I think the market is probably too small to put the money into figuring out how to fake it convincingly. Also the market leans towards enthusiasts who detect fakes more readily than the average honey normie.
If it ever becomes mainstream this will definitely happen.
(Uncertain origin, though often attributed to Groucho Marx, George Burns, Jean Giraudoux, Celeste Holm, Ed Nelson, Samuel Goldwyn, Daniel Schorr, Joe Franklin, and/or Anonymous.)
Yes you can eat it and you spit out the wax. The wax is a bit flaky so I didn't find it that pleasant to chew on. Some people apparently spread it in toast like jam and eat it wax and all. It's not great for stirring into drinks.
No, I rather like the fact my kids all have the same father, and all in wedlock, too.
Having lots of kids with different women is very common, especially in the lower classes, and not much of an achievement.
My dad has lots of half-siblings from three different mothers in total, and accordingly grew up without a father, and I very much did not want that for my own kids. Not even if it carried wealth and fame. I think you'll find if you ever have your own kids, two present parents cannot be wholly replaced with money.
> The best way to be anonymous on the internet is to be anonymous, which means posting without any name or identifier at all. If that isn't practical, then using a non-meaningful pseudonym and not posting anything personally identifiable is recommended.
A third approach is using a word that means something and thus is not unique at all.
Unique strings for usernames means lots of accurate hits. If you google mine, there will be lots of hits but none are me.
Why? Even ignoring the artificial setup of the show, your child is living in a different environment with different challenges and risks. I’m sure your 9 year old could easily complete the same tasks.
Are there any other countries that enforce a daily time limit on an activity, whether for children or adults?
It seems either an activity (like smoking) is typically banned entirely or allowed; having it be partially allowed like this is difficult to enforce and consequently invites weird and invasive measures like these.
Yes, there are. Examples that immediately come to mind:
- Anyone driving a large vehicle for more than 9 hours per day, 56 in a week, and 90 over a two-week period in the European Union.
- Adults using a tanning under a sunlamp for more than one cycle in a 24 hour period in many countries (others, such as Australia, did ban them entirely).
- Children spending more than 10 hours per day in child care centers in many US states, such as Washington.
- Alcohol purchases are limited to certain times of day in many European countries (compare "No games between 10pm and 8am" in China).
Many of these are very difficult to enforce, and enforcement benefits from intrusive technology (such as tachographs) and even more so from intrusive AI (e.g. many EU countries were set to implement platforms to monitor truck drivers using AI, until the European Commission's Artificial Intelligence Act forced a change of plans).
I also disagree with the previous examples being as different in kind as you seem to think: e.g. the "no home-schooling" requirements, combined with mandatory attendance, still limits children's gaming time to something less than 19 hours on weekdays. Which is different from "no more than 1.5 hours", but only quantitatively, not qualitatively. And it certainly matches "the government does not trust its citizens to raise their own children", which was my main point.
All of your examples limit or prescribe hours of work. This implies that the remaining time is free. There is a fundamental difference between telling a minor what they have to do some hours of the day - e.g. go to school - and telling them how they must apportion the entire rest of their time when they've finished their work. "Free time" loses meaning if it's all surveilled and controlled. Truckers don't have to be watched when they're not driving. Adults, too, have all their time free when not working, to waste or use productively as they please. To say you're limited to the remaining 19 hours of the day just means you have 19 hours of free time. It's no longer free time if the government begins to restrict it for reasons that are outside its remit.
> All of your examples limit or prescribe hours of work.
Well, I guess you should give those examples another read. Unless you consider using a tanning bed to be work. Not to mention "buying alcohol at night".
You're allowed have sex. You're allowed to give someone money. But you're not give someone sex for money.
What China has done is take an arbitrary, ridiculous rule like that, and make it even more absurd. Imagine if they said that after 30 minutes, a massage is by definition sex. And if you do it more than 90 minutes a week, it's sex addiction.
It's just arbitrary ways of controlling the populace. I doubt if they care whether kids play games. It's just a way to start facial recognition for the social credit system early.
I've heard this oft repeated, but no evidence that dating overall works by the 80-20 rule except for Tinder, which hardly represents the dating world at large. It's perhaps true for casual sex, but for monogamy, which is still the most common dating pattern for the overwhelmingly majority of Western civilisation, the math just doesn't work out.
I can't help but feel that this belief is understandably motivated by a desire to see oneself as belonging to the bottom 80%, rather than belong to the bottom 20%, or worse.
> This is why my kid isn't going to watch YouTube. If and when we decide to show her any children's show, it'll be from a manually curated set of videos downloaded and streamed from a NAS.
Until what age? I doubt this resolve will last until 18, particularly when they become old enough to know what their friends are watching. The vast majority of video content isn't legally downloadable, and even illegal downloading is a bit difficult because children's shows aren't as widely shared as content aimed at adults. (Even really popular shows like Paw Patrol have surprisingly limited availability.)
If you want to limit ad exposure, using subscription services like Netflix is more practical, as does purchasing shows on a per show basis on YouTube (which granted gets very expensive). Public broadcasting is also typically ad free; in the UK we have iplayer which has ad-free children's programming available for streaming.
Maybe because it's the first ever photo of a black hole, was widely anticipated, and was published by pretty much every news organisation and was on the cover of many of them, before any interviews with her came out?
The other thing they're missing is that it was also rife with child porn and snuff videos.
I too have nostalgia for the old days of the internet where there were lots of niche sites about specialist interests and things were easier to find, but I don't think the internet was ever really an idyllic garden of rational discourse. It was from nearly the beginning a manifestation of humanity's id.
