I love that the headline says An excess of billionaires is” implying excess is the collective noun for billionaires. And I think that is perfect. An excess of billionaires.

I guess I’d be irritated if I had to listen to prayer for my ride, but I think my worst reaction would be retracting a star or two.

I have been saying something slightly similar, but rather that laws should no longer protect them.

It’s detrimental to isolated pieces of metal.

You will be assimilated.

Paradox of Tolerance

It could affect those things. But like I agreed with before, it should be handled carefully and this is a big reason. I distinguish simply between Facebook for example and ma’s blog. One tries to make money by gathering data and targeting advertising to people intentionally addicted to a platform. The other is, you know… a blog.

If the law outlawed the online exchange of ideas, I too would be among its biggest opponents but that is probably a strawman.

As far as me parenting? Sure. With the benefit of hindsight, I’m not sure I was fit either, but I did my best.

I agree that it is unprecedented and should be handled thoughtfully. Nevertheless a corporate website is not a social construct. There is no talk of banning socialization. Maybe you thought they meant social networks in the traditional sense (social group connections) but they are referring to websites. So cigarettes is a perfectly suitable analogy, which is why I can understand your dismissal.

So let me just clarify. Norwegian parents are bad, even though kids here are doing pretty well when compared globally. Regulating how young people interact with the world never works and is bad. So, underage drinking should be allowed, smoking, driving at 8, no age of consent? And parents can just talk to their kids to fix all the problems that happen, including psychological manipulation for financial gain? And anybody that has issues or is taken advantage of just has bad parents? Those who think society has a role to play are just virtue signaling?

Interesting. Not going to debate much further with you, but I’m always a bit envious when I run into other parents who claim they have 100% control over their kids. I don’t. My child is grown now, but I absolutely did not. They were their own person, that no matter how much I talked to them had their own life and struggles.

And prohibition does work in some cases. See, cigarettes. Smoking has been in the fall for a long time especially among the young.

But I’m glad your kid will never have any problems ever and if they do that you admit it could have been solved by you talking to them.

We don’t have to accept corporations selling ads that target young people and using algorithms to take advantage of them.

And Norwegian parents are doing what many are doing; caring for their kids to the best of their abilities. That oil money has provided good social services and these teens do have access to healthcare, including mental, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t teenagers still. They necessarily require some independence. That’s growing up, so you can’t just parent around every problem. Hence restricting some things, like cigarettes and alcohol for example.

I don’t see this much differently. It is a hazardous drug that warrants some consideration. Enforcement is fraught but that doesn’t mean we should just sit on our hands and accept it as is.

That wasn’t clear to me, but it is a pretty funny point.

Unless it doesn’t make money.

Light switch rave!

deleted by creator

Well, there are many of us that do care about software freedom. If you don’t, I hope your software is as good as your understanding of open source.

Not anything sufficiently modern. Salted passwords should be exceedingly difficult to reverse.

I’m not 100%, but I’m pretty sure the issue is with restricted ability to use / produce insulin to regulate blood sugar thus leading to dangerously high levels.

Do you really use it or are you just adding an alternative to the conversation? It is an interesting concept (commutation) but not likely to supplant git.

Hey, if they choose to wrap their comments in completely inane reasoning they should be allowed to.

“Humans can’t breathe underwater” The Newsroom

Oh I wasn’t even disagreeing with you. I was just saying that your example may undercut your point. I use extreme examples too, but it only works well when the analogy is solid throughout. In this case I don’t think they are as comparable as you do. That’s all.