Are you aware of the history of the state of Israel beyond what affirms a bias? The modern state of Israel was formed after Jews around the world started purchasing land in modern day Israel. 28% of Israel was purchased this way, and that's most of the land the original waves moved to. Arab states surrounding that 28% had a huge issue with Jews existing in that space considering every one of those nations had genocide the Jews from their borders and even aligned with Hitler during WW2 (including the Palestinians, who allied with Hitler and whose leaders were eventually sent into exile by the British for doing so).

So, because the Arab states already had designs on the area of Palestine (they were going to annex once the British left), and they couldn't tolerate Jews existing in the area... The Arab nations attacked. And lost, soundly. And Israel grew much, much larger. Israel seized more land by fighting off a war than anywhere else. That's what happens when countries lose wars of aggression which they start; they lose territory. That's what Ukraine is doing to Russia right now and they'd be foolish to ever give it back.

But sometimes they do give some or all land back. Which Israel did. They gave a lot of the land back in exchange for peace.

There's no perfect entity in the world, and definitely not one in the Middle East. But please, spare us the Boogeyman one sided tales. The Jews fought for Israel so adamantly because they were exterminated from the region long before any fascist rose to power in Germany. They were forced out into diaspora several times, too. It's all complicated and unfair and it isn't as simple as Jews = European and don't belong there.

Palestinians need to bite the bullet. There are generations of people born there now and Arab states are not going to exterminate them again. So a two state solution is what they better seek unless they want to lose it all with their constant aggression. Is it ideal? No. Would it secure an actual state and begin the process of normalization? Maybe. But first they need to purge terrorists from their leadership. And that's the real stickler considering that shit runs deep in many Arab Nation governments. The two are intertwined just like emergency companies are in the west.

Yeah people don't really understand that HOAs are a two way street in most states. Bad HOAs exist because of bad neighbors, neglectful neighbors, or both. All it takes to right a ship is to show up and vote (or fill out the paper absentee ballot...) when the yearly elections happen. And then show up to some meetings so quorum can be met.

My HOA has to reschedule important meetings several times a year because nobody can be bothered to show up for a 30 minute meeting every quarter so quorum is met. Bad HOAs are like bad local unions. They only have power because you let them have power. Lobby your neighbors to do something about it. Unfortunately my experience is such that the typical homeowner who chooses to live in an HOA does so because they want to be rorLly hands off as much as possible. Kind of the opposite of the default pictures people have of obsessive neighbors in HOAs.

I'll take one of each, please.

I don't care what you say, the Apple store circa 2001 is iconic and definitely has that "lickability" factor that Jobs loved so much about the original OS X's Aqua UI.

When did code reviews become this weird?

Yeah, people defend Linus and other faces like MKBHD for one huge reason: Parasocial relationships.

Just look at all the conversation happening in this thread with people defending the figure of Linus (and others). Influencers, even tech influencers, make money because they can monetize those people.

And Linus appeals primarily to the folks who like thinking of themselves as the tech person in the family or at the office, but really they are no more technical than slotting a stick of RAM into a case on average.

So the argument boils down to it being due to bad parents rather than evil technology, yes?

That's not the main arguments being used to ban these devices and advocate for more radical plans. Removing access to these doesn't make someone a good parent. Kids turn to other methods.

And to an earlier point in another comment: guess which cohort has explosive growth in smoking at the moment? Not people our age. Teens and young adults of legal age. Gen Z, in particular, is a huge market for that industry now. Cigars and pipes in particular. Vapes are counted separately but are wildly popular.

Banning the sale of highly regulated goods where the state is the official and only legal seller of said good in many states is one thing. We are talking about the internet here, though. And cell phones. And computers. And tablets. May as well put TVs and connected devices on the list, and definitely console platforms.

That's the real problem, kids being able to spend unlimited time unsupervised because they have horrible absent parents. Parents shouldnt let their kids have unrestricted time like that. That is one reason why kids suffer in school not because of phones; because their parents aren't involved to guide them in making good choices and forcing good habits.

So we take away the phones as the luddites demand. What fills the gap? Definitely not independent learning. Most definitely not suddenly mindful and present parents.

There is a lot of fear mongering and blaming, but no actual effort to fix it. Banning or removing doesn't fix it. There is a reason that, when absent parents for latchkey kids were huge problems, they didn't simply decree gangs illegal and pat themselves on the back. Communities offered alternatives. But no alternative is being offered here. All the woes are shifted onto the unholy smartphone and internet.

Ya know why predators can find success online? Because shit parents don't parent. A better use of resources would be forcing the parents to sacrifice their phones contingent on spending time with their kids, right?

No, you don't get. Or didn't live it. Or are being purposely obtuse.

None of those qualifiers were attached to those things at the time the applicable fear mongering luddites were vilifying them. What we have right now are 21st century Tipper Gores. People engaging in moral public freakouts over tangentially related things which affirm a much larger fear of the whole (technology in this case). You see it also with how people violently and emotionally react to "AI."

Remember when D&D would turn you into a Satanist who'd go on to sexually abused children, maybe even engage in ritualist murder? Remember when similar was said for merely listening to even the radio edits of Marilyn Manson?

People pearl clutch over hypotheticals. Parents who engage with their kids and set healthy boundaries which are enforced don't often run into these problems. Hell, the arguments people make about tech right now could also apply as reasons not to let them play outside. Never know where a predator is lurking. I mean, we actually do: in your church and in your house. The two most statistically likely places for children to be preyed upon.

