It’s because the sweet spot of EVs is replacing Toyota Corollas but cheaper (like BYD), not trying to replace the thing you haul your boat or trailer with (f-150 lightning).
BYD like cars at BYD like prices are the future of EVs. And yes, that will wreck the us auto makers
Not just the auto makers. Many of the suppliers in the ecosystem will lose out because EVs require so many thousands of fewer parts. Mechanics also won't have nearly as much work on low maintenance EVs.
You are typing that like mechanics would be constantly rebuilding engines and transmissions, while most of their main job are bumpers from minor crashes and cracked windshields.
As in, is it the thing that makes it so no one else has broken out of their planet to come visit us?
I could totally see it being the case that as soon as a civilization gets good enough at putting stuff into space, they start putting a lot of stuff into space and then things start crashing into each other to the point that they can’t ever launch any more things into space and become stuck. Trapped by the artifacts of their own progress
Ideally a satellite is in a given orbit for years. If junk is destroying it in weeks or even months you’ve got a massive issue.
However a rocket is spending in a seconds in that same orbit. Thus a rocket passing through may only have say 1:10,000 odds of a collision on its way to mars while satellites are getting shredded.
So you don’t think the 1:10k odds compounded over every space launch are enough to be a problem?
I was thinking that maybe as you get to a scale where you have things coming and going all the time, and each time they have to pass through the debris layer, and if they have bad luck they become part of that debris, that eventually you get to a point where even just passing through that layer is untenable. But you don’t think that is likely even for a society sending out interplanetary vessels every day?
Being hit isn’t the same as being destroyed, you can track and avoid large objects, and small are survivable in the short term. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whipple_shield Collisions however keep adding up until a satellite fails.
Second an outbound rocket need not be in orbit, so if it is destroyed that may not result in extra orbital debris the overwhelming majority of mass could fall back to earth.
Also, Kessler syndrome isn’t a forever thing. There’s a reason planets have rings not debris clouds. It’s possible to have a steady state where the rate you’re making it worse is balanced with the rate things are naturally clearing.
integrate risk over time. if you have a high target orbit outside the "kessler belt" then you don't spend much time going through it. though this requires a fairly direct orbital insertion. slow orbit raising would have a higher risk, but even that would still be lower than for any satellite intended to operate for years and decades in an affected orbit.
It really depends on how much junk actually is there and in what orbits; especially at 500 km up, space is big. The surface area of the earth is 510.100.000 square kilometers, at 500 kilometers the 'surface area' is a multiple of that (I can't math), surely there's enough gaps or lower-density areas at that height even if there was a catastrophic Kessler Syndrome event.
I'd consider it much less likely than e.g. nuclear or maybe chemical/biological warfare.
Kessler syndrome (if even achievable with current technology) would be a major bummer for science and the global economy for a couple of decades (no more Starlink, but we still have good old geostationary satellites, so no ships and airplanes would get disconnected as a result), or at worst centuries, but would otherwise not form any threat to civilization, whereas nuclear winter is already very capable of wiping it out.
I think it would be actually the other way around - Starlink orbits aee low enough to be self cleaning & Starlink satellites can be (and are) rapidly replenished. So even if something from up above hits anfew, the debris would deorbit soon & new ones could be launched.
With GEO sats, unless you go for direct GEO insertion, it might still have issues reaching the final orbit. And even at GEO, there could be a debris cloud as well causing issues, at least until the sun and moon gravity perturbs it enough.
The approximate-GEO belt involves far fewer satellites than projected megaconstellations, in a far larger volume of space, travelling at far lower orbital velocities, with a much tighter orbital plane distribution (so even lower relative velocities). Their orbital planes intersect every 12 hours instead of every 0.75 hours.
Targeted space junk disposal in GSOs appears to be quite practical. The easiest major orbital changes for an SEP stage to burn, structurally, involve lowering periapsis from high orbit.
On the other hand, there is just so much less stuff up there, as reaching that orbit is much more expensive in terms of energy expenditure, and it's all moving in pretty much the same direction and in the same orbital plane.
So unless somebody maliciously launches e.g. a bunch of ball bearings in the same orbital plane but opposite direction, the chances of "wrecking GEO" seem much lower (although the consequences would, as you say, probably be much more severe and long-term).
