Curvature5868

At least 42% of Americans live in a household with a gun so it isn't particularly useful to write off the anecdote.

Psychologically troubled? Morally?

We can’t even achieve this in the judiciary. See Federalist Society.

Question for both of you: What would it take for the MRISC32 CPU to use FuryGPU as a peripheral over PCIe?

Understood. I probably should have said "potentially beneficial". A phone is a tool. It can be used or abused like any other.

I think it is hard to argue that you can't learn anything or socialize on your phone.

The dilemma parents are grappling with is this: tablets and smartphones, while beneficial for children's learning and socializing, also expose them to constant marketing and propaganda, even within the confines of their bedrooms, as they attempt to connect with peers or complete tasks.

Previously, children's exposure to marketing and propaganda was mostly confined to their entertainment hours, during which they watched television or read magazines. There was at least some hope for moderation. However, "apps" have blurred these boundaries, as the same devices used for education and social interaction are also channels for persistent advertising and messaging, making it harder to limit exposure to just "entertainment" time.

In your original comment, you suggest "misplaced anger against Facebook". Many people hold the belief that Facebook's products are harmful to children.

Following from that, I can imagine a few viewpoints: 0) Parents are wrong, Facebook is awesome! 1) Facebook has violated existing laws (these lawsuits are exploring that space). 2) Parents should be frustrated with legislators for failing to regulate social media. 3) Parents should be angry with themselves for allowing their children to use Facebook's products.

I'm curious which (if any) of these viewpoints you hold.

Let's assume that the lawsuits are poorly constructed. That does not necessarily mean that Facebook is harmless. It just means these lawsuits aren't sufficient to prove harm.

Consider this analogy: Just because the DA doesn't have enough evidence to convict in a murder trial, that doesn't mean that the defendant is innocent. I just means they haven't been proven guilty.

Is it possible for private companies to pay dividends? Let's say you retire and you own a portion of a small but thriving company. Could that company potentially provide you with dividends as a form of income?

A viable solution might be the creation of an insurance fund to compensate for any unintended damage caused by prescribed burns. This fund, funded by utility companies especially those in wildfire-prone areas, would function similarly to banks' contributions to the FDIC. This could alleviate liability concerns, thereby encouraging proactive wildfire prevention strategies.