Better quality/entertainment? Not necessarily. Better for human brain health? Particularly young developing brains? Almost certainly, I'd bet.
- Posts
- 2
- Comments
- 2990
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 2
- Comments
- 2990
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
Netflix produced shows, in particular, is doing this, yes. I'm sure others too. Not all media is being produced that way. And even then, even if they're handholding the viewer and diminishing the narrative quality as a result, it's still something that takes more than 3 minutes of attention span to follow. And streaming older media is also an option, none of which was made that way. I'd argue you still get more out of watching an episode of Gilmore Girls for the 3rd time than 30 minutes of tiktok slop.
“in considering the constitutionality of a districting scheme, courts must treat partisan advantage like any other race-neutral aim: a constitutionally permissible criterion that States may rely on as desired.”
Translation, if districting is done purely to disenfranchise voters of the opposition party, that's just fucking aces. By the extension of that logic, what's to stop them from creating laws that prevent the opposition party from being on the ballot? Or make a law that says you can vote for anyone you want a long as they're Republican. Is that not "race-neutral" "partisan advantage" that would thus be "constitutionally permissible"?
Almost certainly. The form of media being consumed is changing and it's increasingly hollow short form media.
although the majority of Americans seeking passports do so through local post offices, which would not provide the special edition.
As someone who needs to renew a passport in the near future, Thank. God. I don't need a fucking reminder of this fascist old man-child freak ever time I travel.
Yes, that is what I meant. My mistake. Thanks for catching that.
- The "Veejay" of a clip show of shortened airline-food standup sets.
I got that the latter two were Jimmy Kimmel and John Oliver. You lost me on this one.
Edit: Also, don't forget 4. The man so good at satire that he simultaneously convinced stupid right wingers he represented them and only slightly less stupid left wingers that satirizing the right meant that he actually represented them until he got a new non-satire show and turns out he's just a left leaning centrist with an expert level knowledge of The Lord Of The Rings lore, but still calls a fascist a fascist.
Close it with: "Hope to see you on the other side of the revolution/apocalypse. Tata!"
He keeps arguing that voting laws, in general, whether they be gerrymandering or other laws that objectively and overwhelmingly disenfranchise select peoples, are fine so long as they are not (provably) intentionally discriminatory based on constitutionally protected class, but rather politically motivated/discriminatory. As if political discrimination for a constitutional right, let alone one that decides the ones who set these laws, is any better or more acceptable. At this point, he'd argue that a law requiring you to vote Republican is fine since it's only politically discriminatory. Jesus Fucking Christ.
She'd be betting that she gets a presidential pardon for keeping her mouth shut or that the following administration does nothing about the cover up. The latter will almost certainly not be the case. And the former depends on Trump's fickle mood and how much use you are to him. If he thinks she's useless or she does anything, even minor, to piss him off, she's left without protection. If she made a deal for immunity instead, though, it would be better for her.
You get to give them a legal name. That's it. You don't get to decide if their friends call them "Bethany", like you named them, or "Beth", "Betty", "BB", or "Thurgash the Hungry One", let alone if they ask to go by "Garrett".
The schools, in my humble opinion, are there to serve the best interests of the child. Sometimes that means sharing information with the parents so that you are aware of concerning developments and you can work with the teachers to help your child. Sometimes, unfortunately, that also means that the parents are the concern. Signs of physical or sexual abuse, for example. Malnurishment. Things of that nature. The school not only doesn't need to defer to the parents' "rights" at that point, they have a legal obligation to report these concerns for investigations that may even lead to the stripping of those parental rights.
When it comes to children who are expressing
bodygender dismorphia or non-heteronormative behaviors, A) you have to consider the actual risks of those things and the means by which they are being expressed. If they are expressing them in destructive or dangerous ways, such as overtly sexual acts, self harm, etc. then those are probably concerns to bring up with parents. If they are simply mannerisms, preferred names, identity, then those are not concerning behaviors that warrant intervention of any kind. B) you have to consider the risks of pushing back on the behaviors. Studies show, pretty much universally, that suppression of ones identity often leads to anxiety, depression and increased risk of suicide. If the behaviors are harmless, and suppressing them is not harmless, then the obvious path is to not suppress them. C) You have to guage the reactions of the parents. Some parents are compassionate/caring. Some parents are apathetic/uninvolved. Some parents are shitty/mean. Some parents are straight up dangerous. So you have to guage how sharing innocent information with the parents will be reacted to. Again, if the behaviors are harmless, and sharing that information with the parents will cause harm, then the obvious path is not to share it if you don't have to.I'm a parent too. She's only 2 right now, so I am not in this situation yet. I've fostered teens and preteens, and been on the not so fun side of this, where behaviors are actually harmful and my wife and I were involved as a result (there is also more complicated "rights" in those cases as they weren't our children, legally). When my daughter is in school, if she starts to feel that she is uncomfortable in her body, that maybe she is a boy, or both or neither, or that she likes girls, or whatever, I like to hope that I will know that as soon or sooner than a teacher would anyway. And if not, I like to think that, if her teacher is familiar with my wife and I, they will know that we are not going to be the type of parents that shame our daughter or suppress who she is and be concerned about sharing that.