Launching a nail bomb into orbit would've been possible as soon as we were able to get into space, the only question is motivation. A terrorist state, say North Korea, threaten the rest of the planet and demand concessions once they're able to get any significant mass into orbit.
I'd say intentionally destroying space assets etc should be considered an act of war (compare attacking another nation's ship in international waters), NK wouldn't have a chance and they could be put into space lockdown where any launches are intercepted.
Are you sure that you have never looked at a weather forecast (or received a severe weather warning), crossed an ocean in an airplane, used GPS (or another satellite-based navigation system, or eaten food farmed using precision automated equipment that does), which are just the first things coming to mind that would be much harder without satellites?
I would guess that it would still be possible to send things beyond earth's orbit with only a low probability of collision with debris but perhaps I'm wrong.
"Low" is tough to say until someone does some proper sort of 'true mapping' of space debris in the range somehow. Protection would require a lot of complexity and cost due to the need for shielding and the delta-v to move it up there.
That works a little bit when we're talking about one satellite poofing in a year based on a collision with another satellite, and not at all when we're talking about thousands of events a year, many of which are satellite-debris collisions too small to track (you only get one orbital vector), or between pieces of debris.
Every collision generates hundreds, maybe thousands of pieces of debris, only the largest of which are trackable.
Rather than protection on each rocket, couldn't you just send a bunch of fortified rockets that absorb the debris during a collision but don't emit anything. Do that a few times and then all other rockets just reuse the path that was cut?
Orbit is not a ___location. Orbit is a group of velocity-___location vectors which form a stable loop around a body, without intersecting that body.
Imagine a bullet circling your head at mach 25. Now imagine a second bullet, circling your head at a slightly different angle, at a slightly different distance from your head. There's a chance that they could collide, and the resulting explosion would leave a great deal of dust... on a mixture of velocities, still circling your head. Now add a third bullet, also on a slightly different vector; Make sure that it doesn't collide with any of that dust!
The actual situation is we aren't dealing with 3 bullets or 100 bullets, we have ~170 million objects orbiting the Earth, and only around 50,000 are large enough to track. They are all moving fast enough in relation to each other that a collision would result in a sizable explosion, not an elastic agglomeration. We have no way of removing them.
The good news is that there is a large volume of space for them to exist in. The bad news is that as we continue to fill it up, odds of collisions increase, and every collision spawns many, many more objects.
You’ve explained what Kessler syndrome is but not why my idea doesn’t work.
I’m saying send reinforced rockets through the orbits that absorb the collision instead of generating more dust. That should let you clear a path through all orbits that intersect your path. It’s hard to do and the 3d aspect of it might make it expensive but conceptually it could be a solution. Or use super powerful lasers (potentially mounted on a satellite) to deorbit the dust
> I’m saying send reinforced rockets through the orbits that absorb the collision instead of generating more dust. That should let you clear a path through all orbits that intersect your path.
No such material exists, nor can it be made from any matter that is based on electrons bound around a nucleus — the force of impact will break any such material.
> It’s hard to do and the 3d aspect of it might make it expensive but conceptually it could be a solution.
The cost requirement for getting something to space with enough momentum to do the cleanup, even if it was able to survive the impacts, would be comparable to the entire cost of getting the stuff constituting the mess into orbit in the first place: bad enough to be prohibitive even today with relatively little mess, much worse if there's an actual Kessler cascade.
> Or use super powerful lasers (potentially mounted on a satellite) to deorbit the dust
Could work for the bigger bits, but don't put the lasers on a satellite: 1) Power is short up there, as is cooling, much easier to put a bit laser on the ground and waste some energy going up through the atmosphere; 2) if you solve that constraint, you've now got an orbital laser that's an obvious and easy-to-hit target for all foreign powers to get upset about even if you didn't want to weaponise it.
For the smaller stuff, you can't see the dust to target it in the first place.
This doesn't work conceptually, but it's hard to explain without attaining a KSP baseline of understanding. https://xkcd.com/1356
"Clearing a path" is something you can do with a bulldozer through a traffic jam, but imagine clearing a path through a belt road by driving through the flow of moving traffic sideways at speed. Ultimately you can't hit every car in the outer lane with just one bulldozer, and the cars will close in and fill gaps because they're moving at slightly different speeds.
