It depends on which country they fear the most. The company or rather it's owners have decided to enter into business in two different countries with different laws. It is up to the company to figure out which direction to go when their is a conflict between those laws, but that doesn't mean they are absolved of the consequences which either or both countries might then implement.
The two situations have perpetrators with easily recognizable motives that are completely different. In the case of the robbery the perpetrators are motivated by getting the money and then escaping. In a school or workplace shooting the perpetrator is usually hell bent on killing people, and sometimes trying to escape afterwards. So in the case of the robbery the best course of action by default is to lock down the location and try to negotiate a way out of the situation where no one gets killed. With the school shooting the perpetrator is going to keep killing until stopped or decides to end it themselves, so the best course of action to minimize casualties is to immediately confront the shooter. Those strategies haven't been endorsed by the law enforcement communities of the world because of the feels, they are statistically based on real events and outcomes.
That deputy displayed cowardice and or extremely poor judgement by delaying taking the appropriate action. Should we judge him and prosecute him for not going into the school right away? I really don't know if I could stomach doing that myself. I like to tell myself that I'd go charging in, but until placed in such a situation I'll never really know. However the deputy has shown that he won't or can't fulfill his duties when under pressure, so he has been forced out and the department will take their chances on a new hire.
I'm opposed to encouraging arming teachers. As bad as school shootings are, I am afraid we'd see more absolute numbers of gun related deaths in school as a result of their being more weapons present. I'm largely opposed to the concept of gun free zones, but the older I get the more I realize that having firearms around hundreds or thousands of hormonal children is just a recipe for disaster. It's different in other settings where the adult to child ratio is better and stress levels are more even. I know that when I was in grade school there were times where I legitimately felt like everyone there was out to get me, and honestly when I think back on those times as a rational adult I was hardly bullied at all.
Federal Law for a long time has defined the Militia as all able bodied men between 18 and 50, or something like that. The Militia is mentioned in the 2nd Amendment because in order to call up a useful militia they needed to be able to bring their own guns. If they called up a militia only to find that none of them owned, could maintain, and safely use a firearm then they wouldn't be of much use without expensive training and outfitting.
The modern professional military that is funded and equipped from public funds is a relatively modern thing.
I haven't watched that since it first hit video, but I seem to remember the story made a tiny bit more sense. Something like scientists had broadcasted a human DNA sequence, and then received a transmission in return that was a modified version of the DNA sequence.
I suppose such a method could be used to try and kill off alien civilizations but it wouldn't really work for transmitting your own civilization. A civilization is more than just the individual animals that are in it, without a culture it doesn't really count.
We as people are familiar with the differences in cleverness between people and usually adopt appropriate counter measures for a reasonable level of risk. The problem with AI is going to be that we might not be able to make accurate risk assessments regarding them. It is conceivable that an AI might be so clever as to increase its own mental capacity by ordering and installing more hardware.
In my area non-emergency numbers are forwarded to 911 if you call after normal business hours. Want to call in a noise complaint, you're going to end up talking to a 911 operator.
Laundry equipment is my favorite example of an expensive model being worse than the cheap base models. When I bought my set of laundry machines I got the $500 pair frankly because that was what I could afford. Right around the same time my Parents moved to a new house and my Father decided to splurge on a new $1000 washing machine. Within a few years the safety shutoff switch on the door of his washer failed because it had rusted apart. Then a couple years later the computerized controls failed and had to be replaced. They've spent something like $500 on just parts fixing a $1000 washing machine over the last 10 years. Mean while my set has had a water pump and air heating element fail, both of which cost about $50. When the water pump failed my wife actually patched it up with a hot glue gun so she could use it while we waited for the new pump to ship. And the dryer could still be used to tumble dry things in a pinch.
I have heard talk that the more expensive machines are much more energy and water efficient. Where I live though that isn't really much of a concern, power is relatively cheap and water is a few dollars per thousand gallons.
I think about this kind of thing anytime I read about a crime committed for profit. I could see it maybe being worth the effort and associated risk if the payoff was never having to work again. But most of the time people are committing crimes over what amounts to paltry sums of money. In 2006 the average bank robbery in the US only got about $4300, and the numbers are even worse for other types of robberies. If I wanted to get any where close to what I'd consider a tolerable living I'd have to rob a bank every month. And even with the FBI only ID'ing 50% of bank robbers the odds of getting caught just aren't worth it by any stretch.
Even if you got away with a massive haul of money the question then becomes how do you make it useful without getting caught. There is a reason organized crime always gets into money laundering. They end up with so much cash they can't legally explain earning, that they end up spending large parts of it cleaning the cash.
