My understanding is that the default "block" just worked through the ISP's DNS servers. So that only works if the parents know to restrict the ability of their kids to change their DNS servers on their local devices (which is not set up by default) and the kids don't know how to get around it.
Seeing as there are only four items in the menu, it seems if you open the menu and want to get back to the page you were already on, you're supposed to just click the title of the page you were on.
The animations are a bit much. The scrolling horizontal rules repeating the words "AMERICA'S AI ACTION PLAN" underneath each "Pillar" header were confusing for a brief moment.
My NP would tell me "nothing to worry about" whether she knows what's going on or not, but that's beside the point.
GP wasn't asking what they should personally do. They were asking how the doctor would screen for it. (The truth is, the doctor can't/won't-- an annual MRI on every otherwise healthy person, for example, would be prohibitively expensive with how MRIs are currently set up-- and as another commenter pointed out, findings from those can be just as easily ignored or put off until it's too late.)
I started getting emails from Cigna about Omada after switching over to them last year. They pitch it as something you can sign up for to get health coaching. They (or their AI, soon if not already) provide that by sending you some "free" sensors (scale, pedometer, etc) and collecting lots of health information.
Searching the web shows that Cigna forces some patients to use this program in order to receive coverage for certain conditions. They're likely saving all the info collected through it in order to use it to deny you coverage if they can at all make an argument that something was caused by your lifestyle, was pre-existing for a certain amount of time, etc-- at least, that's the vibe I got from researching it.
It used to be 30/month for me. I was not renting their modem and got charged more for it.
If starlink ever gets more capacity, I'll probably switch. Right now I think the only way to get gigabit down on starlink is with four or five accounts and manually bonding the dishes together. As soon as that obstacle goes away, Comcast will have competition in my area and I intend take advantage of that.
Do you realize the linked article isn't talking about an actual bus stop? The movie My Neighbor Totoro has a scene at a bus stop. These people recreated the bus stop near their home/business.
So no, any bus stop that's been decorated is not "the same thing outside of Japan." This is specifically about being the bus stop from the movie.
There are so many cool things like this all over Japan, and only a very small percentage of them get completely run-over with international tourists. Even an hour or two outside of Tokyo, many not-so-hidden treasures like this can be found. And there aren't many tourists at these spots.
Take last year's "Lawson with a view of Mount Fuji" thing. The city had to to take all kinds of counter-measures to international tourists flocking there just to take a photo. Meanwhile, there are dozens more Lawsons in the area with epic views of Mount Fuji in the background, and not a tourist in sight.
Yes, I agree, because life would get boring really quickly. People should be able to express themselves (in a civil, legal manner) so that the world can be more colourful and filled with art and beauty.
But also no, I don't agree. Have you seen the impact tourism in Japan has had on the local ecosystem as of late? They've literally banned tourists in some areas because frankly: more tourists act like animals. They litter, act rude and disrespectful, and are just obnoxious. Also, in a lot of cases, they provide little to no financial growth or benefit to the local economy. Look at Venice, for example.
So I think when making something like this, there has to be some degree of forward thinking around how it's going to divert (tourist) traffic to the area and what impact that's going to have on the locals.
No patience for these complaints. Either you want tourist money or you don't. Seems like half the city lives off it and the other half hates it. That's an internal problem.
I think the main concern is about the capacity to handle that many tourists. As the population increases and general prosperity increases, amount of tourists will correspondingly increase. There are not that many tourist spots for a given location and causes overrun. There need to be some throttling function. Probably increase the cost/tax, or reduce the visas. Or increase the ability to handle so many tourists. I don't know how this can be done. May be better infrastructure and new places of interests.
>little to no financial growth or benefit to the local economy. Look at Venice
A quick Google search confirms tourism is the dominant industry in Venice. The claim that this fuels "little to no financial growth", is therefore first-order backwards. If you could set forth an edict and gradually empty Venice out into a touristless town over the next 5 years, you would probably see economic growth tumble downwards, not up.
Now capitalism would eventually catch up, it always does. Italians are cool people and hard workers. But ask e.g. the Baltic states whether they're secretly happy they lost ~a century of economic growth before finally getting the chance to enter a boom time, because it meant their economies stayed local. Then ask them another question: Suppose you didn't have much industry of note, but tourists just loved you and flocked from all over the world to see you, would you take that? I think you'd have a lot of takers.
One should a much stronger argument than "But... but tourism is icky" before you go messing with one of the primary economic levers of a whole city. Preferably an argument backed up by graphs and forecasts, because it runs contrary to basic economic wisdom. Absent those I feel comfortable guessing that the median Japanese town which bans tourists will probably suffer economically for it, in no small part because that suggests tourists were at some point a big deal. Any eventual industrial rebound, if it happens at all, will happen because they gradually became cheaper to work in than surrounding areas (I wonder why?), and would not be sufficient to make up for the lost compound growth of the 5-10 years where a key industry for that area was kneecapped.