The easy elastic collisions you're imagining also just can't occur at these relative velocities. When something hits it looks more like an explosion than a "catch". If you shoot a local stone monument with high explosive artillery shells what happens? Does it reduce the number of things flying through the air or increase it?
It takes about 90 minutes to complete a low earth orbit. A rocket can't hover in place for 90 minutes at the same altitude, then increase its altitude by its height and repeat. It doesn't have enough fuel for that.
Go the other way. Attain maximum altitude and then descend slowly. You don’t need to do this with just one rocket. This would be a clearing exercise composed of multiple rockets.
> couldn't you just send a bunch of fortified rockets that absorb the debris during a collision but don't emit anything.
"Just" how? Orbital collisions happen at an average of 10km/s, you're going to make what, some kind of sponge that can get hit by a chunk of satellite going ~8x faster than a bullet and absorb it and slow it to a halt without fragmenting at all? Good luck.
> Do that a few times and then all other rockets just reuse the path that was cut?
Things in orbit are constantly moving, you can't "clear a path" any more than you can, IDK, make a safe route through a forest by walking through it once and moving any bears you encounter a couple of feet.
Whipple shields fragment, don't they? They slow stuff down enough to not be a hazard to the thing being shielded, but if the goal is mess-reduction I don't see how that will help?
The force of the impact effectively vaporizes part of the shield and the debris. Eventually the shield will be structurally unstable swiss cheese, but that can be modeled and the shield deorbited before it starts to fall apart.
WaPo endorsing Harris would have changed exactly 0 minds. Everyone that would have read it already agrees with them. But it would have made them feel good about their existing world view.
Them _not_ endorsing _will_ change minds. There are people that read Washington Post that would take that as a sign that not even their trusted left-leaning paper is 100% comfortable with the candidate they should have endorsed, so maybe there's something there they should have hesitancy about too.
My understanding is that T-mobile solved their spectrum issue in the failed deal with AT&T. As part of the penalties of the deal not going through, AT&T had to give them a bunch of spectrum, and some cash to build out towers to deploy that new spectrum.
Something affecting Mormon fertility rates specifically is the dramatic increase in housing costs in the “Mormon Corridor” (the inter mountain us west strip of geography where most Mormons live). It’s simply too expensive for most young Mormon families to live the lifestyle they used to; with large homes and large families.
That area of the US has some of the most newly unaffordable areas in the country
I'm still using an HP LaserJet 5m that I got used from the local university's surplus sales department for $6 twenty years ago. It was made in 1995, so was 10 years old then and almost 30 years old now. I've had to replace the toner once. Works like a champ!
nothing else to add, other than "they don't make 'em like they used to"
I live in Utah. If that's what happens, that would be awesome! "Sorry kids, no fb/tiktok/insta and there's nothing I can do about it. None of them work where we live"
Would be a huge win for all parents. No social media, and we don't have to be the bad guys taking it away.
From other comments, it seems the definition is not "what you assume is a social media app" but "any service with over 5 million users that facilitates chat via posts". I am 99% certain this includes Hacker News, Steam, probably also bugs.chromium.org and bugzilla.mozilla.org, and maybe even any website that allows user comments if they happen to have over 5 million users.
> From other comments, it seems the definition is not "what you assume is a social media app" but "any service with over 5 million users that facilitates chat via posts".
It's baffling to read all the HN comments encouraging draconian restrictions and forced PII collection on websites, all with the assumption that it will only apply to websites I don't like.
Laws like this, if enforced, would make a lot of the sites you use on a daily basis require strict ID verification. Are you really ready to be doing the ID verification dance with GitHub, Reddit, Hacker News and every other big site on the internet just to post?
Of course not. You're going to sign up for a VPN and use it, just like all of the 17 year old kids who just want to use the internet like normal people.
The sponsors of this bill are likely less worried about the 17yr olds who can hack around the restrictions. They're more worried about 12 and 13yr olds who are attempting suicide and experiencing mental health crises at a rate that far exceeds any previous time.
