This is the solution.

All names have problems but this one has the least.

God this is daft.

Sure. He did get tripped up though, and he end Ed up looking like an idiot. That said, it was for the best. Harris is an infinitely better candidate.

Imagine being so fragile you have to fool yourself that you’re right about everything and all arguments to the contrary are bad faith. Pathetic.

The study, conducted by gun violence researchers at Rutgers University, analyzed survey responses from 870 gun-owning parents. Of those, the parents who responded that they demonstrated proper handling to their child or teen, had their kid practice safe handling under supervision, and/or taught their kid how to shoot a firearm were more likely than other gun-owning parents to keep at least one gun unsecured—that is, unlocked and loaded. In fact, each of the three responses carried at least double the odds of the parent having an unlocked, loaded gun around, the study found.

This doesn’t sound that surprising when you consider that it’s survey based research.

It sounds like the dunning kruger effect, as in ask gun owners whether they demonstrate safe handling to their kid and everyone will just say yes. What did that demonstration involve though, and did anyone actually learn anything.

I think the survey results are good evidence that whatever these parents consider a demonstration is inadequate.

You can make fun if me all you like. This far you’re not doing very well.

You don’t need to survey every law in human history, you just need to support your assertion, which you seem completely unable to do.

We all say silly things from time to time. Obviously you’ve just parroted something you heard somewhere else and didn’t really think it through. Most people can just own their mistakes. Only idiots double down, and cowards start ranting about sand.

I think the vast majority of his haters are from bitter.

Edit: fuck knows what I was trying to say here.

What a silly thing to say.

You’ve made an assertion, I’ve provided examples to the contrary, and the best you’ve got is a grain of sand metaphor?

Obviously, it depends how many laws purported to protect children actually do. The examples I’ve provided form the bedrock of the modern family structure. They’re not insignificant grains of sand.

Tarries will make everything shit for everyone.

They’re not gonna help pay for anything.

One is online.

Just remember the c in disc is shaped like a magnet.

Sure mate.

You’re suggesting that showing videos in a town square is the same as posting in Twitter? They’re not the same, obviously.

It’s complex and I don’t have the answers. My comment is merely hilighting the conflict between these 2 ideals… governments shouldn’t whether or not specific content is ok, but companies shouldn’t provide content which is clearly unacceptable.

If xitter didn’t provide that content the government wouldn’t have to intervene.

If the government does intervene it reduces the barrier for them to intervene in future.

What about child support paid by parents who are separated?

What about welfare laws ensuring a minimum standard of care for children?

What about social security for families?

What about minimum age of consent?

This is correct in most cases but I don’t think it’s the underlying principle.

This wiki talks about the etymology, with a lot of examples. Most conform to this rule, but there are exceptions in astrophysics like an accretion disk.

Even in info tech, “hard disk” doesn’t really conform to this rule. Like is a hard disk a square hard drive or is it the round thing inside? If it’s the square hard drive, that’s not thin enough to be a “disk”. I’d it’s the round thing inside that would be hard disc, but also creates problems for floppy disk because why refer to the housing in one instance but not another.

Sadly, I think the correct answer is that either refers to a thin flat thing, some spellings are preferred for some uses.

This is just plain wrong.

Obviously, there are loads of laws and very good legislation that does indeed protect children.

Just one example: child labour laws.

I suspect that what you really mean is that whenever a politician says whatever police powers are required to protect children, they really just want more power to violate privacy to make it easier to prosecute various crimes.

I’m quite conflicted about this.

I hate musk. Hate twitter. Hate that people were sharing videos of a terrorist attack.

That said, I suspect that this was something of a test case, with the regulator flexing their censorship muscle, and I’m glad it didn’t work out.

It’s also disappointing that her kids were doxxed, I don’t condone that at all… but “just doing my job” is not a reasonable defence when you have a shitty job strategising how to corrode privacy.

Australia checking in … I feel similarly about the attitude of doctors and the type of care I receive. I don’t have any amazing advice that you’re not already following, but I’ll regale you with my thoughts regardless…

About 18 months ago I developed a chronic health condition that I will need to manage for the rest of my life (hopefully several decades). In that time I’ve seen a myriad of medical professionals.

My first tip would simply be that if you’re not satisfied with a doctor or specialist, your only recourse it to arrange to see another instead. Sometimes the advice / treatment prescribed will vary significantly, sometimes they just have a less punchable face.

As regards GPs, I’ve come to categorise them thusly: those that just prescribe meds without any conversation, those that try to manipulate you into wanting the meds they want to prescribe, and those that will have a conversation with you about what meds you ought to take. Obviously this last category is the one you want.

Finally, I’ve gotten a lot of mileage out of simply staying on top of all the data about me. I have all my test results available on my phone, as well as medications, dates of treatments, contact details for specialists, et cetera. Also just understanding the available treatments.

I’m morbidly interested to see what happens.

Everyone knows that firstly it’s grossly overvalued, secondly trump wants to sell, and thirdly whether or not Trump wins in November the shares will be worthless.

Things that are in the sky:

✅️ satellites

❌️ users

❌️ employees

❌️ company

❌️ offices

❌️ lawyers

❌️ money