I can’t comment on the prenups as I have never even considered marriage.
I am not disagreeing with your opinion on device level age verification. I am interested in what you think we should do to protect kids online. There has been a lot of talk about this being the wrong way to do that but very little discussion on what other methods we could do.
Would you be opposed to a “this computer is used by a child” checkbox and just that true/false would be passed to apps?
Most of them are also owned by a single company. Match Group inc. Some of the more notable ones are:
As well as most of the _ People Meet apps. Ie:
So it is no coincidence that these apps suck.
I don’t think that will happen given the strongly held beliefs each side has as well as the polarization in this country.
It also does not help that there are politicians and news organizations out there that are happy to throw more fuel on the fire, driving a wedge deeper between two groups.
You are right. I didn’t specify in my original comment but I am more referencing the polarization in the US specifically.
I posted this to another commenter but feel it also applies here.
I think you have lost what my original argument was about. I am asserting that the abortion debate will never end due to each side arguing about disparate things.
From what I understand, there are 3 primary ways that a debate can end; each side comes to an agreement about what is correct/what should be done, each side agrees that they will not be able to agree on what is correct, or one side decides they are unable to change the opinion of the other side.
Much of your posts discusses how one side (Pro-life) is incorrect. This does not touch on my central argument. If you proposed a situation in which one of the three outcomes could occur then that would disprove my belief.
I’m not sure what exactly you are saying I am being incredulous about. You’ve brought up a lot of points here let me try to respond to each of them.
But, before I do that, I think you have lost what my original argument was about. I am asserting that the abortion debate will never end due to each side arguing about disparate things.
From what I understand, there are 3 primary ways that a debate can end; each side comes to an agreement about what is correct/what should be done, each side agrees that they will not be able to agree on what is correct, or one side decides they are unable to change the opinion of the other side.
Much of your posts discusses how one side (Pro-life) is incorrect. This does not touch on my central argument. If you proposed a situation in which one of the three outcomes could occur then that would disprove my belief.
You talk about education and how if Pro-life proponents actually cared about reducing abortions then they would fight for “real” education, not abstinence only. But this ignores one of their central beliefs; that abstinence only is the best education to reduce abortions.
Next you talk about dismantling social safety nets. From looking at a few Pro-life groups many of them do not really talk about changing social services for kids at all. The ones that do talk about increasing education, providing counseling, and promoting adoption as an option. I think what the misunderstanding might be is that many people who are Pro-life are also republican who also believe in a reduction of government social services in favor of private services. This assignment of belief is not transferable. What I mean by this is that being Pro-life does not necessarily equate to wanting to dismantle social safety nets.
You are right that child welfare is not the central part of their belief set. The central part is “life begins at conception. And ending a life is murder”. Take for instance a hypothetical attorney general who focuses mode attention on petty shoplifting rather than murderers. I would hope that you would agree that they do not have the people’s best interest at heart. This is how Pro-life proponents see this debate.
Last thing that you mentioned that I want to comment on is about single-issue voters. Of course I would encourage people to be aware about all the issues that affect them. But I do not agree with the demonization of single-issue voters. There is a reason why on a ballot you are not required to fill in every question or there might be an option for obtaining. If we were to legislate against people being single-issue voters then that might quickly devolve into a facsimile of literacy tests. Tests which have already been ruled as unconstitutional.
Case and point.
You don’t actually expect me to believe that you think all Pro-life people believe that children don’t deserve a good home. Sure there might be some people out there like that. But it’s much more likely that the majority of people do actually care.
It is not even that their priorities are wrong or conflicting. I hope you can agree that being murdered is worse than those children having a bad childhood.
Please note that I am not taking either a pro-life or pro-choice position. My position is that until one side can actually understand the other the debate will never go anywhere.
The abortion debate will never be resolved.
This is mainly from the two sides arguing about different things.
Pro-life is about how a life starts at conception which means that abortion is murder. Pro-choice is about how women should have a choice to have an abortion.
But you do give it permission. The data is only shared when you either install or open an application. Both things that you need to initiate. Nothing in the law requires that the data be sent off device. Ideally all of this checking would happen on device. And for those apps that don’t meet that standard, don’t use them.
That is accurate and should absolutely be fought to the end. But the one that this “new” “distro” talks about is specifically the California one.
The law does not require giving the government any access to your system or even sending them any information. This is just false equivalency.
This just seems like an attempt to get sued to challenge the law.
Funny the amount of work that people are putting into such a nothing burger of a law.
Edit: also interesting to see the critical meltdown our community has over a law that doesn’t even require ID verification.
Edit 2: also I will be honest I did not read the entire home page. It is like 5 or 6 times longer than the law that it is complaining about.
I’ve been using tiny media manager for this. It supports pulling information from a bunch of different providers. (there is a subscription) but for most basic use cases the free version is perfectly fine.
Tmm won’t do markdown, but it will do nfo files.
This. Words are descriptive not prescriptive.
As long as the person understood what you meant,which they almost certainly did as they corrected you, then the words that you used don’t really matter.
Note, this doesn’t mean all words are inoffensive.
Is this one different than the one on f-Droid? Syncthing-fork
The main two reasons that I can think of to include this even when you have no intention of importing this as a library are:
There’s a reason you have a home dir. Just copy that forward along with whatever other config files you might’ve customized.
This is probably the reason why most distros will have the home directory on a separate partition. To easily allow you to keep your most important data when reinstalling or switching to a new distro.
print('string\n', end='')
Labeling arrows is built in. Just double click the line/arrow and it will give you a text field.
You are more talking about how this debate came to be. My central argument is more about how the debate cannot end.
I am not sure how abstinence only being the only acceptable option is any better than it being the best option. If anything it just strengthens my argument by showing that the Pro-life side will not accept any other form of education. And the Pro-choice side will also not accept any other form of education. This topic is a nonsequiter for both sides.
Again being Pro-life does not necessarily mean that they will vote for dismantling social services.
I simply don’t understand why you insist on assuming that they are lying.
Is that not what you are doing? You are blaming them for voting how they do.
Ultimately I think we have reached that 3rd situation. I have decided that nothing I say is going to change your mind on this and am choosing to walk away.