As with any ban on anything, I would prefer that it start with the people who want it banned. So any advocates against social media and get off social media. Every politician and government employee in Norway should be off it.
In general, if someone comes along and says that someone else's rights should be shrunk, I think they should give up those same rights first.
You can just look at the US congress for how this isn't done as they frequently carve out exceptions for themselves and staffers.
By that logic, no politician and government employee would be able to drive a car or have a job, since we also “ban” those for minors.
We’re not talking about a lifetime ban on social media, the argument is certain kinds of things are gated from people under a certain age because we know those are harmful and can negatively impact your entire life going forward when not done conscientiously, and most people below a certain age do not yet possess the capacity to make an informed decision about their use.
The politicians could all divest from these companies for a start.
Anyone they are responsible for could be forced off social media, etc...
This is just another case of some people deciding other people are too dumb to handle themselves or their kids. Further, I believe formally blaming the media companies lets everyone off the hook for their own actions.
In the general sense, Congress shouldn't be exempting itself from federal smoking bans, providing healthcare coverage, insider trading, lying before Congress, etc...
It was weighted and solid, like from an old stereo. You let it spin and stop it to move a longer distance quickly instead of doing multiple turns.
My family had multiple (various) machines in an arcade and we kept this at home for some time. I often think of this specific example piece of hardware versus everything plastic today.
This has to be the most poorly documented event of this scale.
This link, for example, "first glimpse of far side...[video]", is a video of the crew inside the craft. yawn It seems like every article I've read is like this. Like they're trying to encourage conspiracy theories.
We're talking about the unseen, far side of the moon, and they can't scrape together at least a still image of it?
The launch was in lower resolution than many shuttle launches I've watched.
Looking at the NASA.gov site, it is pale comparison of what it used to be. They seem to have opted for a few well polished articles and images, and they've jettisoned any semblance of passing along the data itself.
No video of earth either, just a very promoted new image (taken on old cameras). And then the conversation is about the amazing emotions they feel. And all four of them are just chatting, no need for anyone to be monitoring anything.
This is, in general, a good idea. Nostalgia etc. and some kind of misguided paternalism causes us to “fund” sports when really all of this stuff should have to just pay for what it is. The market economy is a good way to allocate things so that you don’t end up with a $40k/yr income person paying taxes so that rich people get tennis courts in Russian Hill. We should probably just have market functions for most things.
The government doesn’t have to leave the sphere. It just has to manage the market. For instance, a specific amount of space in a park could be allocated to dynamically priced programming. This could be auctioned on an annual basis with teardown costs pre-allocated. Then you don’t have the argument over whether tennis or pickleball. It could be cricket or sepak takraw for all we know.
Proponents of various sports could group together to share the space. This is obviously far superior to the communist style committee allocation.
And obviously the government should not fund sports. Creating the environment where sports funding can occur by ensuring a framework for contracts and so on, yes. But actually deciding that baseball or football or basketball need to be played is patently ridiculous.
Nah that's just the effect of turning on the simulation. The initial version isn't the same as the first steps because there's no weight. If you look closely after you click the blocks overlap slightly.
Something similar happens all the time in games when you go from a static version of something to the higher level of detail version with physics enabled, if the transition isn't handled gracefully or early enough you can get snapping.
It was a wonderful collection of rage inducing weapons: pipe bombs, laser trip mines, shrink ray (then step on them for the kill), freeze gun (any hit shatters for the kill), and the BFG.
We had LAN parties and would play for hours on end with custom maps we had built or downloaded.
Same! We used to host "Jetpack Freeze Ray" duels which ended when somebody was frozen causing them to plummet out of the sky and shatter when they hit the ground~~
It certainly wouldn't be equivalence, but it would be another 4 years of expanding presidential powers only for a republican to come to power after that, or after 8 years. It really doesn't matter. The system keeps changing to put us more a risk of a bad president being effectively bad.
Two of the most authoritarian decisions by the supreme court have been progressive in nature: Kelo v. City of New London - where the government can redistribute wealth if it benefits the government, and the whole fiasco around the ACA, which defaults every American to being a criminal until they bought health insurance, using the commerce act as justification for the power grab.
About the ACA, whether I agree with national healthcare is irrelevant, this was not the way to do it -- by expanding the government's reach. There has to be consideration for what the administration does.
You essentially seem to be making an argument for the status quo because you're terrified that anyone who promises to improve things will become authoritarian.
No, it's not. When people try to "drain the swamp", several things push them to become authoritarians, even if they weren't before.
1. The definition of "the swamp" drifts from "open, blatant corruption" towards "everyone who opposes me". That's a much larger set, so you need bigger guns.
2. Some people agree that "the swamp needs drained", but disagree on what "the swamp" is, and/or disagree on how to drain it.
3. People don't agree with everything you're doing. (Maybe this is the same as #1 and/or #2.) Some people oppose you because they're corrupt, some people oppose you because they dislike change, and some people oppose you because they dislike your methods. The more force you use, the more people oppose your methods. But as opposition grows, you need more force to get anywhere.
The result is that anybody who sets out to do something like "drain the swamp", if they stick with it as an objective, gets pushed toward more and more authoritarianism to try to make it happen.
Look, Bernie isn't Trump. He's been consistently pushing in the same direction for decades. He actually cares about his issues; he's not just using them as a cover for seeking power. But I think that, if he got actual power (president, not just senator), the dynamics of the situation would also push him to become more and more authoritarian.
(Would he become equivalent to Trump? Hopefully not.)
> Look, Bernie isn't Trump. He's been consistently pushing in the same direction for decades. He actually cares about his issues; he's not just using them as a cover for seeking power.
Exactly.
> But I think that, if he got actual power (president, not just senator), the dynamics of the situation would also push him to become more and more authoritarian.
This is just sheer unsupported speculation. It's silly.
In general, if someone comes along and says that someone else's rights should be shrunk, I think they should give up those same rights first.
You can just look at the US congress for how this isn't done as they frequently carve out exceptions for themselves and staffers.
reply