The more I think about it the more I'm in the camp that says we shouldn't waste our time trying to specifically address mass shooting events. Even today with violent crimes in general declining, mass shootings represent a minuscule proportion of deaths. Such events are of course tragic, and have a high emotional impact, but trying to address them directly is a waste of time and resources. We should be addressing violence and gun violence in general, not some tiny niche that represents casualty counts that are practically speaking rounding errors.
Fully fund existing legislation and institute penalties for not complying with those laws. For instance the USAF should have a significant % of their budget cut for a year and some leadership on trial for not reporting properly to the national background check database. Health care professionals should be at risk of losing their licenses for the same kind of thing. There are states that have reported ridiculously low numbers of people with mental dis-qualifiers to the back ground check database.
The background check system should be accessible to everyone and anyone. There should be an official website and application for use by the general public so that anyone desiring to transfer a weapon to another person can validate for themselves that the other person meets the minimum requirements. Then require all transfers of firearms have a clean background check.
If we ever get healthcare sorted out maybe we could require that annual physicals have a mental health component. That might help identify at risk people and head off mass shootings.
Psssh, if you've got time to troll on/. you've got plenty of free time for playing games. Everyone has hobbies and playing games is just as valid of a hobby as most any other.
I suppose that could be happening. However just last night I setup a brand spanking new computer for my kids to use. I installed Firefox, Minecraft, and Steam. I was switching between the children's profiles to set things up when I noticed that the start menu was now showing some new games that weren't there previously. Games that I've never heard of let alone purchased through either Steam or the Windows Store. I also didn't configure the Windows 10 install using any external accounts like email or Microsoft. From my perspective it appears entirely as if Windows just decided that I'd like some games and installed them on its own.
I'm really looking forward to the coming glut. I've started buying the components I want for a new computer as they go on sale. I figure I'll be buying the video card last and hopefully super cheap. Maybe I'll even be able to justify getting a 1080.
Commerce Clause could definitely apply, at least in so far as it has been applied in other cases. There is precedent in some case regarding a farmer growing grain to feed his own livestock. Some federal agency successfully argued in court that because his grain supplanted grain he would otherwise purchase, which might potentially come from out of state or be exported to another state, that the commerce clause applied. The Commerce Clause is so incredibly broadly interpreted that I would bet a skilled lawyer could find a way to bring it to bear in nearly any court of law.
I'm sure someone out there has a running tally for recorded history. There are a few Wikipedia articles listing a lot of the numbers and wars. And yes, our war like nature has certainly killed a lot of people. The absolute numbers sound scary but have likely only surpassed disease and other causes like auto accidents for short spans of time. Warlike violence has been on the decline over the long term for a long while. We hear more about it, and get to watch the video clips moments after it's recorded, but that is a result of advances in technology not a prevalence of such activity. The causes for war usually come down to a fight over resources and a conflict of values between two or more groups. As our current civilization has advanced more and more people find they have enough resources and their values align closely enough with their neighbors to dissuade them from risking violence. Humanity is not homogeneous yet and the distribution of resources is still pretty lopsided so we continue to have conflicts, but hopefully at some point in the future we'll get past that. We're certainly closer to that than we were even 50 years ago.
War was actually not as dangerous as you seem to imply. The single biggest killer was disease. Then there is the conflation of casualties with deaths. For example The Battle of Gettysburg which was the deadliest battle of the American Civil War involved 175,000 or more soldiers resulted in around 51,000 casualties. Of those 51,000 casualties there were only 7,863 deaths, the rest were injuries and captured or missing.
While there have of course been standout examples in recorded history of battles where no quarter is given and massacres happen. Those events have such a horrific reputation because they are not the norm. Typically in outright battles the combat ends when one side is clearly going to be the victor. It is after all better to go on living in most cases than to die violently.
I think it's a reference to cattle gates and grids. The gates are used in a fence in place of a normal fence gate with the advantage that farm vehicles can be driven straight through without needing to stop. The gates are made of metal pipes placed horizontally on the ground filling the space in the fence. When cattle try and step on the pipes they can't get secure footing and won't try to take a second step and instead backup. Cattle learn to recognize the gate as impassable to them, ranchers paint the pipes white so they stand out and are highly visible to cattle and ranchers alike. Once the cattle are accustomed to the cattle gate they can also be stopped by white lines painted with similar dimensions as they can't differentiate between the two. I'm guessing that the painted version is what's being refereed to in the summary.