But let's blame the internet. Apple makes it trivial to lock things down and monitor it all. No kid is able to outsmsrt those restrictions because adults can't either.

No, what's happening is yet another hype cycle. The entire reason all these schools are banning devices this year is due to a marketing effort from Haidt's publisher. They put copies of his book into the hands of higher ranking faculty with purchasing authority for their districts. And they talk with each other. What a brilliant way to weaponize ignorance and make a buck doing so.

And it magically doesn't make bad parents into even mediocre ones. Who or what will they blame next? Definitely not the person looking back at them in the mirror every morning.

True, however game jams are often used to learn/reinforce learning for new tech, right? I question how much of it is the sunk cost of having to learn a new… well… everything.

I’d be very interested to see a breakdown by game characteristics. Genre, but particularly 2d vs 3d. I think Godot is well known for 2d, less so for 3d.

Probably the people—accurately—pointing out that Mozilla has also adopted Manifest V3 along with Google. Google is doing it to curtail (“kill”) ad blockers. Mozilla is also now in the advertising game, and secretly began a telemetry program which is opt-out only. And, given how we shouldn’t trust orgs with financial motive, very well could opt you back in with future updates exactly as Microsoft does.

Plus, their current CEO has a history, and Mozilla as a whole faces dicey times ahead if their Daddy Google is forced to stop buying exclusivity deals by the U.S. government.

So take your pick I guess.

There’s also credible reports that Reddit is testing an even sneakier method. They will hide the “deleted” comments when you are logged in and looking for them in your history. But other people can still see them; Reddit just understands you are a hostile actor in their eyes so they pull manipulation games like with shadow banning.

Fark still exists with that small monthly payment to support the site model. Drew, the owner, regularly meets up with folks, too. And if you’re a subscriber he must buy you a beer if you ask him per the “terms” of service.

A nice, relatively small, community. That’s what Reddit used to be. Your post really resonated with me.

my experience is such that people don't get these sweeping bans for having opinions. They get them for acting like sociopathic aggressive individuals.

And based on what I'm seeing when I check folks' profiles reiterating the same story... Yep it checks out more often than not. There's no discourse on the internet when it consists of calling people slurs in a weird barrage of insults. Those are the people who get banned here or there.

How do you mean “the other side?” EFF has a high factuality/credibility but is marked as left of center in bias.

EFF, like ACLU, are mostly orgs that stick to their expertise. Look at entities rated as “Very High.” The climate science orgs don’t and shouldn’t give time entertaining the deranged conspiracy theories of science deniers, nor should EFF focus on advancing rhe worldviews of entities looking to limit speech on the internet. It would be like demanding AA set aside time at meetings to discuss the merits of getting black out drunk once in a while.

Sure, many sides exist. But mere existence doesn’t make them equal.

I have family that are similar. I wouldn’t classify them as racist, but they straddle that line with opinions. I’ve never seen or heard them classify an entire group of people or act discriminatory in person. It is more along the lines of “everyone is equal and nobody should get special treatment” regarding things like affirmative action or the more extreme DEI practices of some companies.

My experience is such that these people can be reached if we keep the lines of communication open rather than do the easy thing of cutting them off. I’ve been able to use their own logic and verbiage (especially verbiage) against them but one can’t go in guns blazing. To change minds, it must feel like their idea. Turn the heat up slowly and introduce doubt and ideas.

My big take away, with people like I described above, is that they are reacting to the more extreme people who would feel right at home in the racist far right if things were just a tad different. Cultural warriors and grievance politics leaders are cancerous regardless of which side of the spectrum they occupy because their goal remains the same: divide the normal people and turn us against each other.

And judging by what happens in my extended family and how it is breaking down on political lines… it is sadly working.

This is most definitely a feature here. What ARS won’t say (but their source articles do) is that Newsbreak is an app right out of China. That’s why they don’t care that this creates entirely fictional stories. This is the leftwing equivalent of all those rightwing agitprop sites that pretend to be local news in order to trick people

Tell me, how culpable were thr old SPD members that fled Germany immediately prior to the Enabling Act? The politicians who skipped town rather than vote to stop Hitler. I mean, they didn't explicitly vote for Hitler to become dictator. But they had the ability to prevent lr delay it and didn't.

At some point the rational and adult thing is to recognize that inaction is a defacto vote for the worst scenario you can imagine because you didn't attempt to stop it. If you see a car hit a little girl, and then flee, are you in the free and clear ethically and morally for just driving right by only to hear she later died because no one else tried to help?

Biden is a genocidal dictator?

And people insist that the far left isn't blue Maga and then I witness crazy similarities like this be normal here.

Like it or not, a vote against Biden (or no vote at all) is tacitly supporting the Republican takeover and implenetation of project 2025, regression and perseuction of LGBTQ and immigrants in our societies, and wild escalation in the middle east as Trump and Republicans have promised to do vis a vis Gaza.

Folks, yall gotta deradicalize a bit. Put another way, what does it say about you that you'd rather allow a person like Trump, who wants to implement a final solution type deal, than a person like Biden who isn't so crazy and even walking back? You don't have to love these people. But if you could do so right now, and HAD to do so, would you vote to a hurt 1,000 gazans or millions of them? That's the choice you MUST make in November. Even sitting it out is a choice.

You could say similar about our leftist history. How many countries did we instigate revolutions in to overthrow even somewhat democratic governments?

Radicals will rationalize anything including putting Trump back into office.