Because it will take about 1 month till there is some service the parents will want the kids to use that wont be available on such device (a kids show, a kids game, a page necessary for homework). So, they will have strong motivation to not label them as such.
At that point, what if parents just let their kids borrow their driver's licenses to use social media? There's no technical solution to bad parenting.
The only reasonable solution that doesn't infringe on privacy is to give parents the tools to limit their children's internet use, and presume, outside those bounds, that people are adults.
of course there's no perfectly privacy preserving solution for this, but ... zero-knowledge proofs have come a pretty long way.
if I understand correctly it's possible to give 16+ people tokens and then they can make the signups (transactions with these tokens) and then check that the transaction is valid (that it came from some valid token without knowing which token), while also making sure that folks can't just fake spend someone's tokens -- this is how the new Monero version is going to work after all.
Of course as others mentioned trading identities (tokens) is trivial. (As I expect not-yet-16 olds will start stealing identities/logins of older people.)
Yeah, as you mentioned, token-sharing breaks this. I think any solution ultimately has to put the onus on the parents. And if the parents aren't responsible enough to pay attention to what their kid is doing online, then it's probably for the best that the kid have access to an online peer group over social media
Counterpoint - the books will never be finished, so waiting would make no sense.
However, they should hire writers that can actually write characters and plots other then simplest ones. The writing quality was indeed horrible by the end.
I think that you are comparing un-comparable. No, farmers back then, regardless of what unclear period you talk about, did not had two jobs. They had one job.
Also, I suspect you don't have actual concrete place and time in mind. How farming and economy worked varied widely between times and places, you cant just cherry pick small anecdotes from span over 500 years and two continents and create comfortable picture.
That is not health advice, that is "how to be anorectic" advice. If you are at the weight with longest lifespan, you are somewhere at the top of "normal" bmi range and wont see ribs. You wont seen them in the middle of "normal" range and plenty of thin wont see them either.
Otherwise said, for quite a lot of people accomplishing this would mean underweight.
It’s unnecessarily crude heuristic but it’s not totally wrong. It seems like you can see ribs in adult men up to around 25% body fat which is around the end of healthy range.
> Or the various pre-industrial human cultures who ate virtually nothing but fish and small game because their climate was notoriously resistant to agriculture and fruit trees?
We have longer life span. We are healthier then them. And we have also bigger muscles for those fitness oriented.
That is just eating disorder kind of thinking. Stop spreading it. You can eat sugar, it wont harm you. Pretty much anything harms you in super large quantities.
Sacharids are good for you in general, just like faits, protein and everything else.
It 100% makes sense for a parent to not want their own kid to be the "poor but capable kid" who stayed in "the wrong school".
Especially since the kid who was in "the wrong school" will be blamed for "being lazy" or "less capable" when they don't perform as well as equally capable and hardworking peers in the "right school".
To play devil's advocate, is a high stress, pressured, test obsessed selective school, populated by entitled kids with pushy parents, "the right school" for the poor-but-capable-kid..... ;). Will they make friends there and be happy and still want to read for pleasure and be curious about the world outside school? (OK , to be fair you might not want them to go school in a very rough area with drugs and other crime, either)
Then it is wrong school. But the other issue is that you are strongly drawing here on the stereotypes - that this school will be test obsesed, kids in it will be bad entitled kids and you cant make friends with them.
Kids in real world selective schools do form relationships, are curious, interact and like the world outside. Some selective schools are like you describe ... but others are not and kids in them are happy.
The type-A kids are friends with type-A kids, yes. Everyone else is ostracized. That's what gives rise to stories of "entitled, can't be friends with them".
> And up untill the 1940's spiral fractures in various sports were unknown
The sports were massively less competitive back then, incomparable to todays variant. The sports as a super competitive and popular past time is recent development. If less people do sport and sport itself is less competitive, less people will get injured.
Also, while people were strong, they were not buffed. The robust build, six pack and big muscles is our ideal. Men were basically thin.
> my joke is that the city kids are soft and grey, but the farm kids look good enough to eat, 2 seconds and you see the healthy glow
Fun fact: cities are overall thinner then rural parts.
People are surprised over Trump, because of what it applies about conservative peoples hypocrisy. Conservativism is typically approached with massive amount of naivety and undeserved trust. They lie, they complain about things they don't mind, then they state their plans out loud and pundit class is still "they cant be as bad as they say". Trump and the people he is choosing winning three times clearly show who these people are ... and pundits cant admit it. Moderate republicans cant admit it either to themselves.
The confusement is because if Trump won primaries three times, it clearly means you do not care about respectability no matter how much you pretended being outraged over minor non-issues in the past. It means you do not mind lying, actually. It means you do actually want pure destruction and are in fact motivated by misogyny and all those bad things.
But, we want to believe in good of the massive amount of people. We do not want to believe that conservative Christians will do anything just to get control over women back. Or that they actually want to destroy the democracy.
Do you think Muslim women went into the voting booth thinking "can't wait to destroy democracy!"? They may have miscalculated Trump's support for Zionism (Miriam Adelson donated ~$100 million to his campaign), but if anything that reinforces GP's point: human emotion is drawn to the likeable person, and likability needs to be accounted for.
^This page has a great graph depicting how minority men, in particular those under 30, wholesale abandoned the Dems this year. Those aren't demographics known for their Christian conservatism.
> People are surprised over Trump, because of what it applies[do you mean implies?] about conservative peoples hypocrisy.
Technocrats talk about hypocrits. Lovers of the humanities talk about people.
People don't operate on principles. They operate on human emotion, which is a very real force. It is no less real than facts, figure, logic, or rationality. Trump's shooting, his McDonald's stunt, his garbage vest/truck, and his ability to exude his brand are actual skills, and signs of a different kind of intelligence. Until people get that, they will be perpetually confused.
A lot of pollsters around the issue of the economy for example threw their hands in the air this election. The numbers looked good, they said, so how come people feel that it's not working? They blamed 'the vibe'. But 'the vibe' is a very real force, that one must contend with when you study human behavior and emotion.
The problem is that -- instead of studying literature, philosophy, religion, art, music, dance, etc, i.e., the real humanities -- the 'humanities' PhDs, the sociologists, the pollsters, etc, all studied statistics for human management essentially. We've lost so much by not focusing on the actual humanities
> Moderate republicans cant admit it either to themselves.
Moderate republicans -- if you mean the lincoln project crowd -- are the worst perpetrators of the problems addressed in the article
> But, we want to believe in good of the massive amount of people. We do not want to believe that conservative Christians will do anything just to get control over women back. Or that they actually want to destroy the democracy.
oof... read and believe too much of the Ivy League output I see. You know it's a grift for them too right? Just look at President Biden (a graduate of the Ivies if I'm not mistaken) being all smiles after the man he called Hitler came to the white house to take over.
Sure, but I read and listened A LOT about principles from christians, conservatives and republicans. And they mock everybody elses emotions, except their own which are super important.
Yes emotions are real force. I am glad we are admiting it, because god, the conservatives LOVE to pretend they are being rational when they are ... not.
Did you have something constructive you wanted to talk about either about what I wrote or the article, or did you just want to have your say on christians, conservatives, and republicans? If the former, I'm happy to engage. If the latter, I'll just let your comment stand on its demerits.
“President Biden (a graduate of the Ivies if I'm not mistaken)”
You’re quite mistaken there: he did his undergrad at the very public University of Delaware, and went to law school at private but definitely not Ivy League Syracuse.
