WarlordSdocy

As someone who's 23 and grew up with smartphones and all of that as they were starting to become popular I feel like I have some takes on a lot of the opinions I've seen on the different sides of issues like this. I lean in general towards giving your kid a phone once they're old enough to want to be able to talk with friends and do things on their own afterschool but having some non-intrusive ways to keep an eye on what they're doing with it until sometime when they're a teenager. That just seems like the best way to not ostracize them from other kids while still making sure they're being safe online. Even though in general things worked out fine for me with my parents letting me have my own laptop and iPod touch and eventually iPhone from a pretty young age without really watching what I did on them I definitely see a lot of times that I could have ended up being taken advantage of online if things had been slightly different. And the reason I say non-intrusive ways to keep track of what your kid is doing is because I knew kids who did have like parental restrictions on their phones and all of them knew ways to bypass them and do what they wanted to do anyways. So the only way you're gonna successfully keep an eye on them is if they don't know you are and you only interfere if it's a genuine safety problem, and even then you make sure to not punish them for it as that will make them start hiding things from you actively, you treat it as a learning moment and help them understand why what they were doing wasn't safe. I'm still very much figuring out what my exact views on this are but I think leaning too far in either direction of not letting them have social media or a smartphone at all even when they're starting to reach middle school or letting them have unrestricted access to social media and a phone both have their problems and you have to find a good balance in the middle.

As someone who uses USPS to deliver mail or packages whenever I need to do that it definitely isn't universally agreed on. It has reasonable prices compared to the other ones and I've never had issues with packages taking too long or getting lost.

I would also make an argument that the limited technology at the time led to different kinds of games versus what we see now. Sure there's the obvious things like internet enabled games and being able to get updates but I think even the less thought about things like restrictions on RAM and the power of computers led to restrictions on what you could do which led to specific types of games which aren't made that way anymore because they don't have to work around those restrictions. And while in a lot of cases those restrictions going away has allowed for better mechanics and gameplay it also still makes the games different which to people who were used to and liked those games will feel not as good anymore.

That's cause the business side keeps pushing for increasingly unrealistic deadlines and will only accept delaying so much before forcing it out.

I mean they basically already do this, my student loan was moved to a private servicer which basically is just a company that collects the money from my loans.

I mean the problem with your argument is then that there's nothing we can do, as there isn't really any pathway towards impeachment right now. As Republicans hold both houses and have pretty clearly shown their loyalty to Trump even with the fact that they're getting so much backlash they won't hold town halls anymore. So at this point these kinds of protests are one of the few ways to try and hurt the people in power, as well as to start building community that is needed for any kind of more direct action. It also gives Trump and Elon the opportunity to overreact against protests (like if they decide to follow through on the domestic terrorism thing) which will further galvanize people into action.

Yeah the problem here though is that Israel is the one with all the power here to stop the violence as they're the ones forcing people out of their land. I view it in a similar way to what happened in Ireland, if you want to stop the violence you have to make efforts to negotiate a true lasting peace, then whatever groups that are left that still want to commit violence will slowly lose support as the people stop supporting violence with a good peace treaty in place. But instead of doing that Israel is basically using the same argument the US used for why freeing slaves would be bad as in their mind at the time if they freed them the slaves would kill all the white people.

I think that ended with the death of their fascist leader and then a peaceful transition towards democracy. So it can happen but only if your leader dies and the successor wants to reform the country back to democracy.

After 9/11 terrorism gained a much more negative connotation I think. Idk fully about what it was like before since I wasn't alive but in Deep Space Nine you literally have a character who said she was a terrorist and that's not really seen as like an inherently evil thing like it would be in the current day. I think people understood the nuance back then that sometimes terrorism ends up being justified when you're fighting for freedom against an oppressor.

I mean I imagine most people leaving would still keep American citizenship and therefore still be able to vote. Unless they decide to end their citizenship which some might but I imagine most people would still want to keep that option open.

It's not really competition anymore though, since they often use SpaceX rockets for what they do now.

I mean with the recent stuff going on with them trying to deport someone for the pro-palestine protests I'm just reminded of the quote "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."