Skip that button and use BlockTube to blacklist channels instead.
4,231 karma · joined June 18, 2023
This sort of thing is exactly why I roll my eyes when somebody suggests that it's the sole responsibility of parents to control what their children see online, and that anybody who complains about the state of things is just an irresponsible parent. The nature of tech products conspires to make this virtually impossible for all but perhaps an elite minority of technically inclined parents.. and probably still impossible even for them. Even the simple option of "no computers / internet in this household" is undermined by schools which give kids computers with leaky content blocking and require families to accept this.
But you seem to be very confident that it couldn't be a manufacturing defect with this particular car. How did you manage to rule this out?
> The thing is, Elon Musk could buy everyone in the world a Tesla if he wanted to.”
Is there a name for this kind of math error? For this to be true, a Tesla would have to cost something like $30.
You mean China today? China today commits more than their fair share of human rights abuses, but the worst atrocities in the PRC were perpetrated in the past by staunch socialists, not those capitalist reformers who later introduced capitalist elements back into Chinese society. During the Cultural Revolution the Red Guard, a hard-line socialist paramilitary mostly comprised of students, were purging anything that vaguely resembled capitalism or tradition. They murdered millions of people for socialism.
This is a very good point, you should have stopped here instead of devolving into a purity spiral by attacking somebody who's obviously coming from a similar point of view: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purity_spiral
We do in fact. Parents (what you term "random people off the street") are expected to take an active role in educating their children. Ask public school teachers in America what frustrates them the most and the two top answers will be their administrators and parents who aren't involved in the education of their children. Parents like the article author who think there is a "unspoken contract" that schools will handle all education are the bane of teachers. Teachers hate people like this. I have several school teachers in my family and they all rant nonstop about parents like this.
If a parent tries and fails to teach their child how to read before the first grade, that's fine. They can let the teachers know that and the teachers can start giving that child special attention right away. But a parent who doesn't even try because they think the education of their child is the sole responsibility of the school are the kind of parents that teachers hate. It's neglect, not legally actionable neglect but certainly neglect nevertheless.
By the time a child gets to the first grade they are already 6 or 7 years old and the window for easy reading acquisition is almost closed. The article author found this out too late and now her daughter still struggles to read. Incidentally...
> When it became clear that my daughter was also among the roughly half of all kids who will not read fluidly without explicit phonics instruction, I left my job, in part to help. [...] My daughter’s progress has been slower, perhaps because her tutoring took place online.
She left her job to help her daughter learn to read, yet her daughter is being tutored ineffectually on the internet. Why isn't she tutoring her daughter in person, if she left work to help? Because...
> I left my job, in part to help. I also embarked on a doomed crusade to persuade our school’s administration that—
Her idea of "leave work to help" apparently means leave work so she has more time to write angry emails at the school. The teachers must absolutely hate her.
Yeah I get it, not everybody knows how to teach kids to read, but she took off work for this so she should have the time to figure it out. She should go to a public library and tell a librarian that she wants to use the phonics method to teach her child how to read. Librarians can direct her to appropriate books and probably give her a ton of supporting material as well. But she's not going to do this because she's locked into the mentality that teaching her kid to read isn't a job for her. She wants schools or internet tutors to do it for her, and when that doesn't work she takes to writing articles complaining about the situation instead of doing it herself. Meanwhile the days tick away and her daughter becomes less and less likely to ever read well.
Even if that weren't the case, you couldn't copy an apple in a grocery store anyway.
If they don't like this, they can turn me away at the door. But they don't, they let me and I'm not signing any contracts with them, so fuck their rule.
Call the police, nobody cares.
Stop being disingenuous, they're trying to save a river ecosystem, not legalize wife beating.
Far from making things easier for children, you aim to make it far harder for them to access their cultural heritage by deliberately neglecting to teach them the language skills needed to access all extant English literature. I don't believe for an instant that this has escaped your consideration. You wish to deface the past so you can rewrite history; it's a form of book burning.
And structural racism? I guarantee you that any English speaking family with the means to do so would have their children privately taught to read traditional modern English, even if they had to do it themselves personally. You would create an underclass of quasi-literate English speakers, how is that supposed to address structural inequality? What you propose is not intended to promote equality, drop the bullshit.
If the scope of the change you're proposing is limited to petty changes like color to colour or vice versa, then I'm confident that your changes would be ineffectual at improving literacy rates. There is no evidence that one spelling or the other is easier for children to learn.
