Parental controls/locks have been a thing for decades. There are lots of options out there for parents to take direct action curating content their children are able to access. The problem is already solved to the extent that it could ever be solved.

This "solution" only does two things; Transfers the responsibility of raising children from the parents to the government/corporations, and further normalizes giving up privacy in exchange for the illusion of safety. Either of these should invoke fear and anxiety in any sensible person.

And of course you can guarantee that any bullshit, AI-infested, global database of faces and personal data they end up creating to facilitate this is going to be abused by governments and corporations alike. When will we learn that the best way to secure personal data is to stop putting it all in one place...
=Smidge=

There's also certainly some of that, but bear in mind that you can still attend a smaller state uni for under $10k a year, not including room and board, books, food, or other ancillary costs. So even someone without good scholarships can at least potentially work their way through school with some effort, without going into debt. It's hard work, but it is entirely possible, and I know people who have done it. Also, bear in mind that most places run a background check, and they can likely see if you are significantly in debt. So that can be factored in directly, without having to use education as a proxy for the data.

Not everybody gets scholarships, and not everybody can afford to pay for college with their trust fund money. And while student loans are sometimes available, depending on your parents's income, your options may be limited, especially if you fail to keep your grades up.

Thus, being able to afford college is at least to some extent a way of selecting for some combination of intellect (scholarship potential), determination (working your way through college), and familial wealth.

Higher intellect likely means better ability to get the work done. Higher determination likely means being more willing to push to get the work done. Wealth likely means lower risk of white-collar crime. And getting through college likely means that you are at least organized enough to not completely fall apart, have moderately competent time management, etc., all of which are beneficial.

Given a choice, a hiring manager would prefer someone with some of those characteristics over someone who has none. It's a fairly weak signal, but at least arguably, a weak hiring signal is better than no signal at all. Or at least that's what businesses usually claim when asked.

The key to what? Teachers tend to vote in a block because they have similar needs and experiences. You're acting like this is some big conspiracy to give them more power, but it really isn't.

Private school students are also far more likely to come from families where the parents have college degrees. They are far more likely to have enough money to afford a college degree without having to work their way through college. They are far more likely to have parents who can help them with their homework, who pay attention to them and help them stay out of trouble, etc.

You're comparing two different populations. For valid data, you need to compare the same population in two different schools. And when you do that the difference between private and public school education basically disappears.

It makes sense only if you don't understand what I said above. The fact of the matter is that school vouchers don't actually raise the standard of education for poor students who attend private schools by very much at all, on average, and studies have shown that pretty conclusively. They're really just a way for the wealthy to take money out of the public school systems and use it to subsidize their kids' public education.

So much for the right-wing fantasy that school vouchers are the solution to bad public schools. They haven't ever worked, but hey, let's keep trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Horses**t. Most of the shift towards requiring a college degree happened in the 1970s and 1980s — one to three decades before No Child Left Behind. And for the past half a decade or so, the percentage of jobs requiring a college degree has actually been going *down*.

It's not about having the skills they need, and it never was. Rather, having an optional degree is used as an indication that the applicant is a hard worker who is willing to put up with bulls**t. People who stick it out and do those extra four years when they don't have to are assumed to be harder workers than people who don't. They're also assumed to be better off financially, and thus less likely to steal from you.

The headline sounds way better than "Incompetent CEO lays off five years of overhiring".

In a standalone sense, sure. You can compile arbitrary code and run it on macOS. iOS and iPadOS lack compilers, lack the ability to sign code, and will not run unsigned code. Add in a Mac to compile the code, though, and that distinction goes away.

Beyond that, I suppose that iOS has fewer device drivers, so there's probably a slightly smaller attack surface there. And there are probably fewer crufty libraries and daemons that could have security holes, but no, there's probably not enough difference to care about.

They have perceived value to someone, but perhaps no intrinsic value.

I'm not even saying that they are intentionally trying to destroy the other teams' productivity. They're asked to increase the use of AI, and they do so by finding ways to put AI in front of more people. The fact that their team looks better and other teams look worse may just be a happy accident.

