My reaction was the opposite. Of course well-being is important, but it's a state isn't it? How do you learn it, or teach it? It sounds perilously close to the whole "self-esteem" thing that became prominent in elementary schools a few years back. As if self-esteem was not something developed through accomplishment and the subsequent increase in self-confidence, but rather a piece of information to be conveyed by an instructor. "Shazam! You now esteem yourself."
You can absolutely teach it. At the age of 25 I think I'm only now beginning to understand the specific actions and skills that go into making your life a good one.
Skills like: coming up with ideas for ways to be kind to people, being truthful with myself and others, communicating my feelings and problems early and calmly (instead of too late and tearfully), eating well, keeping my environment clean, exercising enough, and managing my time by making sure I don't overcommit myself.
I definitely didn't do most of these things when I was in school - looking back, I can see the useless, arrogant teenager I was, and want to slap myself. But honestly, no one bothered to teach me these skills, except (kind of, in a confusingly packaged, disorganized way) in Sunday school.
I got the fundamental concepts of how to conduct myself properly by reading books, mostly fiction, and learned to apply them largely by observing adults for what NOT to do - it was also a long time before I learned to find good role models.
Well-being is a complicated topic, which only drives home why we need to teach it to children. Not only in respect to self-worth and work ethic, but in terms of empathy, morality, and the ability to rationalize the world around them. If we can help children think about why they feel the way they do, it can clear up confusion about the emotions of everyday life and prevent anxiety. If we do not, they'll simply have a more and more complicated world to deal with as they grow up, without the tools to help them simplify it.
Lots of people with impressive accomplishments don't have self-esteem. Impostor Syndrome, Dunning-Kruger etc. If you don't have self-esteem, you'll let yourself get pushed around because you think you're not really worth anything. But with it, you'll start to see your own potential, which is a good motivator to start working toward it.
It's a state, but you can learn quite a bit on how to get and maintain that state. Things like "ecstacy/sex/[whatever] works short term, but maybe you should see a therapist instead" isn't something that goes without saying. Lots of people take the wrong choice every day.
Please don't say "#n is adjective..." without specifying what #n actually is. This is a clickbait trend that has ripped through social media spam lately and it's vastly annoying imo. If you're going to talk about the article, talk about it like a normal person, not a spammer trying to trick people into following the links.
It's a common Kickstarter practice to set intentionally low goals. It makes the project seem more achievable to those pledging before the goal is met, it makes the project seem more successful mid-campaign as it exceeds the goal within a short time, and you can later brag to the press and potential customers about exceeding the target goal by hundreds of percents or more.
Look at all the successful projects of late, most of them adopted a certain Kickstarter formula in terms of goal, videos, page design, marketing language and so on. There's nothing casual about Kickstarter anymore, at least not in the big money campaign.
It is probably very similar to how Ubisoft made Just Dance using the Wii controller. The Wii controller was really horrible in terms of what you could read from it, but if you stored what measurements you got from people dancing properly you could score people against that. Basically there was enough degrees of freedom to identify decent dancing to a degree and if you hid what was actually going on people bought it. Although it Wii-based Just Dance is horrible compared to the XBox version that used the Kinetic.
Let's say you are accused of robbing a convenience store. The police take the security footage, review it, and then erase it. According to everyone that saw the tape, you did it, and perhaps they even retain a few seconds of footage that shows something like a coat that you own.
Would you think it fair that one party gets to use evidence to convict you, that you yourself are not allowed to see, or use for your own defense?
Your analogy still does not resolve why only one party in the trial gets to see the evidence in its entirety before it is destroyed.
Why would the defense (i.e. the owner of the data) not have the same opportunity as the prosecution to review their own material?
The only counter-argument that I can see is that Mega should continue paying their hosting bills for as long as the government wants to drag the trial on for. Which very well was a possible intent from the start. In which case, the entire thing seems like a government strong-arm, of which I am not in favor.
Leaseweb isn't closed. They just had to store some servers. They could just turn them off, put them in storage, then sue law enforcement or the DOJ equivalent for the opportunity cost and storage costs. That's not an accurate analogy at all.
Yes, Henry Ford did it in the 1950's to recoup the losses after the Allies bombed his tank making factories in Nazi Germany and Axis controlled territory.
There are certain laws in place to keep people from willy-nilly suing the government, but there are situations where it is possible to sue them and sometimes even win. (not sure about this case in particular, anyone want to weigh in?)
Do you have any source for this trial? I can't seem to find any trace of it when googling. Also Henry Ford died in 1947 and had cerebral issues before that, so if the trial did happen in the 50s it was either brought by his successors or Ford Motor Company.
A better (but still not perfect) analogy would have been that the police cordoned off a section of the store and no one was allowed to take anything from or put anything on the shelves. The store is still open and people can shop but can't buy any of the items in the 'special' area.
Without a court order to keep the servers accessible and running they had every right to delete them (since they own the machines). One would think the prosecution would have had that order in place just so the defendant couldn't say there was no way to prove his innocence
More analogy, what if it was one of those storage space services and one customer rented half the storage units to store other people's stuff, then got arrested and no longer paid for the storage units. And the storage units were gold-plated and cooled and cost a fixed amount a minute they're used.