The article is confused. The opinion is, it's so much safer _now_ than it was in the 1970s, it makes no sense to restrict children's wanderings.
But the article doesn't consider whether restricting children's wanderings is the REASON it is so much safer for children now.
"We have so many fire-safety rules in the building codes in Seattle. But get this: we haven't had any major fires since 1889! It's obvious we don't need these rules!"
It's true there is a cost to restricting children. But let's be a bit more realistic about the tradeoffs.
This article may not address this, but many articles of this type by Lenore Skazeny and others do address it. IIRC the findings:
- stranger danger was worse in the 70s than it is now.
- safety in numbers was better in the 70s -- if all kids are outside it's more likely to be somebody else's kid that is snatched. If your kid is the only one, ...
- car danger was worse in the 70s. Cars are bigger/faster now, but there were more drunk drivers then. This varies widely by jurisdiction.
It's hard to balance the factors -- it's not clear whether or not it was safer to let your kids outside today than it was in the 70's.
> But the article doesn't consider whether restricting children's wanderings is the REASON it is so much safer for children now.
The article considers exactly that.
> Similarly, in an international study that looked at 7 to 15 year old children across 16 different countries they found that most english-speaking countries were in the lowest autonomy tier (12th- Ireland, 13th- Australia, 16th- South Africa). Americans weren’t surveyed, but countries like Finland, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Japan, and Denmark scored the highest on autonomy.
These countries are considered because they would generally be considered roughly as safe as one another (generally safer than America). These countries are the counterexample to your hypothesis: you can simultaneously have safe and independent children.
Yes, I often wonder this too: It's said all the time that communities are much safer than they were, so why restrict kids? But that raises the clear possibility that those preventative measures might be why it's safer now.
Whether we've hit the right balance of freedom VS safety is still very much worth discussing. But it certainly feels possible that the preventative measures we take have led to safer outcomes.
Tangential to risks raised in the article I guess, but I cannot understand something that's happening in the US: it's crazy how many demented people there are. That there is a market that captures children in order to traffick them for sex; that there are hundreds of people doing this regularly being wrapped up by LE raids, and dozens of children freed; that these raids happen on the frequency of weeks, or months; that the numbers on this in the United States are in the order of 100,000s per year (at least of missing/unaccounted I think). How can it be like this?
I just can't conceive it - how is this even a thing? What is the psychology of these adults doing this? How is the morality of this lacking? And how can there be so many people involved? Where is all this insanity coming from? How did it develop? How did it slip through the idea of safety in the neighborhood we used to have?
I don't understand how this is real, the scale is inconceivable (how can so many people be so totally demented) it's the craziest thing I cannot comprehend.
100,000/yr is insane, where are you getting that stat? Best I could find is ~250 abducted per year in the US, not specifically for trafficking. There are 200-300,000 reported missing per year but >90% are runaways and return.
OK I did some searching and found I'm no expert and I didn't understand the numbers: I think I put the 100K+ "unaccompanied children" at border each year together with the FBI raid cadence and thought it was all trafficking. Quick searching indicates: there's maybe 85K "lost contact" children after placement from border, which also doesn't mean what I thought; and FBI/LE recovered maybe 1000s of trafficked children in last decade. Still unimaginably large but not the numbers I thought I'd heard.
There will be many sick people in a nation of hundreds of millions.
Stigmatizing mental help drives a lot of problems underground. So does our awkward immigration system that keeps all kinds of migrants in precarious positions, even legal agricultural laborers.
Our president has the strongest personal ties to the most prolific sex trafficker in recent decades, second only to Gladwell. Yet he has suffered no legal consequences for his association, nor even serious investigation. Epstein himself seemed afraid to name him under oath, and yet privately called him "the dog that hasn't barked". This leader of the nation bragged to journalists of sexually assauting people, and over 20 victims say it's true. And roughly half of the voting public still checks the box with his name on it.
At one point everyone would have believed Johnny Depp was a creeper too, but it turns out that some people just lie, they make stuff up, that's how they seek power, money, revenge. You can see this in the corporate world, you can see it in friend groups, and you can see it here, too. And when powerful interests are at stake, there can be coordinated lying: solicited, organized, deliberately propagated fabrications.
I don't see any power to those claims about Trump - and 'association', guilt by association? It's like people want the guy to be bad and are seeing stuff that's weak in support of that. And how he talked? You mean "grab them by the pussy" - have you heard how ladies talk? Grabbed him by the dick can just mean you have a the guy wrapped around your little finger, as in "I use sex to control my husband" - another common admission.
It's just those who despise the guy/the policy, make their interpretation match what they want to see there, but if they were more neutral, they'd see it in a mroe balanced way.
Most adult men I've known would never joke about grabbing strange women by their genitals, certainly not while being recorded. Nor would they go on public radio and declare they'd date girls as young as 13 whilst being a man in their 40s. Nor have they been found liable for sexual assault. Nor walked in on teen girls in dressing rooms. Nor have they faced women publicly accusing them of acosting or pouring drinks down their dresses.
If accusations against Trump are lies then he can sue them for defamation and win in court. Sadly most of the people victimized by him cannot seek remedy in court because of the passage of time. And in the era they were assaulted it was dangerous to accuse rich, powerful, and litigious men with mafia connections.
iMessage is more conversational because it's what most people are used to using and seeing. People generally associate green bubble messages with spam/transactional messaging and blue bubble with trust. Additionally, iMessage also has additional features such as typing indicators and reactions (likes and loves) that makes the interface feel more conversational. WhatsApp could also be very conversational, but most people in the US use iMessage.
As someone who has no legal duty to advocate in your best interest, I think you should keep posting about your intent to damage the platform-holder whose terms of service you are contravening.
RCS has most of the features of iMessage, including tapbacks and large attachments. It's even cross platform. iMessage is the channel where Apple users communicate with their friends and family. Exploiting the trust users have in iMessage by injecting unsupported business messages into it degrades the value of the channel by destroying the very trust you are relying on. This model is about as sustainable as burning coal to generate electricity.
Reading your responses it seems like your angle is to fake looking like a human by using the blue bubble. Are you worried your users will ruin the trust of the blue bubble thus killing your product with your product?
It's too simplistic to imagine the tension is between robot patrol dogs vs automating drudgery. If automating drudgery suddenly puts 30% of people out of work, it has huge broad negative impact on people who are currently alive and working in the current system. Innovate, but do it with awareness.
If a technology existed that reduced the cost of producing a critical thing (think food, housing, medical care) down to near zero, however, it made the humans currently building the thing redundant, should we build it? Would it be okay to use the hyper-optimization power of Capitalism to build such a technology faster?
Your first counterpoint seems unnecessarily picky.
> So while it is a suitable DSL for many things (it is also seeing new life in web components definition), we are mostly only talking about XML-lookalike language, and not XML proper. If you go XML proper, you need to throw "cheap" out the window.
But the TWE did not embrace all that stuff. It’s not required for its purpose. And to call it “xml lookalike” on that basis seems odd. It’s objectively XML. It doesn’t use every xml feature, but it’s still XML.
It’s as if you’re saying, a school bus isn’t a bus, it’s just a bus-lookalike. Buses can have cup holders and school buses lack cup holders. Therefore a school bus is not really a bus.
But the article doesn't consider whether restricting children's wanderings is the REASON it is so much safer for children now.
"We have so many fire-safety rules in the building codes in Seattle. But get this: we haven't had any major fires since 1889! It's obvious we don't need these rules!"
It's true there is a cost to restricting children. But let's be a bit more realistic about the tradeoffs.
reply