altacc

Are those imperial or metric washing machines?

Everyone's experience is singular and of that time. Go back in time and you'll find people saying "we didn't need TV/radio/magazines/cars/etc..." and that the new technology of the day was a plague on our society. Times change, we have to work out how new technology fits in, not shun it.

As to "The more time and energy you can give to your kids, the better off they will be.". That is very simplistic and like most things is more complicated than you first think. Children get used to being entertained, be it by a tablet or a parent. There is a downside to both, in that it is also good for a child to be able to entertain themselves and comfortable by themself. (Tablets & TVs aren't a child entertaining themselves.) From my personal experience, intensive parenting where attention is maximized on the child isn't healthy for either parent or child.

All this to say that simplistic takes tend to fall apart once they meet the complex variety of reality.

Definitely a thread where I want to know if a commenter has children or not. Before becoming parents many people have opinions about raising children that afterwards turn into understanding of actually why parents act the way they do.

But I still don't like the idea of this tablet at all, for various reasons, mainly screen time, developmental impact, subscription & ads and vendor lock-in.

Edit: yes, I have children. They don't think they have enough screentime and we think they have too much. Probably means it's about right.

It appears you have the incorrect definition of incel.

Price change and supply are not linear. I see the price of oil as largely a human decision, based on how much people are willing to pay for oil and its derivatives, or buy oil for thinking they can sell it for more later. It's linked to supply/demand but not directly controlled through a formula. You can look at the profit statements of oil companies around the world to verify that there is indeed much more money being made when supply is limited.

In the UK there is a yearly survey regarding crime and I've not read it for a few years (I've emigrated) but a regular theme used to be that people interviewed personally felt safe and weren't likely to be victims of crime but thought everyone else in the country was less safe and everywhere they didn't live had higher crime than it did.

The public perception of crime is persistently incorrect for many if not most people and this incorrect, emotional rather than evidence-based view of the world is unfortunately what drives political pressure.

You're wrong on so many counts here but it seems obvious you're not in a place to listen to reason. Your confirmation bias has to be very strong to think you know better that the majority of neutral genocide experts.

This made me smile, reminds me of my 90s, early 00s in web development & hosting. Where tiny offices above shops spread out as the business grew; racks were thrown in cupboards; the noise was constant and the heat was unbearable in the summer; the pigeons nesting on the shit covered Victorian window sill had the best seat in the office and nobody really knew what they were doing but we were all incredibly cocky about being wunderkids working on the coolest new stuff that nobody else understood. Good times!

The way this administration works is that anyone in a decision making position has been swapped for a self-serving yes-man who will do whatever Trump wants. Anyone they can't replace who won't deliver is briefed against or investigated until they quit or can be fired. Facts that might influence the decision play no part in the process.

The easy acceptance of this authoritarian governing style has been one of the most damaging to the idea of democracy. America's democratic institutions have great marketing but many of us outside the country and not subjected daily to that marketing have long known it is an particularly weak form of democracy and open to corruption, demagoguery and populism. Americans have a susceptibility to authority and hierarchical normalisation, has left them open to this.

This word bloat is why I can rarely read non-fiction books even if their topic is interesting. I want the summary and then option to read more detail if I want, not have to go through pages and pages of padding before getting to the interesting ideas or facts. There was interesting information in the article but the idea that it takes up a third of his book, with multiple interviews about the process is the opposite, is exactly what I'd avoid reading.

In much of Europe you don't need ID for those, except a driving license, which happens to be an ID but primarily exists to prove you are qualified to drive. If you look young you are asked to prove your age if buying cigarettes or alcohol but the requirements for that are relatively low.

Until recently in the UK you did not need any ID to vote, that was introduced recently as an echo to the US stolen election conspiracy, as demagogues love to steal ideas from each other.

> only about 10 lines of JS

Ah, the good old days when we wrote JS function to do something, or copied from dHTMLZone. These days the first 10 lines of JS is loading hundreds of lines of JS libraries. (Yep, I'm an old man yelling at clouds!)

Putting it kindly, this is an incredibly optimistic interpretation of how historically the government and police have used their powers. There is a long and consistent history of UK police abusing powers, stretching legal definitions and using technology to target those outside the original mandate of a law or investigation.

Antiterrorism and anti-disorder laws sold to the public as needed to prevent serious threats have been used extensively outside of what I think most would consider reasonable to surveil people, restrict freedoms and harass. The prime example are the stop and search laws, used to search a large numbers of people, predominantly based on racial stereotype, with zero impact on terrorism.

Remember that the Met police is known to be institutionally racist & sexist. It is not an organisation to be trusted.

They're hoping people read this as the nonsense notion that they'll only scan criminal's faces. Reality is that everyone's face will be scanned, processed and stored.