• 0 Posts
  • 90 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle
  • 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.




  • Honestly when switching from Reddit to here that is the thing I missed the most. It was a lot better at serving you things you liked compared to here where you can only really sort by either what’s active or popular or what you’re subscribed to. I get some people really like that but a lot of people want it to be more personalized to them without having to go search for the things they want. It’s also great for discovering new things because sure I can setup my subscriptions to show what I like but then it won’t make connections and show me new things I might like. Combine that with there being less content and therefore certain areas of interest not being represented here at all makes mainstream social media better for most people.







  • You’re right there after looking into it, he didn’t endorse either but he did speak at the RNC which for a lot of people looked like an endorsement but is a little different. The quote of we can win with or without you was from a meeting the teamster’s president had with Kamala. Even if it was in response to him speaking at the RNC or showing some support to Trump that’s definitely not how you get someone to back you and in my opinion shows the attitude the Dems had to a lot of people this cycle. This idea of either you vote for us or we’ll win without you cause you have no other good choice. That attitude is not one that makes people excited to go out and stand in a 3 hour line to vote for you in a swing state. And if they keep relying on this you either vote for us or you get stuck with the bad option of Trump they’re only gonna win whenever Trump is in office and actively doing really really bad things.




  • I agree that talking about non-voters in that context isn’t useful but we definitely should talk about non-voters more in regards to why they didn’t vote. Is it cause in a number of states voting access is really hard? Is it due to not liking either party and not feeling like there are good candidates? I think understanding that more could really give a better understanding of this block of people, is it really just people who don’t care about politics and would never care enough to vote or is it people who just don’t have the time to deal with navigating the system to be able to vote.




  • I’m not saying the increased demand would make them build more. I’m saying if companies are forced to rely on the grid they will help pressure/fund new expansions or maintenance on the power grid as if it fails they’re gonna lose money. If they’re not reliant on the grid anymore through things like this they would have no interest in making it better and they would stop applying pressure to make things better. And also atleast in my area increased demand from data center has caused attempts to build more transmission lines. Without these data centers having to use the public grid those investments wouldn’t be happening. Now there’s arguments to be had there about whether we should be encouraging data centers like this at all with the environmental cost of them using this much energy but if managed correctly it could lead to more investment in the power grid to make it better. Whereas if we allow companies to make their own power grid essentially then our current grid will be allowed to continue to fail.





  • This is a point I think more people really have to consider. How come the Republicans will use every ounce of power they have to get things done but Democrats will give up at the first sign of a challenge. I think it’s because the Republicans actually have leadership that actually wants to do their insane policies with their donors supporting them. While Democrats have leadership that only takes on leftist points begrudgingly to try and win their votes and donors that don’t want those things to happen. So a rotating villain always pops up ready to block all progress and even if they lose reelection cause of it they still have their nice cushy lobbying job waiting for them on the way out.