FriendOfDeSoto

I think both Apple and fictitious closed Android would be way more interchangeable and data from within would be more portable. Developers would get more of a cut. The saving grace for Google in the real world is that they can do Apple shenanigans while pointing at the open-source availability of Android and not get dumped in hotter antitrust water. If we only had two OSs and both were closed especially regulators in Europe would hit both of them much harder. And like tougher environmental restrictions on cars became the de facto US standard for everyone, the forced equal playing field (the EU guys LOVE an equal playing field) would over time make shit better for all users everywhere.

If there was no Android I think we would have a long list of failed attempts to build one that all fail because every company wanted to build their own walled gardens, and didn't get enough traction. iOS probably would have succeeded thanks to Apple marketing budgets and their somewhat cultish follower base. But I suspect it would have followed more the initial Steve Jobs idea of doing most stuff in browser; the app revolution wouldn't have happened. So there would be a big iOS share and then the lower 30% or so would be fractured into other walled gardens for poor people. One result of that would be an earlier agreement on a RCS-like texting solution and not just in the States but everywhere. Because more players would have a stake in seamless communication because stuff like WhatsApp (a reaction to high texting rates, mostly in Europe) and blue/green bubblr iMessage did not happen.

We know nothing about your kid. We don't know if he's an angel or a little shit.

Without knowing more I think the bedtime rules are alright. Structure is good. If he doesn't throw bucketloads of ice water on him still snoozing 6:01I don't see a huge problem.

As for smartphone and screen time, every kid is different. These restrictions strike me more as he's been a little shit punitive. If he's never known different and doesn't mercilessly gets teased for it in school, it might be okay. Our opinion doesn't really matter as much as yours and you asked the question. So I'm sensing you may be dissatisfied with both these rules and perhaps their unilateral implementation. I would just advise you not to talk to hubby like hey I asked a bunch of strangers on the internet about your rules and here's what they thought.

The music industry has a problem. Only the cream of the crop earn any significant money from streaming. Not enough people buy to own music. Lily Allen famously said she earns more money from here foot pictures on OnlyFans than her music on streaming. The only thing artists can earn a bit of money from is concerts. Be it tours or rich people gigs (incl. corporate ones). There are plenty of big budgets available in the top 5%.

And it's not a new phenomenon. Artists have gotten into how water for performing for Gaddafi's son, the Chechen strongman, or at the Indian richest guy daughter's wedding. These stories bubble up and down because there's controversy. A kpop band performing for the daughter of a run of the mill millionaire is causing yawns in the newsrooms. Now, if he was an arms dealer we'd be in business.

If you have a garage, at home. You might want you drop more details to get better answers. E.g. location.

I'm criticizing the use of the phrase "new global language." And I've laid out my reasons why I think that's wrong. I didn't think I was grilling OP, just the perception of Mandarin being the new global language. So I'm a little taken aback that you read it that way; that wasn't my intention.

... how pervasive the new Global Language already is ...

I'm going to challenge you on this point. First of all, what's Chinese? I'm guessing you refer to Putonghua aka Mandarin, the erstwhile variant of Beijingnese prescribed for official use within the PRC by their political leadership.

And second, how "global" is it? It's useful primarily in one contiguous area of the world. Even there a large chunk of people kind of learn it as a first semi-foreign language because they speak something different at home. Cantonese, Shanghainese, or a language that cannot be written in Chinese characters.

Which brings me to my third point: a language that requires study of a script this idiosyncratic will not rise to a global language. Vietnam has gotten rid of hanzi, Korean pretty much as well. Ironically, the north has already completely abandoned it. By comparison, the Latin alphabet was spread by cavalry and cannon boat into all parts of the world for centuries. It spread so far that it is now used to teach pinyin to PRC schoolchildren. And while it is not without its own problems, the simplicity and adaptability of this phonetic alphabet to any language makes it far more useful than Chinese characters. And I'm not shitting on the cultural value of them: that's unimpeachable. It's just too complicated.

The alphabet spread with English, Spanish, French, and Portuguese all over the world. I'm not saying that's a good thing but it's already happened. Mandarin cannot have a similar success today unless the PRC starts colonizing at gunpoint fast.

Most Chinese as a foreign language speakers outside the PRC learned it for economic reasons. Economic ties have become somewhat dicey. If anything I suspect interest in learning Mandarin to wane.

There is also the tonal aspect. Any atonal-native language learner is going to have a much harder time than trying to remember the non-sensical English orthography.

More people on this planet learn English as their first and possibly only foreign language - if they learn one at all. The forum you asked this question on is in English. The internet cements the use of the alphabet.

I'm in Japan where foreign language education is notoriously sub-par overall. English is the first foreign language. Some private high schools offer Mandarin as an optional, I haven't seen anything substantial in state-run schools. At college level, most people chose between French and German as a second foreign language. Like we're still in the Meiji Era. I'm a big proponent that they abandon this tradition in favor of Russian, Korean, and Mandarin. It always helps to learn the language of your neighbors. Language schools advertize k-pop-trendy Korean more.

