Last time I checked, "innocent until proven guilty" was still a foundational principle of Western law. Certain factions may be working hard to chip away that foundation with the intent of enforcing an ideological homogeny, but it's not gone yet.
And as far as i understand this law doesn’t change that. The state would still have to charge you and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did indeed possess hate material. Just like how it would have to prove you possessed a stolen gun or whatever. Which is exactly my point - the phase “automatically assumed to be guilty” is phrased to make it seem like the law throws out innocent until proven guilty, which i don’t think it does.
The goal was not that "everybody knows your name"; only that one's identity be well-known enough that it will not be forgotten, or at least (in this particular case) be rediscoverable. So the point is not undermined at all.
For a while there I was two-solving Letterboxed on an almost daily basis, but it regularly took 20-30 minutes to do.
I couldn't bear to three-solve it knowing a two-word solution existed, so I hut a stretch where I started not finishing and just looking up the solution the next day. For many of these, the two-word solutions required words that were so far on the fringes of my vocabulary that I knew I would have never gotten them.
Now I only spend about 5-10 minutes on it and if I don't think I'm onto anything by then, I move on with my day.
I studied and played Scrabble at a pretty high level. And unlike Spelling Bee, Letterbox accepts all the weird Scrabble words which makes it a lot easier for me. I’ll usually look at it for 10-15 minutes a day and if I can’t get a 2-word solve I just give up and move on to other things.
I think there’s even been 2 days with a 1-word solve!
I made the mistake of opening this on my phone. It is technically playable in that tapping the screen causes the sprite to fire and teleport around the screen. It is not feasibly playable this way, though, because movement range seems limited to the bottom half of the left third of the screen only. Still enjoyed the music & graphics, though!
Note that in your example, it's not the athletes that are being toxic (usually), it's the spectators.
It's common for sports fans to say things like, "we're playing Los Angeles next week" or "we picked up so-and-so in the draft" when there's really no "we" about it. The speaker is not involved in the action in any way other than as one observing it. But using that language makes them feel included in something bigger. And sometimes the brain starts to believe you really ARE part of that bigger thing, and you start taking actions to reinforce that belief.
(And I want it noted that I'm very much including myself in this assessment. This is not some "nerds > jocks" kind of thing. As an American football fan myself, I've made a conscious effort to stop saying "we" specifically because this has started to bother me.)
So no, participating in sports isn't unhealthy. Succumbing to the delusion of participation as a spectator, that's what becomes unhealthy.
Ish. Trash talking is a huge thing in sports. Similarly many prudish administrators go out of their way to punish the players for celebrations and such.
Edit: And I'm curious how this relates to the topic at hand. Not that I think it is unrelated, but specifically how. We seem to be in rather strong agreement that it is the relationship with a thing that is unhealthy, with regards to sports. Why or how would that be different with regards to social media?
The connection I see is something like "imaginary tribalism". The members of an audience form a one-sided sense of belonging that distorts their behaviors.
The mechanism seems to be the "media" part. All the promotional content is blasted out at scale in a way that triggers this false or amplified sense of social engagement. It's not the social part of social media that hurts, so much as the media platform part that enables so many promoters to thrive.
How much is an amplified sense of authority? It isn't just that there are promoters, but many of these promoters really dig into the ideas that they have the answers.
This leans into all media and aligns with how much credence is given to pundits. People with good ideas wind up digging in and pushing that they have the only reasonable idea.
I think a better (but less concise) way to phrase it is: "I shouldn't have to think to use your interface, because that's bandwidth I won't have available to think about your content." Thinking of this way creates a value proposition for the creator that aligns with the user's goals.
In this case, it's because the teacher is now left not knowing whether they have an opening in their schedule for the student or not.
This is a freelance teacher who is responsible for finding her own clients and managing her own schedule. If you let them know that you won't be taking any more lessons, they can find another student. If you lie to them and they think you'll be back for your lesson next week, they aren't going to look for another student to fill your time slot. So when you don't show up, you've just cost them to opportunity to earn money from someone else.
If I were in the same situation, I would absolutely institute a policy of continuing to bill for the student's time slot until they formally cancel services. Given the level of conflict avoidance being practiced here, I foresee such a policy being quite profitable.
I assume they have paid in advance already, as I inferred from text. And yes, of course, everyone bills until formal cancellation, at least here in Switzerland.