But I don't know how this may play out, except I do know that I will not hold teachers responsible for spying on and reporting harmless behaviors of my child to me. If I don't already know and the teacher does, there is probably a reason my daughter hasn't shared that. It may not necessarily be a good reason. Kids often make strange judgements or leaps in logic, and have a natural desire to gain independence from their parents, but that is part of growing up. And if you trust that the teacher cares for your child, you have to trust that they are acting in their best interest from their perspective. They're a person and a caregiver, not your spy or direct report.
Anonymity can be important though, and for legitimate reasons. Whistleblowing, for example, is much more dangerous if you can't do so anonymously. Sharing any opinions on politics/international affairs, advocacy, or any other thing that will piss of a certain percentage of the internet exposes your personal details and those of your familial connections and personal associates to risk of IRL backlash. Women who post pictures online will open themselves to employment risks as well as stalkers. Anonymity is a double-edged sword, I know. Advertisers hiding behind fake ad testimonials. Bigots and fascists harassing people and spreading misinformation. Etc. But I still think that over-reaching laws and government control like this will expose people to unnecessary risks which I think is arguably a bigger concern.
So many people treat parenting as ownership. You have a right as a parent to decide how you parent (within the bounds of the law). You also have the responsibility to provide the bare minimum to your child as required by law. Shelter, food, clothes, access to healthcare, and education. You have some legal rights over choices for your child's healthcare (after the legal minimum is met), for better or worse, which does mean that you have to be given relevant medical data about them too. But that is about it. Beyond pertinent medical data for healthcare choices, you don't have a right to know anything your child does not wish to share with you. You certainly don't have a right to compel others to provide that information to you. The idea of that is insane.
RVs are getting expensive...
England is still on the bleeding edge of pushing anti-free speech/Palestine support and anti-privacy laws. Credit where it is due in not supporting Trump's war and with holding Epstein clients to at least some account including the Andrew formerly known as Prince. But "the good guys" they are not, right now.
Yeah, I wasn't going to touch on the spore drive because they really seemed to be playing on the idea that it took the singular genius of Stamets to create it... except his genius wasn't singular. He had a research partner, Straal.
Yes, Straal died and Stamets went to the future, but whatever groundwork science existed for their research to even get off the ground still existed for other scientists to build on. And they started this research in a classified lab, sure, but surely others in the lab knew about it. And it only took 6 months after the technology was co-opted by Starfleet for the war effort to be fully functional in two separate ships, so they must have been pretty far along by the time they left the lab too. Two separate human scientists of about the same age who knew each other were able to found the groundwork from existing science and tech and work independently on developing the technology on two different ships... so the likelihood that they were just uniquely qualified and no one else could do it is extremely unlikely.
As you said, the spore drive was used openly and effectively in the war and the Klingons and others certainly knew about the capabilities of it, as well as some details of its nature. And even if the existing research and memory of the Discovery was successfully buried in the federation, the scientific knowledge it was based on was not. The scientific principles upon which the tech was built could be rediscovered eventually, especially if people had an idea of it's usefulness (putting it mildly).
Given the technology would literally be a paradigm shifting technology as much or moreso as warp technology was, there is absolutely no way that the tech wouldn't be pursued by someone... eventually... Yet 1000 years later, and Discovery is still uniquely capable of essentially teleportation in the entire galaxy, at at time when interstellar travel has become critically difficult. It's value is beyond priceless. Even the fact that future Starfleet isn't immediately using it to build more is mind boggling... or that the past starfleet didn't either for that matter..
They could have kept the knowledge of the spore tech even if they had to hide the existence of the Discovery. It was the ship itself that was the host of the Sphere data, not the spore tech. It stretches believability for sure that Starfleet didn't do what it could to preserve this technology which could see them extending their INSTANTANEOUS reach to the entire galaxy.
And if they were going to pretend it never existed for inexplicable reasons, they could have at least made the cover up believable by doing something like planting false scientific data around the technology, poisoning the well to prevent others from discovering it for a long time. But no, they just say "shhh" and it goes away for a millenia.
So was this technology just singularly impossible to recreate? Was it sheer dumb luck that it was created at all? Is it impossible to reverse engineer? Or did the writers just fail to think of a good way to explain why the tech never reoccurred in 1000 years? 🙄
It goes beyond just this ship and the tech that is isolated to it. They also establish events, organizations and technology that is used widely throughout the federation that they also have to shoehorn in a way to explain why it is never referenced or used again.
Like the holograms are really prevalent in long range communications. After the conflict with Control where the AI is able to impersonate an admiral with faked hologram imaging, they casually throw out a line about how they'll never use that tech anymore as it isn't trustworthy (and thus aligning with the established canon). Like not "we need to put in more safeguards", "we need to only accept orders through official verifiable channels", or "this tech should only be used for casual communication with family and friends", etc. Just "Welp that tech was cool, but fool me once! Never again! No holograms for you! Also, the existence of Control is also being buried and made illegal to talk about, so we can't even explain why this tech being used all over starfleet is being shut down completely and immediately." That is a purely nonsensical outcome that they wrote themselves into just becuase they wanted largely cosmetic tech earlier than it should have existed.
Political Memes @lemmy.world What Undecided Voters Look Like To Everyone Else - Dropout
Showerthoughts @lemmy.world Trying to earn a record for "youngest person to " is just an IRL speedrun
I have never had the app. Only things I've seen on it is shit family sends me directly. But it's not just the content I'm critical of. It's the form factor. The infinite scrolling short form videos. It's certainly better if the content itself is good and valuable. But the model itself seems to breed shorter attention spans and makes people more distracted, and it's more addictive/harder to disconnect.