You ask a lot of legitimate questions there, causes that you and I could come to an agreement over. I would erase the starting point though. Pride movements and workers movements might both look like similar demonstrations. They are borne out of very different motivations. People might look down on manual laborers but you wouldn't have to fear for your safety in certain parts of your city for being one. LGBTQ+ folks can't say the same. Pride movements bring awareness that we have discriminated or are still discriminating against whole swaths of the population - mostly for silly reasons. That's different from a disagreement about how exploitative capitalism should be permitted to be.

Another negative connotation is that this "why are there LGBTQ+ pride parades but not ...?" is the leading question of people who think straight people need to have a pride parade as well. Like you couldn't live a heteronormative life every day without fear of retribution. And I'm hoping that you don't think along those lines and therefore would not want to be this close to that argumentative train of thought.

Extinction of the human race.

The absolute worst airports to navigate are all in the US. Fort Worth, Atlanta, just to shame two.

Most other airports are easy to navigate, even on your first trip. It's basically walking to a door with a number following huge signs with arrows and numbers. If you need help, you just ask staff working there. The Lufthansa people will be delighted to take a biz class passenger by the hand. Make sure your suitcase gets sent to Korea directly, pick a seat you like (aisle is better if you ask me), and don't forget your passport. You'll be fine!

Dictionary definition to run over:

1 : to go over, examine, repeat, or rehearse quickly 2 : to collide with, knock down, and often drive over

IIRC "attack" used to be originally a charge by the cavalry. And now terrorists and air forces also attack. Meanings shift. The victim needn't see the undercarriage in person to classify as being run over. Language is literally imprecise.

The scenario is a bit misleading. We didn't arrive at everything being wrapped in single-use plastic overnight so we cannot switch the other way that quickly either.

Perishable or hygienic reasons must allow for continued use for some products. But there are plenty of things that don't fall under that umbrella where waxed paper or single-use bamboo could make sense. You have correctly identified cost as an issue. The reason why everything is still wrapped in plastic like a corpse in Twin Peaks is it's cheaper. Plastic packaging is also more resistant to damage on the way to the consumer. So the calculations need to change. We need to raise the cost on plastic and lower it on other more quickly biodegradable items. That's a political decision, one that would be heavily lobbied against by the big boys in packaging. Yet another reason why overnight simply won't work.

The question about resources also hinges on the time frame. If the switch had to occur today, the answer is probably no. There aren't enough paper mills and bamboo nurseries in the world to meet demand. But there weren't a gazillion plastic factories from the start, they grew over time in numbers. One should also not forget that paper mills aren't without environmental impact. And neither would bamboo toothbrushes be. Also if we increase the amount of arable land to grow bamboo, are we decreasing land for food or animal feed? What are the effects of growing bamboo on the land without fellow periods? What fertilizer would be used? What toxic insect killer chemicals would need to be in use to guarantee sustainable levels of production? It's not like one option is the perfect solution to fix the problems with the other option.

A holistic aporoach would also have to include us consumers changing our behavior. That's definitely not happening overnight.

I was listening to a podcast about a Danish murder investigation that included an interview by Danish police of a prisoner suspect in Finland in cooperation with the Finns. They went ahead with the interview without the lawyer present, which seemed normal to the Danes and wrong to their Finnish colleagues. It was one of the reasons why the content of the interview was inadmissible on court. That's the first thing I thought about regarding a lawyer opt-out.

As a fan of the Nordic Noir genre of crime shows, it's a great booster for extras. Whenever a person of interest has become an actual suspect, there will be a lawyer present in the show. In 99% of the cases it's an extra without any lines. So there appears to be a legal requirement to have a lawyer present or the interview cannot or should not proceed.

I think in general it is a hard thing to operate under a system where a lawyer must be present for any interview. There may not be enough lawyers to man every police interview with opt-out rules. They require remuneration as well. This may explain why the rules are so fishy. Case law is caught between not hanstringing police investigations with an opt-out system on the one hand and preventing overreach and abuse by the cops on the other.

Just as a thought experiment: if you required a lawyer being present for any interview at the station, apart from finding a way to pay these poor lawyers you'd also have to come up with a system where enough lawyers are readily available to sit in. Kind of like not all Parisian bakers can go on holiday at the same time. What if there aren't enough lawyers in your hamlet? Do we maybe need to create a hired function to satisfy the legal requirements? An office in the police station where a lawyer or a rotation of usual suspects of lawyers serve? Wouldn't this create a proximity where lawyers and cops become too chummy and possibly collude? The interests of the interviewee are best served by cops and lawyers hating each other's guts but working alongside they've become pals. I think there may be an unintended consequence that the course of justice gets more perverted by the opt-out systen than in the current fishy US system.