jj4211

But to the extent you do buy, it is nice to know.

For example, even for an open hardware design, you need to buy parts.

But some things are either possible, but already nicely packaged by someone else (my opengarage I could have built, but it was well worth it to buy). A video doorbell I don't see good open designs for, so the "part" is the doorbell itself. A bed cooler has open designs, but they call on you to basically buy a donor commercial product to use for parts.

Ok, time for me to market my new eSpoon. It requires Internet and a subscription fee. It lets your health insurance company know your food intake and lets Google know your favorite foods.

Another comment connected dots for me, and consistent with: 'No more walking on eggshells': Hegseth vows to lift guardrails on military hazing, harassment

This is the pro-hazing administration, and maybe animal raping is part of some of their 'good old boy' hazing?

Obviously not sure, but it's at least a theory that has some rationale that otherwise seems impossibly pointless to change.

I was sitting here wondering why there would be such a wide spread issue such that they would move to change the rules instead of just covering up some isolated incident.

I didn't think of hazing as a possibility, but that totally tracks and just reiterates how totally screwed up their candidate pool is...

With Linux? Kernel signed with your own key to get out of lockdown mode restrictions?

Not everyone's school time was shitty.

Especially those of us who had school before "A Nation at Risk" incited changes in education.

Reagan's department of education concluded that falling scores meant kids were slacking and needed to be pushed harder on standardized testing. The result was culling of recess, gym, arts, and things like home economics/shop class. To make more room to hammer in "important" stuff. So the experience became razor focused on some of the most soul crushing material without much reprieve. Note that there's a thought that making people take the tests they didn't used to take caused scores to go down, rather than some soft laziness of the system, so we might have 'fixed' the wrong things.

Then COVID happened and schools dramatically cut back on social events and interactions. Even as the critical threat of COVID subsided, I think administration found it easier to manage the students this way, so students did not access to lockers back (because that would encourage congregation in hallways) and on top of everything else, they have to lug all their school stuff around. Somewhat a mixed bag as most of the 'textbook's are digital now, but still have a few big ones.

For me, school had carved out time to socialize pretty freely, to be vaguely active in a gym class, to just do some woodworking stuff, to do some cooking and sewing. Recess until like 13 years old. Current kids stop getting recess about 10 or so and unless they join a sports team likely never see physical activity from school again, and while there are still electives, much more rare. I don't think I even saw an option for a 'home ec' class in my kid's elective options, everything seemed to be more 'substantial' than those sorts of classes I had growing up.

Man I hope so.

I'm skeptical, but I hope so.

Also sharing the concern that people are able to vibe code some crap and too many words in their writing as a cause rather than more positive changes.

I have no idea, but if I had to guess based on a couple of court cases that came up on youtube, the stalker has some carve out where they can go to work, but they have to take very inconvient ways to get there to minimize proximity to the victim.

Taking a few hours twice in an election cycle to cast a vote is not some intolerable wast of organizing energy.

It's at least worth a try to influence the elections and candidates.

"It's not possible to reform so don't even try" is a stupidly bad take. It seems accelerationist, that you hope for a civilization wide disaster that would leave hundreds of millions desperate in hopes that it will at least open up the path to some non-democratic result which you somehow hope will be your desired result as opposed to a myriad of competing interests that is likely to institute any number of even worse results.

Obviously not everyone who has a reasonable amount of sugar gets fat or diabetes.

However, NO ONE has actually claimed that straw man. This culture of 'only drink things that have at least a hundred calories of refined sugar added' is a huge problem for weight gain and diabetes.

In your analogy, yo usay removing the pancreas causes type 1 diabetes. This is absolutely a cause. Yet on the other hand you seem to be arguing that since there are other causes besides high sugar diets that can also cause type 2 diabetes, you shouldn't say high sugar diets cause diabetes.

High sugar diets are a huge risk. Some people manage to get away with such a diet without diabetes (but likely get other issues with weight gain), and some people have the misfortune to get it anyway, but the fact remains a high sugar diet can result in diabetes, though arguments can be had about how direct/indirect the relationship is.

Just because something is a cause of diabetes doesn't mean it's the only one.

It's a fine line to walk, reassuring those that didn't cause their issue (and particularly 'easier' for type 1 diabetes, where lifestyle choices don't factor in), but then you may also encourage people that can avoid type 2 diabetes to think "I'm golden, sugar doesn't cause type 2 diabetes, let me drink a sugar drink 4 or 5 times a day".