The problem is the loss of privacy for all users. They will be forced to verify the identity of every user to do business in Utah, so you can either expect third parties like Stripe (with their Identity product) to get richer or an increase in leaks and hacks containing tons of driver's licenses.
I welcome it. Breaking the way the internet is used these days would be a huge win for society as a whole no matter how painful it might look at first.
I don’t think that’s where this goes. I think this leads to less internet use in general. Just like when Apple broke Facebook’s mobile tracking the ad dollars dried up and forced Facebook to scramble to find a new tracking mechanism which most agree is subpar and thus that revenue hasn’t returned. I’m hopeful that people spend less time in anonymized spaces that aren’t conducive to healthy discussion and relationships and instead seek out each other in real life.
There are benefits to reducing anonymity: accountability, trust, relationships, etc. It's why humans evolved to recognize faces so well. We decide who to trust based on experience. It doesn't matter who controls the identification process, so long as its done fairly. And if corporations or government misuse identification for self-serving purposes, we should certainly push back.
- Chilling effect on political discussions. Good luck campaigning to overturn these laws if you can't do so without fear of reprisal from government officials or your local community.
- Limiting the ability for marginalized groups to seek support; LGBTQ youth, ex-mormons, etc., would be directly harmed by this.
Political discussions should be open and transparent. If there is reprisal for well-intentioned statements, proportional action should be taken to stop the reprisal.
Though it is nice to allow various beliefs, it is more important to have a cohesive community, even if it means sacrificing some personal beliefs. Personal values should line up with community values. If they are in contradiction, an open discussion should be had to realign them.
It doesn't necessarily have to be these laws, it could be anything, but to answer your question - they might paint me as somehow being "against the children", having bought in to the angle that these laws make children safer.
Just curious is the any different from what happens right now, when someone campaigns against something you disagree with? If someone online, pseudo-anonymously posts something that is perceived to be against trans rights or pro-life, there is already a mob of people working to de-anonymize and punish them for their wrong-think. How is it any different or better to have the current system?
> Just curious is the any different from what happens right now
Because right now you can be anonymous/pseudonymous? Of course people will try to unmask you, but I'm contrasting it in a world where you can't even attempt it.
It’s a narrow win. If people can’t post to their sites, they’re going to start thinking about going to Colorado rather than Utah for their skiing. The so-called “Silicon slopes” are going to thin out as large companies question what the legislature is going to arbitrarily decide to screw with next. Tourism dollars and high tech jobs are a hefty price.
As an aside, I lived in Utah for many years and I generally thought people preferred to not have the government dictating what was allowed and not allowed.
Willing to bet most of the Utahns you lived around are more worried about the impact of these services on their kids than on government overreach. They can't figure out a non-governmental way to fix the issue.
Hopefully this is hyperbole. Seems a bit extreme to hope the government legislates away industries because you don't want to handle the parenting yourself.
I would love it if you would state what you think the viewpoint opposite yours is and then try to defend it, then explain why that defense is wrong.
> legislates away industries because you don't want to handle the parenting yourself.
What are your thoughts on pharmaceutical/heroin legislation? What are your thoughts on making it illegal to advertise unhealthy food to kids? How do you feel about the idea of product placement in children's TV shows? How do you feel about letting pharmaceutical companies directly market to children?
You look at parenting as black and white. Good parents would prevent their kids from doing bad things. Bad parents can't prevent their kids from doing bad things. "If a kid does something bad then it is because they have bad parents."
The reality is that parents are just one element of the childs environment and that their choice to do bad things can be fit to a bell curve based on the complete set of environmental factors for which parenting is one element.
Holding parenting ability constant, the government could make changes that would improve outcomes for some set of children.
> What are your thoughts on pharmaceutical/heroin legislation?
The USA government already makes the incorrect decision regarding these substances by criminalizing them, banning them, and throwing users in prison. Evidence shows that legalizing these substances and providing addiction care and universal healthcare, as well as tackling homelessness with empathetic solutions (literally just give them housing, it's that simple), is the so far most effective method to reduce usage of these substances.
Thus the highly retributive, reactionary USA government, or its local manifestations, can't be trusted to make these kinds of laws well.