But the point I was trying to make is that the system of rewards is set up to reward them for putting AI in things — usually without regard to whether it is actually beneficial or harmful — so they put AI in things. As long as that is the case, a large percentage of the AI use will be a net negative, yet those folks will be rewarded, and thus will still be around to cause more harm even if they are not actively using AI themselves.

This group likely includes the entire upper tier of management at those companies.

Thanks for the reply.

Well, good luck to ya.....thankfully it's a big world and we have choices like this.

Personally, I couldn't do it....I enjoy all I can do in the US waaaay too much.

Just curious, what state are you in? Have you been there all your life?

Have you visited other states in the US that might fit your needs more closely? It's such a large country I have a hard time believing someone couldn't find terrain, climate and people that fit their preferences somewhere in the US.

Anyway, if you don't reply....again, good luck.

My God... Just let Ai do the talking if you want that much control. Personally? Every Wednesday, I eat out at noon in the same place. The owner is a grumpy old man. Serves the food himself. No "thank you", he is polite, but uses as few words as possible and will not fake a smile. He is real. It is one of the reasons I eat out there. No nonsense. We know each other now. I no longer talk to the guy. I just point to the menu. I used to wink at him when I started doing that. He smiled. What a contrast with the US... waitresses are so annoying there. I usually explain them that I am from Europe and will tip generously if they let me be. It is a bit uneasy for them at first, until they get the tip.

So...being from Europe, you say ya'll don't believe in just being friendly to your fellow humans you cross paths with daily, no need to smile or show common courtesy?

Just going through life not interacting and enjoying live and fellow people sounds like a sad and wasted life.....

When out and about I'm constantly meeting new people....and at times it has later meant money in my pocket with new found business opportunities, etc.....or just a new friend and I feel you can never have too many of those.

...hey if BK is going to start coaching customer politeness skills they might as well do it properly.

No Problem does NOT equal You're Welcome.

That one drive me up the wall.....

I'm a little against the actual tool, HOWEVER I'm in favor of almost any way to get society to largely start using common courtesy again....starting with Thank you and You're Welcome.

Basic basic stuff that somehow disappeared I dunno how long ago.

It's baseball cards, except that with loot boxes, you are guaranteed to get something that has some actual in-game value or use, whereas baseball cards are just something to collect and look at. If baseball cards are okay even though they really don't provide any guarantee of utilitarian value, why aren't loot boxes, which presumably do?

This is not at all similar to gambling. With gambling, you can walk away with nothing. With loot boxes, you are buying something that is guaranteed to have some value.

You've fallen victim to one of the classic blunders — assuming that what politicians say and what they actually want to do are in some way related. They aren't.

When SCOTUS effectively overturned Roe v. Wade, the Republican leadership was horrified. They had spent forty years using their promise to overturn Roe as a way to con the religious right into voting for them despite their general behavior being decidedly un-Christian, and after that, they had nothing.

The primary purpose of politicians is to get reelected. All else is secondary. Therefore, they make tiny changes when in power. They "try" to make big changes only when they know they don't have the votes. Both parties do this roughly equally, and do so rather consistently. It's theater, meant to create the illusion that the will of the electorate matters, to conceal just how little power and influence the general public actually has.

Two reasons:

1. Because the general public doesn't support voter ID without fixing the underlying problems that would cause voter disenfranchisement. They support it in principle. Lots of us think that it is a laudable eventual goal. That doesn't mean we want a law passed that says "IDs required tomorrow". Rather, we want a law passed that says "IDs required by 2045" and also includes a litany of changes to ID availability, including mandating that state Real ID cards be free and/or the availability of a federal ID card.

Just to be absolutely clear here, many states have no gratis photo IDs available. That means that any even remotely competent supreme court would throw out a law demanding such evidence, because it is an illegal poll tax. It isn't even a grey area. A voter ID law, if enacted now and active immediately, would be unquestionably unconstitutional.

2. Because the general public doesn't fully appreciate that when 6% of Republicans have no driver's license, 9% of Democrats, and 18% of independents, that represents the potential for massively skewing future elections towards Republicans through illegal disenfranchisement. (source).

Not true. That's why impeachment exists. Nobody expected someone to take on the office, do the job in bad faith, and continue to be supported by sycophants who are too scared to do their jobs.