I'm not really sure why the summary is using this as an example. I mean you'd think an AI program recognizing the similar pattern and taking action appropriate to the original stimulus would be a great first step.
I'm not in academia, but similar situation. Plenty of vacation time, separate sick time that rolls over indefinitely, some pension, 401k matching, and reasonable health insurance. Salary is well below the summaries stated average, however the job isn't in silicon valley. Around here a nice home can be bought for two years salary, and three or four years salary will buy a mansion.
I would argue that your Father was not humane in his dispatching of a mortally wounded cat. He prolonged its suffering so that he could euthanize it in a fashion that would be less traumatic for his own mental state. As my own Father once pointed out to me a single hard blow from a club like instrument is faster, simpler, and more humane. The reason your Father went to such lengths is that our society has for whatever reason decided to avoid the topic of death with children because we under estimate their ability to cope with it. In reality by failing to address it we handicap ourselves to deal with it when it inevitably happens to those around us.
When you have a kid that can't yet safely navigate the stairs solo you utilize safety equipment to prevent them from trying. What you don't do is forbid anyone from using the stairs in sight of the child. There is no good reason to prevent a kid from seeing how a knife is sharpened, or even used. There is every reason to restrict their access to knives until they are capable of handling a knife safely.
Yeah, but what does that say about using knives in a household with children? Out of fear that a child will try and emulate your actions that could be dangerous if done improperly, you never let them see you using a knife? Heaven forbid a child live in a house with stairways.
If the video of knife sharpening was showing some kind of plainly unsafe method, or deliberately trying to trick people into doing something dangerous it'd be objectionable. Otherwise I can't see the harm in it. Kids will mimic every little thing that you do, and then try and make up their own ways of doing it just for fun. Do we really want to advocate for parents abstaining from all activities around their children which the child might not be able to do safely?
I really don't know what to say to someone that thinks sharpening a knife isn't safe video content for a kid. Hell I sharpen my kitchen knifes on wet stones in the dining room. My kids will watch for the first couple minutes then get bored and do something else.
School never was about learning job skills. The entire point of school is to educate a person so that they can more readily adapt to whatever job they end up in. The exception of course being Vocational Schools, which are obviously all about training people for specific career paths.
I don't know about number six. I think you might see a lot fewer colleges and universities but I expect we'll see even more different courses of study rather than fewer. I say that because rather than pick a course of study based on what you can leverage to make a living people will pursue what interests them. I know for sure myself that if I were to go back to school I would make hugely different decisions depending on my motives.
I know a lot of people who stopped watching NFL games because of the kneeling, as a result I don't think I've heard a single conversation about the Super Bowl at work this year. While I support the protesting players philosophically, I'm pretty happy to not have to hear about football all day at work. I read mostly news sites that my co-workers would consider left leaning and I can only recall a single article which was actually about the commercials instead of the game. The game plan for both teams though is entirely predictable, score more points than the other team by a combination of preventing the other team from scoring and successfully scoring yourself.
Everyone thinks their sport or hobby is complex, and I suppose to some degree they're right. I just can't find the energy to give a crap about any of them. Sure baseball is boring as hell, so is football, and soccer. Although I'm not sure any of them can compare to NASCAR, a "race" that lasts for hours and hours and is just cars going in circles endlessly. At the fan level it all looks like Tribalism for the sake of Tribalism to me, and at the owner level it's all about extorting as much money as possible out of the fans sense of tribalism and their politicians in the form of subsidies.
Kids where I grew up started in Middle School. And where I live now they've got PeeWee teams all over the place. I imagine the intensity is lower at these levels but the risk of head injuries is still there.
To be honest the hissy fits the military has over physical fitness are mostly about looking pretty in uniforms. There are of course jobs in the military which are demanding enough to require a good or high level of physical fitness. Most jobs though don't require much if any fitness at all. The argument for everyone being a fitness model is that any troop could end up in a combat situation. Which is kind of true but largely because the branches don't recruit enough people to actually be combat troops and instead fill deployment slots with people from only vaguely related careers. For instance I knew a computer programmer who was deployed into a combat zone as a radio operator, because he was a "communications" troop. That was incredibly stupid because it put everyone he was supposed to support by running communications into added danger. His previous four years of experience never involved anything so much as requiring him to touch a radio, let alone coordinate fire support while trying to not get killed in a firefight. They should be recruiting more people for actual combat roles. And those troops should then be practicing and drilling enough that extra PT time should be unnecessary.
