less efficient/more costly version in general use.
Edit - Though it should be pointed out that this is a rare instance of corporate interests lining up with the best interests of the majority of consumers, not something that happens very often, so you could see why people (even myself) would be drawn to believing a more nefarious reason for the 1000 hour lifespan if you didn't know the technical details.
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. The individual hosts of the Fediverse are limited on space, and jamming that limited space full of images, rather than using an external image hosting service, is worse for the sustainability of these spaces
When we've already seen this strategy play out in the form of Microsoft's great EEE, it's hard not to assume malevolent intentions when a mega-corporation suddenly starts getting buddy-buddy with the indies (who are creating an adjacent product) out of nowhere.
You don't chop down a big tree on one go. You chop, chop, chop away over and over until eventually the trunk is too weak to support the rest of the tree.
If they can pull enough users and developers away from the Fediverse and ActivityPub, then it'll kill off (or extinguish) the whole thing.
Exactly. ActivityPub needs continued organic growth, not to be inundated by activity from a giant monolithic, social media company controlled instance who's heavily financially incentivised to wipe us out.
Maybe I'm just too cynical, but I think it's naive to assume Meta is embracing ActivityPub out of the goodness of their heart, effectively giving free content away to federated instances with no strings attached.
I think it's also naive to assume Threads users will migrate to the Fediverse proper and not just interact through Threads. The vast majority of those users may not even realise they're interacting with people outside of Threads.
I don't believe it'll translate to a growing community, it may very well oversaturate us instead.
Does Fortune think Linux also partnered with RedHat, Ubuntu, Apple, Windows and everybody else who's every borrowed from/made use of/implemented an open standard??
Yeah, this is definitely a US-centric thing. Almost nobody I know (UK) uses SMS as their default, it's usually the last resort before just ringing the person.
Not that this actually happened, but I feel like if you're the type of person who'd actually set "Minion Rush" as your default phone app, you've only got yourself to blame
I mean I'm reading the same thing they did and it's not that unfavourable an interpretation of what you said.
If anything this comment only doubles down on it. You've already assumed the kids are going to be homeless, rather than the point I was making that there are times where this law will 100% conflict with a teacher's safe-guarding duty, yet they will be forced by law to endanger the child anyway.