There is ample evidence that we screwed up an entire generation of kids with constant exposure to screens and social media. The addictions we're seeing right now are just the tip of the iceberg, compared to what we're going to see as Gen Z grows up. Kids are growing up and missing out on very important developmental milestones because of what we're willingly exposing them to.

We can't sound these alarm bells loud enough. We have plenty of evidence of what kids who miss out on actual socialization end up as when they become legal adults, and it's not great.

Like I said, they have a right to search. They do not have a right to find or to be able to make anything of what they might find.

If you ban E2EE, you render many law abiding citizens vulnerable to all manner of fraud and other financial crimes.

Amusingly, there was a period of time when the Italian Mafia had access to law enforcement communications in Sicily using a back door designed for "lawful intercept". That is, the police and prosecutors hoist by their own petard.

Personally, I don't do much processed food or fast food. But I also don't have kids and I work from home, so it's no bug deal to cook proper food.

I do find it odd how many adults out there never even learned basic cooking from their parents, or food network. I won't say the whole society is going down but there are subcultures that seem destined to die off.

But there is a reason I included time budget. While cooking proper food need not take a very long time, it generally takes more than nuking something.

If they can access it. I am permitted to write my diary in code. I can send a letter the same way. Why should email be made less convenient?

Siblings are allowed to continue using their invented words into adulthood if they like. We are allowed to have private conversations in an un-bugged room. Phone call: "Meet me at the other place. Bring that thing we talked about.".

Police have never had the RIGHT to access all of our communication. They may be granted permission to TRY if a judge signs off on that but that's all they have ever had.

On a side note, one reason so many people are interested in E2EE is because there have been WAY too many incidents where police skipped the warrant or found a judge with an itchy rubber stamp who just took their word for things and then went on a fishing expedition. They only have themselves to blame for entire populations distrusting them. Meanwhile, tech companies grew tired of the constant stream of "requests" for private information that amounted to a fishing expedition that they decided their best bet is to make sure they cannot provide anything.

OTOH, some cancer drugs give the choice of 9 shitty months with or 6 decent months then one bad month without.

If the only food like substance within your budget (including time budget) is pulped meat nuggets sprinkled with sugar, guess what's for dinner?

You probably also booted it to run the disc formatting software.

But yes, the manual was very good, also the magazines with their type-ins.

You say that as if American auto makers haven't gotten multiple bailouts and other special gifts over the years. You say that as if the U.S. isn't full of malls inhabited by tumble weeds and rats (literally) and doesn't have enough chronically empty residential property to house every homeless person here.

The U.S. is being strangled by the financial and real estate sectors.

The American companies manufacture in China for cheap but sell expensive in the U.S. The huge margin goes to executive management and Wall Street. They COULD profitably manufacture in the U.S. without raising prices, but Wall Street wants it's windfall and CEO needs a new yacht, so that's out.

The complaints are twofold. They moved their manufacturing overseas but didn't cut their prices to reflect the savings. So Americans are getting squeezed from both sides. Consumers can't force them to pull production back to the U.S. but they can (in effect) offshore the top heavy expensive management and Wall Street by buying Chinese. The difference is apparently around $40K on a car.

Different industry, but I have a Chinese 3D printer. It's not perfect, but it cost 20% of what a 3D printer from an American company would cost (which also wouldn't be perfect). All it's missing is a bunch of ugly beige plastic, vendor lock-in on the supplies, and replacement parts made of pure unobtainium. Believe me, I don't miss those "features" at all. It did come with full respect for my right to repair and a wide variety of 3rd party parts readily available.

On a side note, I did consider building a 3D printer from parts, but when I looked in to it, sourcing the parts in the U.S. would have cost me more than buying the ready made (some assembly required) printer from China.

Unlike Farty Don, who merely wants to shoot them.

Upon sentencing, Lachwani turned his head all the way around and told the judge "Your mother sews socks that smell!"

Have you ever signed up for cable or even some streaming? They quote one price and tell you all the amazing things it includes. But the bill is higher and includes special fees for some of the things that were touted to be included in the advertised price.

Technically speaking the crime of fraud has three elements: (1) A materially false statement; (2) an intent to deceive the recipient; (3) a reliance upon the false statement by the recipient.

So, if you want to lie to people and want to avoid being charged with fraud, it's actually quite simple. You lie by omission. You distract. You prevaricate (dance around the facts). You encourage people to jump on the bandwagon; you lead them to spurious conclusions. It's so easy to lie without making any materially false statements that anyone who does lie that way when people are going to check up on him is a fool.

Not only is this way of lying *legal*, it happens every time a lawyer makes an closing statement to a jury. It's not a problem because there's an opposing counsel who's professionally trained to spot omissions and lapses of logic and to point them out. But if a lawyer introduces a *false statement of fact* to a trial that's a very serious offense, in fact grounds for disbarrment because that can't be fixed by having an alert opponent.

We have similar standards of truthfullness for advertising and politics because in theory there's competition that's supposed to make up for your dishonesty. In practice that doesn't work very well because there is *nobody* involved (like a judge) who cares about people making sound judgments. But still, any brand that relies on materially false statements is a brand you want to avoid because they don't even measure up to the laxest imaginable standards of honesty.

Now investors have lots of money, so they receive a somehat better class of legal protections than consumers or voters do. There are expectations of dilligence and duties to disclose certain things etc. that can get someone selling investments into trouble. But that's still not as bad as committing *fraud*, which is stupid and therefore gets extra severe punishment.

Don't trust a company with "spin" in their name.