Slashdot Mirror
It depends on which country they fear the most. The company or rather it's owners have decided to enter into business in two different countries with different laws. It is up to the company to figure out which direction to go when their is a conflict between those laws, but that doesn't mean they are absolved of the consequences which either or both countries might then implement.
The two situations have perpetrators with easily recognizable motives that are completely different. In the case of the robbery the perpetrators are motivated by getting the money and then escaping. In a school or workplace shooting the perpetrator is usually hell bent on killing people, and sometimes trying to escape afterwards. So in the case of the robbery the best course of action by default is to lock down the location and try to negotiate a way out of the situation where no one gets killed. With the school shooting the perpetrator is going to keep killing until stopped or decides to end it themselves, so the best course of action to minimize casualties is to immediately confront the shooter. Those strategies haven't been endorsed by the law enforcement communities of the world because of the feels, they are statistically based on real events and outcomes.
That deputy displayed cowardice and or extremely poor judgement by delaying taking the appropriate action. Should we judge him and prosecute him for not going into the school right away? I really don't know if I could stomach doing that myself. I like to tell myself that I'd go charging in, but until placed in such a situation I'll never really know. However the deputy has shown that he won't or can't fulfill his duties when under pressure, so he has been forced out and the department will take their chances on a new hire.
I'm opposed to encouraging arming teachers. As bad as school shootings are, I am afraid we'd see more absolute numbers of gun related deaths in school as a result of their being more weapons present. I'm largely opposed to the concept of gun free zones, but the older I get the more I realize that having firearms around hundreds or thousands of hormonal children is just a recipe for disaster. It's different in other settings where the adult to child ratio is better and stress levels are more even. I know that when I was in grade school there were times where I legitimately felt like everyone there was out to get me, and honestly when I think back on those times as a rational adult I was hardly bullied at all.
Federal Law for a long time has defined the Militia as all able bodied men between 18 and 50, or something like that. The Militia is mentioned in the 2nd Amendment because in order to call up a useful militia they needed to be able to bring their own guns. If they called up a militia only to find that none of them owned, could maintain, and safely use a firearm then they wouldn't be of much use without expensive training and outfitting.
The modern professional military that is funded and equipped from public funds is a relatively modern thing.
I haven't watched that since it first hit video, but I seem to remember the story made a tiny bit more sense. Something like scientists had broadcasted a human DNA sequence, and then received a transmission in return that was a modified version of the DNA sequence.
I suppose such a method could be used to try and kill off alien civilizations but it wouldn't really work for transmitting your own civilization. A civilization is more than just the individual animals that are in it, without a culture it doesn't really count.
We as people are familiar with the differences in cleverness between people and usually adopt appropriate counter measures for a reasonable level of risk. The problem with AI is going to be that we might not be able to make accurate risk assessments regarding them. It is conceivable that an AI might be so clever as to increase its own mental capacity by ordering and installing more hardware.
In my area non-emergency numbers are forwarded to 911 if you call after normal business hours. Want to call in a noise complaint, you're going to end up talking to a 911 operator.
Laundry equipment is my favorite example of an expensive model being worse than the cheap base models. When I bought my set of laundry machines I got the $500 pair frankly because that was what I could afford. Right around the same time my Parents moved to a new house and my Father decided to splurge on a new $1000 washing machine. Within a few years the safety shutoff switch on the door of his washer failed because it had rusted apart. Then a couple years later the computerized controls failed and had to be replaced. They've spent something like $500 on just parts fixing a $1000 washing machine over the last 10 years. Mean while my set has had a water pump and air heating element fail, both of which cost about $50. When the water pump failed my wife actually patched it up with a hot glue gun so she could use it while we waited for the new pump to ship. And the dryer could still be used to tumble dry things in a pinch.
I have heard talk that the more expensive machines are much more energy and water efficient. Where I live though that isn't really much of a concern, power is relatively cheap and water is a few dollars per thousand gallons.
I think about this kind of thing anytime I read about a crime committed for profit. I could see it maybe being worth the effort and associated risk if the payoff was never having to work again. But most of the time people are committing crimes over what amounts to paltry sums of money. In 2006 the average bank robbery in the US only got about $4300, and the numbers are even worse for other types of robberies. If I wanted to get any where close to what I'd consider a tolerable living I'd have to rob a bank every month. And even with the FBI only ID'ing 50% of bank robbers the odds of getting caught just aren't worth it by any stretch.