> A quick Google search confirms tourism is the dominant industry in Venice. The claim that this fuels "little to no financial growth", is therefore first-order backwards.
How much of the money stays in Venice? Just because you handed over cash at a till in a cafe in Venice, doesn't mean a single local sees a lick of that money. They might not even see a lick of the taxes, neither. I've been to Venice... have you? Thanks for Googling about Venice, but try going and speaking to the locals, because I have.
The claim that “tourism has little financial benefits to the local economy in Venice” is debatable and context-dependent. Here's a detailed breakdown addressing both why the claim may be true in some aspects, and why it may be misleading or false in others.
---
Arguments Supporting the Claim:
1. High Leakage of Tourist Revenue
Much of the tourist spending in Venice ends up outside the local economy:
Many hotels, cruise lines, and travel agencies are owned by foreign or non-local entities.
Revenue often flows to large tour operators, not to Venetians themselves.
Day-trippers (especially cruise passengers) spend very little per capita.
2. Overtourism and Cost Externalization
The externalities of mass tourism (e.g. garbage collection, water bus crowding, maintenance of ancient infrastructure) are borne by the municipality and residents, not by tourists.
The economic cost of wear and tear on fragile historical structures is immense and undercompensated.
3. Loss of Local Businesses and Services
Traditional shops and services (bakeries, fishmongers, schools) are being replaced by souvenir shops and Airbnbs, which often serve short-term tourists.
This creates a "hollow economy" where real life becomes unviable for locals.
4. Depopulation and Real Estate Inflation
Real estate is increasingly purchased by investors for short-term rentals, pushing locals out and reducing residential density.
Venice’s population has dropped from ~175,000 in 1950s to under 50,000 today in the historic center.
5. Low Multiplier Effect
Much of the employment created is low-paid, seasonal, precarious, and lacks career development.
Limited reinvestment into the community fabric (education, public health, sustainable infrastructure).
---
Counterarguments (Why Tourism Still Brings Economic Benefit):
1. Tourism Is a Major Employer
A significant portion of Venetian jobs is in hospitality, transport, and retail, all tied to tourism.
Completely removing tourism would collapse the current local job market.
2. Tax Revenues
The city imposes tourist taxes (tassa di soggiorno) on accommodations and more recently, even entrance fees for day-trippers.
These can help fund infrastructure and conservation—if well-managed.
3. Export Substitute
Venice doesn’t have a diversified industrial base. Tourism is one of the few export-equivalent services Venice can offer due to its geographic isolation and fragile ecosystem.
---
Conclusion
While tourism contributes significantly in gross economic terms, the net local financial benefit is undermined by:
revenue leakage,
rising costs of living,
poor job quality,
and infrastructure stress.
Thus, the statement is partially true: mass tourism as currently structured in Venice is unsustainable and offers diminishing marginal returns to locals, especially compared to the burdens it imposes
It makes sense Japanese business owners would be interested in attracting inbound tourists as a financial solution to population decline for their businesses. At the same time, it can be possible for tourism to not be a solution to the underlying problem of population decline for wider society (including longer-term longevity of businesses, and the feasibility of future businesses).
As devil's advocate, do you not see a potential disconnect here between what makes financial sense for your customers and what makes logistical sense for the nation as a whole?
Developing a healthy tourism industry, developing English skills to communicate with the world at large, all make great sense for the country as a whole. I think these can be developed without losing the cultural aspects that make Japan great.
One could argue that the tourism industry was already beyond healthy, that the impact on English skills is negligible and that it hurts others, such as business people having problems do travel because hotels have doubled or trippeled their prices.
English skills put hospitality staff in a better position to serve guests, and ultimately reduce the burden/friction on the operators themselves.
As for business travel, the price of business hotels in Japan overall has not dramatically increased—certainly not beyond what corporate budgets can afford—and much of business travel is to cities that are not of particular interest to tourists. Staying outside the city and commuting by train is also an option.
I do live in Japan. Looking at APA Hotel in Ginza I see prices in the 10-20,000 JPY range ($66-$133) per night it just doesn’t feel insanely high. And thats smack in the middle of a major business/tourist area.
Well yeah, that doesn't look high in dollars for US people earning a lot, sure.
But I never said that it looks high, I said that it increased. You could easily find APAs for about 5000 JPY not long ago. And don't forget that we currently have summer, so much less tourists.
Its not clear how much of the increase is due to tourist demand vs. global price inflation in general. 5000 yen is now $33. Thats an unthinkably low price in the US unless you are going for bedbugs and a piss-stained mattress…
Prices in Japan seem to be de-coupling from the rest of the world… e.g. the “Japanese only” language-locked Nintendo Switch 2
It is very clear if you compare hotel prices to renting an apartment, which have almost been stagnant over the last 1-2 years (before they were rising quite a bit of course). At least very from 100%+ increases that I can see for hotels everywhere in Tokyo, including most of greater Tokyo area.
reply