Great, it banned tik tok for the kids. It passed a morality law. You know, fox news isn't really news, and some have suggested to that it provides a direct path to radicalization that leads to political violence. We should probably ban that, too. Don't worry, if you want to watch it, you can unlock it by applying at the local Office of Moral Wellbeing, just provide a photocopy of your photo ID and proof of address for them to file. That way if Fox changes channel registration, they have a list of all the people that watch it, so they can send someone to let you know the channel number changed.
TikTok is a national security issue and a reciprocity issue and for that reason it was a bad choice of example.
You can look at other social media as a morality problem. I could see why someone would think of it that way, but we are literally quite governed by our neurotransmitters, and these companies literally have "engagement" (read: addiction) engineers. There are literally addiction engineers working on creating the state of addiction. Engineers working on figuring out how to get people to spend the maximum amount of time possible on the apps.
At some point it becomes a health issue. Stimulus is stimulus. Dopamine dysfunction is real.
What's the difference between scrolling an infinite feed for 10 hours and feeling good on an opium den couch for 10 hours? I am not saying that's a perfect comparison, but I don't think it's as simple as morality. These social media apps cause real biological response and there are engineers literally working on manipulating those responses.
I agree with you that social media is a social toxin. Kind of like alcohol or heroin.
The solution for all three I think is the same. Don't allow the government to pass laws criminalizing these things, because that has bad outcomes. It's a lot easier to say "the government isn't allowed to restrict bodily autonomy" than it is to for example try to write into law the 800 different specific exact scenarios where society thinks abortion is ok. In this case, "the government isn't allowed to pass laws restricting access to information" or something along those lines.
Certainly we should allow our government to offer alternatives, information on the negative effects of a toxin, treatments, and use our governments to ensure good social safety nets that prevent people falling into toxin abuse as their only escape.
I'm talking about the problems of using the State to enforce whatever given values or ideals. The State is at best completely imperfect, at worst, it's fascist and trying to kill you and people like you. Don't let it get to that point, don't let it ban what it today defines as "social media."
There are better ways to protect society from these harmful things. Mostly I think solutions around good public education.
I don't think criminalizing is the right approach. I think taxing them for usage that exceeds a reasonable amount of time might be a reasonable policy. I think it would be ok to 100% tax any advertising profit gained after 1 hour of use. I suppose that creates a conflict of interest because then the government directly benefits from over-use which is its own hazard. I think the most American approach would be to codify that Facebook (or other social media) is directly liable for medical treatment related to social media use creating a feedback mechanism that disincentivizes bad behavior.
I don't know what to do, but I do think social media is becoming a cancer, and I do think we need treatment. I don't now what the treatment is.
I think you're saying the treatment can be worse than the disease, and I agree.
> I'm talking about the problems of using the State to enforce whatever given values or ideals.
I think we probably agree on a lot politically, but this is where I think I take a hard turn.
Somewhere bad faith behavior must be discouraged. Education is one place that happens, the legal system is another place. Education is only a first line defense against bad faith.
In the game theory of daily life, defectors and defection cannot be a winning strategy otherwise society will turn from a high trust society into a low trust society. Consensus will be abandoned in favor of dominance. To be honest, I think we are already to that point.
Human rights are an example of an ideal that the state must enforce. Contractual obligations are an ideal a state must enforce. Rule of law is an ideal that a state must enforce. Property rights are an ideal states must enforce.
Where it becomes less clear is the Fox News case you stated because Fox News is actively trying to destroy the idea of rule of law.
I don't know how to deal with that.
Do you think that's a problem? Should nothing be done?
> I think you're saying the treatment can be worse than the disease, and I agree.
Basically yes.
> Where it becomes less clear is the Fox News case you stated because Fox News is actively trying to destroy the idea of rule of law.
I only use the Fox news example as a wake up call to conservatives cackling gleefully as the government of Ohio shutting down access to a social media platform.
Actually the core of my fear revolves around that: the American government at all levels, in any state, is highly reactionary, and I'm afraid of it using its newly discovered power to get away with this sort of thing to start banning communication among leftists. Or, something I think it will try in the next two years, banning communication among LGBT people.
