Phone is a personal item. It doesn't disrupt anything by itself.

If a kid is using it during the class, then it is disrupting, but that can be dealt old-school way without the overall phone ban. If a kid starts stabbing others with a pencil, it will have to be dealt with, without the need for a pencil ban.

The phone disruption happens to the kids themselves and during the breaks (their free time).

Not phones. Smart phones.

That's why people need to be especially careful when others try to use such effective methods of manipulation.

1. Make it illegal and punish people. 2. Have a certain limit (like 5) on virtual ids one person can register. Allow to withdraw consent and close virtual ids.

> 1. Make it illegal and punish people.

Which you will prove how? With no record of which ID was used and with the person who used it being under 18 by necessity, this means there would be no evidence to even punish anyone old enough to be punished.

> 2. Have a certain limit (like 5) on virtual ids one person can register. Allow to withdraw consent and close virtual ids.

If the ID is only checked in a zero-knowledge way to register accounts, you don’t even need multiple IDs. You just need access to one, which can be used a million times.

All of the schemes to check if it’s being used multiple times start exposing more info or requiring a central party to manage. We start sliding down the slope of having the government manage ID checking centrally, which conveniently gives them a way to check which people are accessing which services.

Mostly it's enough to have "if a minor gets caught, he will be punished". Similar with the alcohol, except that alcohol consumption is short in duration, while usage of social media is constant, making it much more likely to be caught.

In this kind of case, the liability should clearly start before 18. Solicitations/attempts should be punishable as well. Punishment should also be "retroactive" - "oh, you are 20, but have been using this account for 10 years? Smack!" with consistency and public publicity/propaganda.

A much greater punishment should be done towards the adult who allowed it.

In a similar way as buying alcohol or drugs for minors.

Just let people freely register as many virtual ids as possible (and confirm with the real id). Then use that virtual ids to register in actual services.

This allows anonymity, security (no timestamps comparison), freedom of speech and expression (to have independent accounts not linked to the main virtual id).

Perhaps you are not aware, but Obamacare is actually Romneycare. It is set up exactly in the way Republicans wanted, instead of a single-payer system that the general public and especially the Democrats voters wanted. So why would Republicans critique the system that gave Insurance companies even more money?

Republicans wouldn't. Fascist cult members would be against ice cream if Obama was giving it away.

Most obese people think "I am a bit on a heavy side, but I am not that fat and definitely not obese".

People are generally in denial about their fat percentage and their muscle mass. Even somewhat healthy people (~20% fat) who are calculating how much they must lose in order to get to a healthy 12-15%, are surprised when the reality shows that they calculations were 5-15kg off.

Most people are wrong about their body type, in the wrong direction (overweight think they aren't that overweight, skinny think they need to lose weight).

Having an objective voice from your doctor giving you annual feedback and suggestions is better than ignoring the topic entirely.

that's gym bro science, there's no compelling health reason to lower your fat percentage to 12-15% and it carries as much risk as being rather obese when accounting for all causes mortality, particularly for women and people getting older

You are fat, though. For a man, the ideal fat percentage is 15-20%. 20+%, let alone 25%, is not healthy at all.

Severely downsizing or shutting down the military production, how has it been working to get it running again so far? And now imagine if Germany wouldn't have the luxury of hiding behind the Ukrainian/American/Polish/Finnish backs and would have to actually fight the war at the same time.

Well, returning the food production while the population is starving would have been an even harder problem.

You should understand what the term "third-world" means. It is not the synonym for a "developing country", let alone "shithole country".

You and I both know in what context they used that statement. Enjoy getting offshored.

Offence is taken, not given. I think it's an overreaction trying to find something to get offended about, instead of seeing the essence of what the parent was trying to clumsily say.