So what happens when a store is out of raw meat, or raw vegetables, or raw fruit? What if someone is a vegetarian, or has allergies or other dietary requirements that prohibit certain items? Who's monitoring and enforcing this (and how much is that monitoring and enforcing costing?)
Rather than spending the time and effort policing what food people buy, why don't we instead spend that time and money addressing the poverty problem that makes SNAP necessary in the first place?
Yeah, if the goal was actually to make people eat healthier, he'd be trying to limit the availability of those items to everyone, not just poor people.
This is the kind of interaction that would haunt me years later when I'm trying to sleep.
Hectoring is to act domineering, or to try to intimidate.
In a hypothetical world where every service that wanted to be kid-friendly was willing to make two versions of their site, and where the obvious security concerns were solved, and where it could somehow be quarantined away from normal users, how would a kid even prove they were a kid?
The issue (in my eyes) is that this isn't limited to discord. Anywhere online where kids are allowed to be, predators can also be. Fuck, even Roblox apparently has a big predator problem. So if we make it the responsibility of platforms to police, we're setting ourselves up for a world where you have to have your ID ready to scan in to any website you visit or service you use that lets you interact with other people in any way, no matter how mundane, and there will be no internet services where anyone under 18 is allowed.
Or, we just accept that there's no reasonable way to keep adults and kids from intermingling, and we make it parents' sole responsibility.
They already have that policy, as the article notes. The problem is, how do you enforce it? As the comment you replied to notes, without requiring an ID verification, anyone can say they're any age.
At what point does it become the parents' responsibility to monitor what their kids are doing online?
Changing what policy, and to what?
That's a good point; it becomes less economical if you need multiple of these cells just to counteract the self-discharge. Even so, it's really just a demo of the technology; they do mention they expect to have a 1 watt model later this year.
Almost nothing... Maybe some very basic scientific equipment, but they do note that they'd be able to use multiple batteries layered to produce higher output, and that they're expecting to have a 1 watt version later this year; that'd be far more useful in practice.
This is wild; the battery would outlive the electronics it's powering in almost all cases.
The output is incredibly tiny, but I wonder if it could be used to trickle-charge a higher-output battery for use in electronics that only need to be used infrequently for short durations.
That's just asking to have online shopping become much harder, requiring more identity verification than just having a credit card and an address. Which is maybe beneficial overall; it would cut down on fraud, but I doubt it would be a popular change.