Well, I guess this is where I wish communities had more power to organize their own protections and arrangements. Imagine if one town wanted to ban fox news for example, the USA government would probably step in and enforce a lawsuit against them. It seems the power dynamics are out of wack.
> I would love it if you would state what you think the viewpoint opposite yours is and then try to defend it, then explain why that defense is wrong.
Sorry, I don't know what this means.
> What are your thoughts on pharmaceutical/heroin legislation? What are your thoughts on making it illegal to advertise unhealthy food to kids? How do you feel about the idea of product placement in children's TV shows? How do you feel about letting pharmaceutical companies directly market to children?
The comment this chain is replying to was about tech companies not offering their services at all in Utah. I'd think, for the most part, I'd be against most regulations that basically say "to protect the children, we will ban X for everyone". I'm sure there are exceptions though.
> ...rest of the comment
I agree, the government can act to improve the outcomes for children and I didn't state anything to the contrary. Rather, I believe that gleefully accepting or cheering on a ban of all technology, for both adults and children, that the government might believe causes harm to children is quite unfortunate.
You called something hyperbole. You said you had a hard time imagining someone in good faith wishing that the government would legislate away an industry so that they don't have to "parent."
So I asked:
What do you think the person you are responding too's position is?
What do you think is the best defense for that position?
What do you think that position is wrong despite what you see as its best defense?
I think the tobacco industry is an obvious industry to make reference to. I think now days most people who don't smoke would be happy to see it regulated away and I think it would be an extremely fringe position to think the tobacco industry should be able to advertise to kids today.
> I'd be against most regulations that basically say "to protect the children, we will ban X for everyone". I'm sure there are exceptions though.
Just because we don't know the full extent of how bad Facebook is now, doesn't mean it isn't bad.
How bad do you think we thought smoking, opiates, or other problems were before we decided they were bad?
We saw the correlation with harm of tobacco, investigated more deeply, then regulated their wide spread use particularly use by children.
Facebook is modern day tobacco.
I am much less black and white about this than you might expect, because I am generally pro letting people do what they want with their bodies. After the age of 25 (when a person's prefrontal cortex is fully developed) there are few good arguments for preventing a net tax payer from doing what they want to their bodies or time. If someone can be told they are old enough to die (or kill) for their country, that's another factor that makes limiting their freedom to make bad decisions a hard argument.
> that the government might believe causes harm to children is quite unfortunate.
When you say "the government" that is entirely jaded. There is more nuance than us (the oppressed) and them (the government). Replace the government with "my fellow neighbors," and I think it harms the anti-government righteousness a bit.
The context of the original conversation was clearly not about banning Facebook, but about not being sad if they went away. Telling facebook it can't do business in utah if it serves children and Facebook deciding to not do any business in Utah as a result is not banning Facebook.
> I would love it if you would state what you think the viewpoint opposite yours is and then try to defend it, then explain why that defense is wrong.
Ok, this would be opposite: I want absolute access to my 17 years old kids account. I want read all their messages with their friends and I do not want them to have any privacy, because I want to fully control them.
Second part of the opposite: I dont want to talk with my kids about social dynamic in their peer group. I do not want to talk with them about beauty standards, realistic or not. I do not want to help them navigate peer relationships and I do not care about my kids thoughts. My idea of solving these issues is to cut their access to communication methods.
I am not about to defend either.
> What are your thoughts on pharmaceutical/heroin legislation?
I am actually fine with whole bunch of regulations and law. Really, this dichotomy where if you dont like one law you need to hate all of them is ridiculous. It
You can ban social media as a parent today and damage your child's social life.
If it's banned for every child equally, they will have to meet up irl or call each other like in the 80s or whatever. Whatever the alternative, it shifts the dynamic and doesn't isolate your child.
Regulations for kids is not simply about bad parenting but can be about prisoner's dilemma-like situations where everyone needs to work together for a good outcome and, unless a decent percentage gets on board at more or less the same time, it's counterproductive for individuals.
We should also enforce strict school dress codes so students don't have to see other students wearing new shoes and feel pressured to update their wardrobe right? Kids shouldn't be able to talk about family vacations because it might make other students jealous and hurt their mental health. We need to ban these books because it might make kids feel bad about themselves. Where do these ridiculous steps end?
