This is most likely.
The Fourth Amendment requires them to get a warrant for 100% but the Judiciary is hopelessly corrupt.
Are you incorrectly assuming that I claim to be a very attentive person?
Doesn't matter, because if you had children you'd know that no one is capable of being sufficiently attentive.
A more accurate version of the headline.
As a Googler... I think this comment hits the mark, far more than any of the others.
It is possible if both parents don't have to go to work.
It is not, not even then. You'd need at least three parents: One to go to work, one to stay with the kid, one to cover for the second when they have to do something other than watching the kid (clean the house, do the laundry, use the bathroom, etc.). Oh, sure, you can try to put the kid in a safe environment while you do stuff, but many young children are shockingly good at finding ways to get into stuff they're not supposed to get into, and do it far faster than you would expect.
A team of nannies can do it.
People used to literally be with their children all day for the first few years of their lives. They didn't want them to wander off into the woods and get eaten by a wildcat or whatever.
People used to live in the middle of a village of other people who watched out for their neighbors' kids when their parents had to take their eyes off of them. And kids used to die. A lot. Far more than we'd consider acceptable today.
"are by people who don't have kids"
Absolutely this. Until someone has had kids or at least looked after some for a long period of time they really have no idea.
And not just one. KIds vary widely and it's not uncommon for parents who've only dealt with a single child to assume that all kids are like that one. Usually adding a second kid is enough to open their eyes when they realize that none of what worked on the first kid works with the second and vice versa. Occasionally parents get two that are very similar and don't learn this until they have a third, or until grandkids come along, or other close exposure.
Kids can definitely be taught to not stick non-food-items in their mouths. If kids are being monitored when they are small and taught what is and is not safe, they carry that forward and you don't have to keep as tight a reign on them.
Source: I'm a dad.
How many children have you raised? I'll bet, one. One who happened to be easy to dissuade from putting stuff in their mouth, so you have extrapolated from that sample of one to all kids everywhere.
The fact is that kids aren't all the same. Some are easy to train, some aren't.
Source: I'm a father (4X) and a grandfather. Based on my sample, I should perhaps assert that all babies and toddlers stick everything in their mouths and there's nothing you can do to teach them otherwise until they're at least two, and usually three. But I know that kids are all very different, and so I can imagine that there may be some child who can be taught not to put stuff in their mouth younger than that.
>No matter how good/attentive parents are
No, this is something that is 100% preventable by being attentive.
I see you don't have children.
Yet at the same time, AM radio antennas disappear and hardly anyone even notices that the transmitter is no longer in the air. That 82 million number is just pulled out of thin air.
Who is "they"? My last three cars had satellite radio capability but aside from a few e-mail/snail mail nags, nobody ever tried to push it on me, wasn't even mentioned by the salesperson that sought every other opportunity (extended warranty, dealership financing, blah, blah, blah) to make himself some extra bank.
Then your experience is not the same as others. Every car purchase I have experienced at a dealership, they tried to push satellite. That includes myself, family, and friends.
The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth. -- Niels Bohr