But petty inconsequential changes like that are not what you're actually after. I think that you, with your obvious admiration for murderous authoritarian regimes and grandstanding against tradition, want to make 'traditional English' unintelligible to people who are only taught your new English. In this way you might hope to build a wall between young people and literature and other cultural materials from the past. Another Cultural Revolution is what you want, right? Tear down all that is old, purge society of traditional culture and probably murder millions of people along the way. Just as the CCP did. 枪杆子里面出政权 You admire and covet this kind of power, I can tell. Your little off topic mini-rant about tax policy tells me that you are not merely a would-be language reformer, but temporarily embarrassed head of state as well. Why not tell us about your agricultural policy too? I'm sure that somehow relates to the discussion just as tax policy does. Let me guess, step one is killing all the sparrows who eat our seeds.
You attribute to me a wish to forbid certain spellings, but which of us truly has this wish? Me, who has nothing but apathetic tolerance for the differences between American English and British English? Or you, who wishes to impose harebrained reform on the entire English speaking world and shamelessly uses the CCP as your model for how this might be done?
The English language will continue to change over time, as it always has, as all languages do naturally. What will not ever happen is a new system of writing being imposed on the entire English speaking world by fiat. Even if you became Supreme Leader of the People's Republic of America and forced your new system on the entire country, you would be dismayed to find that the overwhelming majority of English speakers do not live in America, nor any other single country. There is no single central authority for the English language, no governing body to capture. Imposing reform like you suggest is literally impossible so your proposal is beyond worthless. English is used by too many people in too many countries, you can't conqueror and subjugate them all.
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode/configuring-...
Show me where it says a program installed from the MacOS appstore will be unable to read the user's files unless the user explicitly authorizes it. Here's how it actually works as far as I can determine: The application developer grants their app the entitlements to read user files. The user may see that entitlement before installing the application, but thinks nothing of it because of course the program operates on their files. This does not protect the user against a malicious program being shipped with those entitlements and a plausible pretext to justify it. Example: The user downloads a program to read some kind of unusual file for work, the program grants itself access to ~/Downloads because of course it needs that, then the program instead reads ~/Downloads/your-tax-documents
This system only protects the user if the application was legitimate, refrained from granting itself the relevant entitlements, then got compromised by an attacker.
That would cause absolute havok for the billions of people who already know how to read English, but realistically you could never roll this out to the whole world... it would just become another teaching fad that cripples the kids subjected to it, by failing to teach them how to read English as the rest of the world writes it. You would be teaching kids to read and write using a system their own parents can't comprehend. It would be an absolute disaster.
Seems nuts to me, I thought the unspoken contract is that parents read to their kids at night and teach them to read at the same time. I guess the author thinks only rich parents can do that (come on now..)
Is it really true that 1 in 4 schools stopped teaching kids to associate sounds with letters so they could sound out words? That sounds so insane it beggars belief. If that's true then no wonder people don't trust schools; trust isn't warranted. But the idea is so insane on the face of it that I have trouble believing it.
Secondly, if 1 in 4 schools did this and half of the students in these schools fail at reading because of it, then "and a large part of why more than half of our country’s fourth graders aren’t demonstrating proficiency on reading exams." seems a bit dubious. If school's adopted this program independent of school size and half of the students at those schools struggled to read for this reason alone, then I'd expect roughly 1/8th of all students nationally to be negatively effected, not one half.
Third, it would have been nice for this article to go more into the history of the idea. It pretty much lays all the blame on this Lucy Calkins and Teachers College Reading and Writing Project, but also blames this line of thinking for a 1973 SCOTUS decision. That was several years before the Teachers College Reading and Writing Project was founded, but the article doesn't go into this history.
I'd like to see this quantified. How many people using flatpack are afraid of their application reading their files, vs using flatpack simply because it's a convenient way to install programs? I don't mean "oh me me!" responses, are there any user surveys to support the premise that average users are afraid of their applications?
Quite frankly I don't believe this level of paranoia is the norm. On Windows and MacOS, applications installed in the normal way can read the files on your desktop. This is the way it as always been on Linux too, with few exceptions. Letting the most paranoid users set the norms is a recipe for irrelevance. How popular is Qubes? It's a pain in the ass.
No, not arbitrarily. But that $14/mo bundles in the price of other services as well, namely Youtube Music. Youtube Music doesn't cost Google nothing, so obviously $14/mo isn't what they're getting from people in ad revenue. A comparable music subscription from spotify costs $11/mo, so subtract that from $14/mo. $3/mo is a fair estimate for what they expect to get for showing ads.
Does the example of Japan prove the conventional wisdom wrong?
The vast majority of earthquakes are very weak, so predicting the time and area of earthquakes seems worthless if they can't accurately predict the magnitude as well, with very few false positives.