I hope that corporations more frequently put less relevant jurisdictions in their place and remind representatives that they are in competition with other jurisdictions and this overrides their public service ideas.
So I’m more of a fan of seeing that. Not the actual outcome.
Would make more people choose more collaborative solutions faster.
I'm always very unimpressed by this kind of argumentation. There's a clear difference in kind between Hackernews, Reddit, Instagram, and TikTok. Sure, they all feature user-submitted content, but to pretend that there is any meaningful similarity beyond that seems silly.
I'm always very unimpressed by people who believe that politicians have the intellectual capacity to differentiate between HN and Reddit.
They don't, especially when they're throwing their weight around after screaming about internet boogeymen for years.
Go watch the Tiktok hearings. They were losing their minds because filters could track your eyes and your cell phone could use the internal wifi network in order to access the internet.
Is there? Is there to your 80 year old senator and their constituents that think the internet is a series of tubes. You know, the constituents that actually vote?
Does it matter how well you explain it anyway? Modern political language lacks definition by design. Do street interviews and ask Americans what socialism is. Then ask them what they'd call the government giving banks money. Then ask them how many times in the last 20 years the government has given banks money.
My argument is that we should just not let the governments pass these kinds of laws because it opens the door to using these laws to arbitrarily block whatever website they can vaguely hand wave as "social media" or whatever they pick.
Another Utahn here and I feel the same. I don’t really see how this could work and think it will probably go away quietly, but I’d kind of love it if these platforms (and the social pressure our kids feel to be on them) just went away.
Also, no Reddit, no Discord, no forums and no Hacker News.
Paradoxically, TikTok and Instagram could pass in a limited form. What is targeted is communication between people, mindless consumption is fine by that law.
> Utah has become the first US state to require social media firms get parental consent for children to use their apps and verify users are at least 18.
> The bills also impose a social media curfew that blocks children's access between 22:30 and 06:30, unless adjusted by their parents.
So there would very much be something you could do about it, and your kids would find out.
You're still the quote-unquote bad guys. You still have to, gasp, parent.
You realize these companies will quiet-fire all employees residing in Utah and never hire there again? That this will place massive negative pressure on all software salaries in Utah? Possibly on all software salaries outside of deep blue states?
what do people do that have kids between the "too big for cargo bike" and "too young to drive their own car" category?
I used to take my kids all the time on my e-bike with a burley bike trailer. Now I have a 13 year old and a 10 year old. I'm pretty sure the middle schooler would get made fun of if his friends saw him showing up to school or soccer practice in the cargo bucket of my bike.
For people that have hit that milestone before me, what do you guys do for your older kids?
Sounds like it's time for them to get their own bike to ride to school?
You can ride with them on a few practice runs on a weekend and then continue to do so on a weekdays. Once you're both comfortable with the route and their ability to navigate it safely you can cut back on how much of the route you do together or just let them run it on their own. That last bit is a call to be made based on a lot of factors including your kids desire to ride with you.
Our 9 year old has an electric scooter. I didn’t really want to get it for him, because I’m an old school analog bike guy myself, but I have to admit it is convenient. It has around a 15 mile range and keeps up with a comfortable cycling pace, so my wife and I ride our commuter bikes and he cruises along next to us.
He also has a bike and he’s a pretty strong rider for a kid, but it’s still a bit much for him to keep up on longer trips, so the scooter helps there. I expect in a couple of years or so it will break or he will outgrow it, but by then he should have no trouble keeping up on his own bike.
My children ride their own bike to school at age 6. I bought light-weight bikes (like Frogbikes or Woom, they keep a great resale value), and accepted that it takes a bit more time.
There's a certain joy in being propelled by your own muscles. But of course it depends on the distance.
My 11 and 13yo happily ride on the back of my cargo bike (Extracycle). Some of their braver, bike riding friends, do ask "Why don't you ride by yourself?"
I used to have a burley before the cargo. I think the cargo upright position makes it feel a bit more grown up. Plus, it is so fun.
The highschooler absolutely refuses to ride the back of the cargo, and insists on being driven by car. It takes so much longer with all the traffic, but he is willing to suffer to avoid looking uncool.
https://www.deloitte.com/nl/en/services/risk-advisory/perspe...