Sure, and to say boomers don't care about climate is a generalization, there are those who care more and those who care less...but even those leaders who cared more, such as Biden and Obama, they are often held back from much of their environmental efforts by the boomer-controlled Congress.

Trump has complete control of Congress and the Supreme Court, and his agenda is clearly anti-climate, and there's been little effort by Congress to slow him down or hold him accountable for anything.

Blaming dead people is completely unproductive. But boomers have all the power right now in the U.S. - they control Congress, the President's Office, and they control a huge, disproportionate amount of the nation's housing, stocks, and overall wealth. Companies are falling over themselves to appeal to boomers because that's where all the disposable income is. Pharmaceutical companies are investing in erectile medicines, cancer treatments, and other syndromes of old age, rather than vaccines and preventive medicines that help younger people, because boomers (and Medicare) will pay for it. And those companies exist to make a profit.

If boomers cared deeply about climate change, they have the power and the money to make it happen. We'd all be driving electric vehicles and we'd have cheap solar panels on our homes and drinking out of truly renewable and recyclable materials (not plastic).

Instead, they've chosen to accumulate wealth, prop up their home prices, engage in leisure and travel, and enjoy the good life. Looks like fun. But they won't be here to suffer the consequences of these choices. My kids will.

So what you're saying is I need to be careful how much salt I put on my morning bowl of crunchy, frosted microplastics?

Why does everything have to be a "bombshell" or "breaking now!" or "this just in" or "shocking new report!"

I guess because we now live in an attention economy and a headline of "some scientists criticize work of other scientists" isn't really catchy enough. Much more honest, but doesn't drive clicks, I guess.

Sigh.

Well, he is a boomer.

We've known for decades about climate change and what causes it, and yet they continued to pump more and more oil and dig up coal, all for that sweet sweet profit.

The biggest problem with screen-based classrooms is that the devices themselves are not designed for that purpose. There's too many games, chats, reminders, notices, updates, etc. etc. etc. that make it a fun and engaging device as a toy but terrible for maintaining concentration and focus on specific content. It is also more difficult for the teacher to be able to quickly look across a group of 30 and see who is doing the assigned task when the screens are all pointed away from the teacher (toward the student).

There are some features that are missing in physical books, such as the ability to long-tap on a word and get a definition, but those sorts of benefits do not outweigh the downsides.

Most modern appliances seem to be junk. Samsung seems to have a decent reputation in online reviews, but most repair people we talk to do not recommend Samsung products, with similar sentiment from online repair people (https://prudentreviews.com/reliable-refrigerator-brands/), and we can't even find a local Samsung repair shop (even though their products are sold by all the big box stores). Samsung also lies in their advertising (such as calling things made out of aluminum "cast iron." What, do you think I'm too dumb to hold up a magnet to it to check your claim that it's "cast iron"?). Would not purchase anything by Samsung ever again.

That reminds me..."Hey Siri, add bananas to the grocery list."

Seems like they are missing the most important step, which is verifying that those in the photo have consented! Sort of like keeping the car at the rental agency when I have a reservation...kind of the most important step.

I don't know what they would do if a parent signed the waiver but the child disagreed with the parent, or if the person taking the photo asked for permission on the spot and the child consented (even though they had a no photos status).

It depends on the state and it depends on the activity. For example, in my state children (of any age) can be put to work in a business owned by their parents but they cannot legally work in any other business, even with parental permission, until 14 (16 for some specific areas of work).

The question is whether parents an exploit their children for the parents' benefit. If you've ever watched behind the scenes videos of children / family / momma blogs or content creators, it is clear that the children are often bullied, forced, compelled, tricked, etc. to perform for the camera so the parent can make $$. Beyond abusive in many cases.

I'm not sure why a school needs to have a Twitter account anyway?
The legality of sharing is a bit muddy, which is what this California law is trying to address one aspect of it. It does get complicated, for example, if the school took a photo of children walking to school (on a public sidewalk), there generally would be no means to demand that not be posted by anyone (no expectation of privacy in a public space). And even the school took a generic photo (e.g., welcome back 3rd graders!) with no names or additional details, that is probably legal, too. And there are different rules if your student is an athlete. So it's not simple.

Texas and Florida are bad places to be a child.

It's not a political talking point. It is a reality that some people who give birth will look exactly like men (when clothed, obviously). Are you interested in accuracy when laws and policies are written?

This is a red herring that was invented by the anti-trans movement to try to find an anti-trans cause they could rally people behind. Rules for sports at national, regional, and international levels have addressed issues of gender and sex and fairness for decades and decades, with no serious loss of opportunity or safety issues.

Okay, so now go ask those who wanted to transition but were bullied, attacked, etc. Oh, wait, you can't, because many of them are dead.

The trans population, and particularly trans children, are a very small group. There's lots of uncertainty in what treatment is best, or who to treat, or when. As a tiny group, it is very difficult to complete any definitive study to answer these questions. But banning all access to care, to even consider offering a range of reasonable treatment options, is not a solution.

Politics overall is driven by power and money. To say that the Republicans support the working class - at a time when they are cutting services and resources for the poor to fund major tax cuts for the rich - shows a complete disregard for the facts. But I do agree the Democrats didn't put much effort into proposals that would benefit the working class, such as universal health care, universal preschool, subsidized child care, and instead got sucked into identity politics.

Banning is a form of regulation. "v. to govern or direct according to rule"

Sure, people post opinions and ideas and thoughts on X and Facebook, but they are not town squares, because:

A) They are not public (they are owned by for-profit companies).

B) They are not open to everyone (the for-profit companies decide who to admit).

C) Not all speech is given equal weight or attention, as determined by the companies' secret algorithms, and some speech - particularly paid speech, is given priority.

D) It's not free.

E) It's not safe for children given the mental health harms and the risk of bullying, sexual harassment, and abuse.

Facebook, X, Instagram, etc. are not Free Speech Town Squares, and therefore restricting children's use of those sites is not a violation of their right to free speech.