atrielienz @ atrielienz @lemmy.world

Posts

4

Comments

1,654

Joined

2 yr. ago

So, what (in France I know!) are you getting for said taxes that you were not getting before?

Because that's exactly what I'm getting at. It is the schools responsibility to enforce the rules. The point is, it's not the schools responsibility to take on the liability of what comes with that (ie. Holding onto thousands of dollars worth of tech with the ability to keep that tech in the same condition it was in when it was confiscated for an untold amount of time), it is the parents responsibility to make sure their children aren't ringing such distracting material to school. And this means there are already likely protocols in place for distracting material. So what are you getting out of this ban?

Schools likely already have a policy about bringing valuables items to schools which applies here. They also likely have policies about objects that are distractions in class or not suitable for school environments with protocols in place to enforce and or deal with said objects. So tell me. Why is this different? I know the article is talking about France.

So, explain to me why this law is necessary? What does it achieve? What does it do that wasn't already being implemented?

Are they going to allocate money to every school to employ technologies to prevent cell phone usage on the premises? Unlikely because, as I said, this law is to prohibit students from having cell phones, not teachers or administration.

So what happens when a school now has to confiscate and hold $1000 phones en masse? It makes them a target for theft. It makes them a target for lawsuit in the event that any of those phones are misplaced, stolen, damaged etc.

Teachers and admins didn't used to have cell phones in schools either. What are they doing on a phone that they can't use a landline and a computer for? Why is a cell phone so important for yard duty? Why is it a requirement? What does the cell phone do that a landline can't do?

And the fault of the parent who is the only one who can do anything about that child having unrestricted access to the internet of a phone. This is adding to the responsibilities and liabilities of the schools without solving the problem in a meaningful way and this is exactly what I'm being critical of in my statement.

If nobody has a phone you can implement other technologies to alarm if such a device is brought into the property etc. You can actually jam cell phone use in the area too. There's solutions that would mitigate a school having to take on hundreds of confiscated $1000 phones which would be a huge liability and make them a target.

And that is the fault of the parents who chose to hand phones to these kids. It is not the fault of the school, nor is it something the school should have to do anything about. (Edit for clarification: what I meant by "so anything about it" was schools aren't responsible for teaching good and responsible phone use and self control, nor is it their job to step in when the parent is doing their job with teaching these skills).

I'll also point out the argument that there was a push back then for outlawing video games and violent music because of its effect on young children and regardless of the validity of the danger to kids, it's still the fault of parents who were allowing their children to listen to that music or play those games. Schools already likely have policies about cell phones, or at the very least policies about confiscating distractions.

You seem to have taken this as not support for banning phones in schools rather than what it really is. A criticism of this method for the deficiencies that it creates without solving the problem or even (more than likely) changing anything about the protocols already in place for handling distractions in schools except potentially creating a worse situation for the administration who have to now be responsible for these items en masse because students and parents are going to ignore this until it hurts them personally.

It also doesn't teach students anything at all about moderation or the dangers of the internet, nor does it teach them anything about this tech which they will end up having to use as adults. And if you have seen adults with this tech you know it's not just a danger to kids.

Does anybody but me remember when schools banned walkmen? What about portable CD players? Gameboy? This happens everytime a new technology becomes popular and schools don't know how to regulate it they do this.

The downside is, a fair few student will have their phones confiscated by the school. But it won't dissuade them from bringing them in. You make them better at hiding them instead of creating tools and protocols to enforce for when they can and can't use them.

The crazy thing is, this should be about schools not wanting to be liable for or responsible for these pieces of tech. But Everytime I see legislation like this, it's to do with "children's mental health", or these devices being a distraction.

Model it. Nobody should be allowed to have a phone in schools by this metric. No phones for students? No phones for teachers and administration.

That sucks since it has analog triggers and a lot of people I watch were hoping it could be used for certain shooters.

I will say that in the latest pair of Joycons I didn't even wait. I just swapped them for hall effect ones from ifixit. Well worth it in my opinion.

Nope. I've sent several pairs of Joycons (at least 4 sets) to be repaired by Nintendo absolutely free of charge. Never had an issue though I remember the process being a little convoluted.

I still want an updated sidekick. I want it so bad.

I doubt that. As an American, the ones I know will continue to complain and not do anything differently unless they're absolutely forced to. This isn't going to force them to. It's not life or death for a great many of them, and the ones it would be life or death for, well. They voted for the guy who decided to smack every country he could find with tariffs.

I dunno. Perhaps because I don't play a lot of games with exorbitant amounts of achievements but for me in games like Hollow Knight they were sort of a roadmap. The thing is, you can just complete the ones you want. In my playthrough on the switch (where some of the achievements were just hidden), I didn't get the same sense of having checked something off my list as I did when playing on steam. It's almost like since nobody can really see them there's no joy in it. But on steam I felt more pride in those same achievements.

Not what I thought of when I read the words "date everything".

How's fractal? It comes up as a recommendation for Linux matrix a lot and I was wondering.

Just as I said. Perfect in every way. That's how you know. Couldn't bear to give him up. Say hi to Bob and Jack for me.

Bill Gates doesn't run Microsoft anymore. He's not the CEO and largely not responsible for the change in their business model.

Also, I game on Linux more than I do on windows (though I do have a partition in my drive to run windows for games I couldn't get working on steam OS/ Bazzite. It's literally 4 games out of over 100.

Bob is perfect. 10/10.

Or their Best Friend.

So you don't think having a mental illness or malady can detrimentally affect the physical wellbeing of the person with the malady despite multiple studies that say otherwise. Good to know.

If that's the only language you have to communicate, I'd say more power to you. If you can translate what you're saying using online tools, that might better facilitate communication and conversation.