It's the not Armed Forces to make sure it's diverse in the terms you're talking about. The first thing they do in boot camp is breakdown the individual and create a team player. It doesn't matter what color you are, where you are from, you are all on the same team. Your life literally depends on the person next you. If you remove the colorblind meritocracy that military should be you are putting everyone's lives in danger. Diversity in the antithesis of what a sound fighting force is looking for.
Trump was removed from all forms of social media, but tell us how you hate conservatives and their empty rhetoric. Guess that also means that the Trump administration was in close contact with the tech companies to ensure they banned him.
He was removed when he wouldn't just give up power like a normal loser, but he sure as hell prodded them for 4 years and it sure as hell got him elected.
Not true. I've known this phenomenon by its name for well over a year. Not sure the origin. Yes, it's nonsense. But plenty of people use here in the Bay Area. This wasn't made up just for this article.
Also, the word is nonsense just the practice. Pay attention to what and who is in front of you. Eyes up, please.
Maybe spend those millions on lobbying state and local governments to address the reasons this has become a problem in the first place. Also, all either does is make the products we have to purchase that much more expensive since, you know, the retailers are passing those expenses to customers.
All good points, but the main issue here is the government, in this case the CCP, dictating game play. It's the parent's responsibility to dictate when and how their children play games not the government.
If the government wants to go after game developers because their games are addictive that's one thing. Dictating to the players is a level of control free citizens should never experience. Although, in this case, citizens of China are hardly free in the first place.
These arguments have already happened. You are arguing about paternalism. These debates are common in policy classes, specifically about libertarianism. Clearly, people that believe in the freedom of choice would hate this. However to your questions:
> parents to not leaving their kids alone in a car
Infringes on the freedom of the child to live or not endure conditions beyond what a normal person should endure
> sending their kids to school
The other questions start getting more into removing the freedom of the parents to choose at the expense of the best interest of the individual being affected (in the government's point of view).
There is a lot of academic material with well defined terms about these subjects. Americans will err towards individual freedoms rather than the government directing more than will European countries (and obviously communist countries; yes you can find specific examples to contradict this statement, it's a generality, an average of all policies). But Americans are trending towards more paternalistic policies over the last fifty years (Standard disclaimer: To those who will derive an intent out of this statement, it is not supporting or not supporting it, simply an observation).
OTOH an individual parent has to expend a lot more effort to create controls than a government. An individual parent can't mandate technology companies install controls that automatically regulate their child's play; they have to manually monitor+manage it at some cost of time+effort to themselves.
A wonkish trick would be for the government to mandate controls with sensible defaults but allow parents to tune them I guess?
> Previously, China had limited the length of time under-18s could play video games to 1.5 hours on any day and three hours on holidays under 2019 rules.
Is this actually going to be enforced somehow? And if so, how is that enforcement going to be different than what happened over the last two years?
It should be noted that this is for online gaming only, but that kind of gaming is extremely popular in China. My wife (who isn't affected by this) has this one Chinese online game that she plays for hours every weekend.
The regulated game are mostly online game.
It's like social media, sometimes kids have to play it to be in part of the community. Individual parents can't change this.
What Dave does with his money is none of your concern. But since he put it out in the public, you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
You see, that's the point of not telling anyone. Everyone has an opinion and once they know a little something about anything they want to share it. Most of those opinions are how to separate Dave from his money. Nobody needs that in their lives. Not Dave. Not anyone. He was right to keep quite and it looks like he had good reason to keep it quite in the first place. How you feel about finding a middle ground is the problem Dave was looking to avoid. See my first sentence.
Our anonymous Dave has a tremendous excess of wealth that far exceeds his needs and his ability or desire to spend it. He asked "Was I wrong in not telling anyone about my winnings?"
My response was to that. Maybe sharing it, rather than concealing it, might actually make his life a little better (there is a soft joy in giving), and bring him closer to the needs of people around him.
I don't see why you think I crossed a line by giving my opinion. The man is asking for opinions!
What if Dave gets aggressive ALS and there is stem cell research that looks promising, but basically he has to help fund research? Does Dave need that now? Can he ask for it back?
I worked with people who tried to retire early but got embezzled. They knew someone whose wife got diagnosed with cancer months after retirement and that money just went poof. You can’t see the future, you don’t know.
What you know is that people overplan for emergencies and miss out on positive experiences because if it. These are not the same thing.
> My response was to that. Maybe sharing it, rather than concealing it, might actually make his life a little better (there is a soft joy in giving), and bring him closer to the needs of people around him.
It would sure be nice to think that. But that's not how the world works. From the link I posted above, and very abridged:
> Jack Whittaker, a Johnny Cash attired, West Virginia native, is the poster boy for the dangers of a lump sum award. In 2002 Mr. Whittaker (55 years old at the time) won what was, also at the time, the largest single award jackpot in U.S. history. $315 million. At the time, he planned to live as if nothing had changed, or so he said. He was remarkably modest and decent before the jackpot, and his ship sure came in, right? Wrong.
> Mr. Whittaker became the subject of a number of personal challenges, escalating into personal tragedies, complicated by a number of legal troubles.
...
> Whittaker quickly became the subject of a number of financial stalkers, who would lurk at his regular breakfast hideout and accost him with suggestions for how to spend his money. They were unemployed. No, an interview tomorrow morning wasn't good enough. They needed cash NOW. Perhaps they had a sure-fire business plan. Their daughter had cancer. A niece needed dialysis. Needless to say, Whittaker stopped going to his breakfast haunt. Eventually, they began ringing his doorbell. Sometimes in the early morning. Before long he was paying off-duty deputies to protect his family. He was accused of being heartless. Cold. Stingy.
> Letters poured in. Children with cancer. Diabetes. MS. You name it. He hired three people to sort the mail. A detective to filter out the false claims and the con men (and women) was retained.
...
> Whittaker's car was twice broken into, by trusted acquaintances who watched him leave large amounts of cash in it. $500,000 and $200,000 were stolen in two separate instances. The thieves spiked Whittaker's drink with prescription drugs in the first instance. The second incident was the handiwork of his granddaughter's friends, who had been probing the girl for details on Whittaker's cash for weeks.
...
> Whittaker invested quite a bit in his own businesses, tripled the number of people his businesses employed (making him one of the larger employers in the area) and eventually had given away $14 million to charity through a foundation he set up for the purpose. This is, of course, what you are "supposed" to do. Set up a foundation. Be careful about your charity giving. It made no difference in the end.
...
> Today Whittaker is badly in debt, and bankruptcy looms large in his future.