Even if you got away with a massive haul of money the question then becomes how do you make it useful without getting caught. There is a reason organized crime always gets into money laundering. They end up with so much cash they can't legally explain earning, that they end up spending large parts of it cleaning the cash.
The more I think about it the more I'm in the camp that says we shouldn't waste our time trying to specifically address mass shooting events. Even today with violent crimes in general declining, mass shootings represent a minuscule proportion of deaths. Such events are of course tragic, and have a high emotional impact, but trying to address them directly is a waste of time and resources. We should be addressing violence and gun violence in general, not some tiny niche that represents casualty counts that are practically speaking rounding errors.
Fully fund existing legislation and institute penalties for not complying with those laws. For instance the USAF should have a significant % of their budget cut for a year and some leadership on trial for not reporting properly to the national background check database. Health care professionals should be at risk of losing their licenses for the same kind of thing. There are states that have reported ridiculously low numbers of people with mental dis-qualifiers to the back ground check database.
The background check system should be accessible to everyone and anyone. There should be an official website and application for use by the general public so that anyone desiring to transfer a weapon to another person can validate for themselves that the other person meets the minimum requirements. Then require all transfers of firearms have a clean background check.
If we ever get healthcare sorted out maybe we could require that annual physicals have a mental health component. That might help identify at risk people and head off mass shootings.
Psssh, if you've got time to troll on /. you've got plenty of free time for playing games. Everyone has hobbies and playing games is just as valid of a hobby as most any other.
I suppose that could be happening. However just last night I setup a brand spanking new computer for my kids to use. I installed Firefox, Minecraft, and Steam. I was switching between the children's profiles to set things up when I noticed that the start menu was now showing some new games that weren't there previously. Games that I've never heard of let alone purchased through either Steam or the Windows Store. I also didn't configure the Windows 10 install using any external accounts like email or Microsoft. From my perspective it appears entirely as if Windows just decided that I'd like some games and installed them on its own.
I'm really looking forward to the coming glut. I've started buying the components I want for a new computer as they go on sale. I figure I'll be buying the video card last and hopefully super cheap. Maybe I'll even be able to justify getting a 1080.
Commerce Clause could definitely apply, at least in so far as it has been applied in other cases. There is precedent in some case regarding a farmer growing grain to feed his own livestock. Some federal agency successfully argued in court that because his grain supplanted grain he would otherwise purchase, which might potentially come from out of state or be exported to another state, that the commerce clause applied. The Commerce Clause is so incredibly broadly interpreted that I would bet a skilled lawyer could find a way to bring it to bear in nearly any court of law.
I'm sure someone out there has a running tally for recorded history. There are a few Wikipedia articles listing a lot of the numbers and wars. And yes, our war like nature has certainly killed a lot of people. The absolute numbers sound scary but have likely only surpassed disease and other causes like auto accidents for short spans of time. Warlike violence has been on the decline over the long term for a long while. We hear more about it, and get to watch the video clips moments after it's recorded, but that is a result of advances in technology not a prevalence of such activity. The causes for war usually come down to a fight over resources and a conflict of values between two or more groups. As our current civilization has advanced more and more people find they have enough resources and their values align closely enough with their neighbors to dissuade them from risking violence. Humanity is not homogeneous yet and the distribution of resources is still pretty lopsided so we continue to have conflicts, but hopefully at some point in the future we'll get past that. We're certainly closer to that than we were even 50 years ago.
War was actually not as dangerous as you seem to imply. The single biggest killer was disease. Then there is the conflation of casualties with deaths. For example The Battle of Gettysburg which was the deadliest battle of the American Civil War involved 175,000 or more soldiers resulted in around 51,000 casualties. Of those 51,000 casualties there were only 7,863 deaths, the rest were injuries and captured or missing.
While there have of course been standout examples in recorded history of battles where no quarter is given and massacres happen. Those events have such a horrific reputation because they are not the norm. Typically in outright battles the combat ends when one side is clearly going to be the victor. It is after all better to go on living in most cases than to die violently.
I think it's a reference to cattle gates and grids. The gates are used in a fence in place of a normal fence gate with the advantage that farm vehicles can be driven straight through without needing to stop. The gates are made of metal pipes placed horizontally on the ground filling the space in the fence. When cattle try and step on the pipes they can't get secure footing and won't try to take a second step and instead backup. Cattle learn to recognize the gate as impassable to them, ranchers paint the pipes white so they stand out and are highly visible to cattle and ranchers alike. Once the cattle are accustomed to the cattle gate they can also be stopped by white lines painted with similar dimensions as they can't differentiate between the two. I'm guessing that the painted version is what's being refereed to in the summary.
