100% agree but curious on your speculation as to why.

What’s your policy solution or position?

Simple, it’s not really about the kids, it’s about control of the internet.

I bet one lemmy penny that he does a debate. He got out of the republican debates because he was the clear winner, but no federal election debate would show weakness and that would be bad for his brand.

I also think the debates will be an absolute disaster for all parties involved which will benefit trump as his side doesn’t care what he says or does.

True, but he also can’t run in Florida again so I could see it.

Why is that worse?

I think they knew and it didn’t matter to them which is oddly prophetic when I look at the state of the world today lol

People panned the game but this was the whole point of the NG Resonance character in Deus Ex Invisible War. People would basically tell this AI pop star intimate details about their lives and then the data was used against them and their local communities.

Corpse Conglomeration is a badass band name though

Many groups have wanted an “online passport” for a long time now and it’s hard for me to not see this as another attempt veiled by “won’t someone think of the children”.

Once this starts it’ll be required for everything.

I was referring to the perception from the results of the trial by the public, but you’ve given me quite a bit to mull over. Appreciate the context.

Yeah you’re right and I think we’re looking for civily liable instead of conviction in this scenario - not that it should make a difference.

No, you made a series of claims above without evidence. Let’s start with your claim that instant gratification has spilled into the workplace and is a cause for the problems as you see them.

Yeah but are you going to back your statements above up with data or are these just your feelings?

Btw https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kowtow

Disagree - there is a degree into which the needs of a managers direct report should be taken into account. Ignoring these needs in full comes with the risk of turnover and productivity loss. It’s a balancing act between business and employee needs. Again you’re taking it the the extreme by saying an employer should kowtow to the employee when the reality is that it should be a good balance in an ideal scenario and not entirely in either direction. A balance leads to the best outcomes for both parties.

As a native English speaker I fully agree that your intuition makes sense and I’ve also always hated this phrase because it does sound backwards.

Nope, this article focuses on just one side however it is and should be a two way mutually beneficial deal, like any successful relationship. Good managers understand their employees and work within business needs to make their people happy.

Haven’t heard this take yet. Any sources I could take a look at?

This is a good take but it disregards the realities of the financial recipients being unable to account for funds spent. I agree there are special circumstances but we need to have visibility to those realities as benefactors. Otherwise how can we allocate funds democratically.