Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)Y
Posts
1
Comments
119
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • What an odd, incorrect assumption. Kids need to be able to socialize. This isn't the 1980s anymore, you can't just go to a mall, there are very few physical third spaces anymore, literally none in some locations.

    For a lot of kids, those third spaces are via phone/online. I can absolutely understand wanting to limit exposure to bad influences of phones, that IS good parenting, but you need to offer alternatives, or managed use, or something, or you're socially isolating your kid. Worst case scenario, you're getting them bullied- kids can be cruel (though from what I've seen, not as much as they used to be, thankfully).

    The person literally said in another comment:

    Yes, it’s part of set them up to succeed not fail. And another part of it is I want them to have a clean break from the outside world, from friendship drama or clinginess, from school stuff, etc.

    Now, I'm assuming this is partially a situation of english not being the first language, from some of the grammar, but wanting to have their kids be 'cleanly' broken away from friendships, school stuff, and the very outside world sounds.... look, I'm going to be frank here, their literal goal seems to be socially stunting their kid via helicoptering.

    Kids need to learn who they are. You're not trying to raise someone to be a child, you're trying to raise someone to be a healthy, functioning adult, and part of that means going through friendships, even friendship drama, exploring the outside world, etc etc.

  • What a weird rule. You are intentionally destroying your kid's social, developmental, and interpersonal opportunities because you're unwilling to actually put in the time to parent.

    The least you could do is give them a dumb phone, so they are ostracized less. Or better yet, actually teach and parent them how to use a phone, and then give them a phone with locked down permissions to block tiktok/etc that are actually problematic, while still allowing them access to things that allow them to relate to friends and their community. Trust but verify.

  • It's a chicken and egg problem here. You're saying that prices never fall because people don't lower demand, but I would instead argue that Americans don't seem to understand that reduced demand lowers prices simply because we have literally never once seen that actually happen in practice due to corporate greed.

  • Rust isn't necessary. It can be mildly helpful, but it's also hurt in that it's community tends to make it actively unhelpful, just like in this case.

    Linux development happened just fine for decades before rust, and while there are benefits to rust from a security point of view, if they can't maintain the code, they'll just go back to C and deal with process and policy for managing memory safety.

  • He's been wearing that kid like a hat ever since that CEO got shot. First time anyone had EVER seen the kid in public, too, and suddenly he hasn't been seen anywhere without him.

  • Because you shouldn't trust dodge Chrysler to plan a birthday party, let alone a damn car.

  • I know what he's talking about- there was some javascript spec or something that google proposed, and nobody else bought in, so it never actually became part of javascript's standard.

    But google implemented it into chrome's javascript engine anyway, and then used it for youtube. There was some fallback code if the new functions weren't available, but, because of a 'mistake' they didn't work and basically made playback ass for a while until the open source community basically debugged and fixed the issue FOR google, and then spent a few weeks cramming it down google's throat that it needed fixed.

  • They did and are refusing to answer. They're just a conservative that's larping as a Democrat for internet points.

  • The article is a security company trying to hype their company ruining their reputation in an incredibly ill-thought out attack that companies will ABSOLUTELY remember.

    Even worse, it just makes this security company look incompetent. Like a home security company that announces a huge vulnerability in Schlage locks- there's a key that can unlock the lock included with every lock sold!!11!!!11!one!

  • If you're a 'left leaning moderate' that thinks the democrats are too left, you're right-wing. The democratic party in the US is a center-right party.

  • So instead of blatant racism based on a lie, you're just going to dogwhistle racism based on a lie.

  • Not to mention the substantial circumstantial evidence that Musk bought his position as co-president via hacking voting machines I have doubts the Republicans actually won anything at all.

  • Look up the "fourth estate."

    This is their goddamn job.

  • ... See, now I'm just starting to think this whole thing is simply made up.

    I work in academia. A DEI committee is a specific thing that has specific duties, and they wouldnt even be involved in this sort of thing. No one is being hired, no one is lacking an accomodation or opportunity, no one is being excluded. "DEI Committee"is certainly a big Republican Boogeyman dogwhistle though. So I think I'm just done here.

  • Where does rape apology come into it?

    And that's not a problem with DEI, that's a problem with academic politics, which is what it sounds to me like you got slapped with, in the best case.

    In the future, in academics you have to remember that the squeaky wheel does NOT get the grease, it's considered a problem, annoying, distracting, and it gets removed so it goes away. You have to work bottom-up, not top-down. Top down is only an option when youre good friends with someone above them, or several someone on the same rung as them.

    tl;dr: DEI sn't the problem, the problem is a toxic workplace. DEI or no DEI, toxic employees will find SOME kind of structure to exert their will. Throwing away good structures because bad people abuse them is active harm.

  • I cannot, as you clearly aren't telling the whole story. All I can tell is that you're telling a very biased story, and you're blaming DEI for... squints hiring women? Hiring feminists? It's hard to tell who exactly you're blaming for fucking your advisor and not getting abackslap and cigar.

    Which is... Well, right up the alley of someone wanting rid of DEI I guess.

  • I hope you realize how bad this entire chain sounds, and that is WITH your one sided account that's clearly skimming over things you did, especially the second time you were kicked out.

  • The problem is that they're not even negotiating, and also it's been proven time and again that if you give concessions to republicans so you can 'negotiate later', they'll take the concession now and wring another one out of the Democrats later. Negotiation does not work when the other party is not interested in it.

  • The website has instructions for if that happens as well!

  • Yeah, as I said, think very carefully about if you want to call republican reps.