I'm not really sure why the summary is using this as an example. I mean you'd think an AI program recognizing the similar pattern and taking action appropriate to the original stimulus would be a great first step.
I'm not in academia, but similar situation. Plenty of vacation time, separate sick time that rolls over indefinitely, some pension, 401k matching, and reasonable health insurance. Salary is well below the summaries stated average, however the job isn't in silicon valley. Around here a nice home can be bought for two years salary, and three or four years salary will buy a mansion.
I would argue that your Father was not humane in his dispatching of a mortally wounded cat. He prolonged its suffering so that he could euthanize it in a fashion that would be less traumatic for his own mental state. As my own Father once pointed out to me a single hard blow from a club like instrument is faster, simpler, and more humane. The reason your Father went to such lengths is that our society has for whatever reason decided to avoid the topic of death with children because we under estimate their ability to cope with it. In reality by failing to address it we handicap ourselves to deal with it when it inevitably happens to those around us.
When you have a kid that can't yet safely navigate the stairs solo you utilize safety equipment to prevent them from trying. What you don't do is forbid anyone from using the stairs in sight of the child. There is no good reason to prevent a kid from seeing how a knife is sharpened, or even used. There is every reason to restrict their access to knives until they are capable of handling a knife safely.
Yeah, but what does that say about using knives in a household with children? Out of fear that a child will try and emulate your actions that could be dangerous if done improperly, you never let them see you using a knife? Heaven forbid a child live in a house with stairways.
If the video of knife sharpening was showing some kind of plainly unsafe method, or deliberately trying to trick people into doing something dangerous it'd be objectionable. Otherwise I can't see the harm in it. Kids will mimic every little thing that you do, and then try and make up their own ways of doing it just for fun. Do we really want to advocate for parents abstaining from all activities around their children which the child might not be able to do safely?
I really don't know what to say to someone that thinks sharpening a knife isn't safe video content for a kid. Hell I sharpen my kitchen knifes on wet stones in the dining room. My kids will watch for the first couple minutes then get bored and do something else.
School never was about learning job skills. The entire point of school is to educate a person so that they can more readily adapt to whatever job they end up in. The exception of course being Vocational Schools, which are obviously all about training people for specific career paths.
I don't know about number six. I think you might see a lot fewer colleges and universities but I expect we'll see even more different courses of study rather than fewer. I say that because rather than pick a course of study based on what you can leverage to make a living people will pursue what interests them. I know for sure myself that if I were to go back to school I would make hugely different decisions depending on my motives.
I know a lot of people who stopped watching NFL games because of the kneeling, as a result I don't think I've heard a single conversation about the Super Bowl at work this year. While I support the protesting players philosophically, I'm pretty happy to not have to hear about football all day at work. I read mostly news sites that my co-workers would consider left leaning and I can only recall a single article which was actually about the commercials instead of the game. The game plan for both teams though is entirely predictable, score more points than the other team by a combination of preventing the other team from scoring and successfully scoring yourself.
Everyone thinks their sport or hobby is complex, and I suppose to some degree they're right. I just can't find the energy to give a crap about any of them. Sure baseball is boring as hell, so is football, and soccer. Although I'm not sure any of them can compare to NASCAR, a "race" that lasts for hours and hours and is just cars going in circles endlessly. At the fan level it all looks like Tribalism for the sake of Tribalism to me, and at the owner level it's all about extorting as much money as possible out of the fans sense of tribalism and their politicians in the form of subsidies.
Kids where I grew up started in Middle School. And where I live now they've got PeeWee teams all over the place. I imagine the intensity is lower at these levels but the risk of head injuries is still there.
To be honest the hissy fits the military has over physical fitness are mostly about looking pretty in uniforms. There are of course jobs in the military which are demanding enough to require a good or high level of physical fitness. Most jobs though don't require much if any fitness at all. The argument for everyone being a fitness model is that any troop could end up in a combat situation. Which is kind of true but largely because the branches don't recruit enough people to actually be combat troops and instead fill deployment slots with people from only vaguely related careers. For instance I knew a computer programmer who was deployed into a combat zone as a radio operator, because he was a "communications" troop. That was incredibly stupid because it put everyone he was supposed to support by running communications into added danger. His previous four years of experience never involved anything so much as requiring him to touch a radio, let alone coordinate fire support while trying to not get killed in a firefight. They should be recruiting more people for actual combat roles. And those troops should then be practicing and drilling enough that extra PT time should be unnecessary.