If your line in the sand is "affect others" then guess what, some starving artist who has a "right" to stay in his apartment is depriving someone else of living there. That is certainly an effect on others.
That's a good example of someone I would take very seriously under the right circumstances. He is probably crazy. If he's babbling away on the corner, and I pass by, and he starts following me or something, I'd get ready to defend myself. Far more so than if I'm walking on the sidewalk and some random person talking on their cell phone is walking next to me. Similarly if some random normal person immigrates to my country, no problem, but if some nutjob who wants to kill people who insult his prophet wants to come, to me that's a problem to take seriously.
What you have to remember is that since God/Allah/etc don't actually physically exist, they aren't words for the same physical thing. "God" is a set of beliefs, so is "Allah", but they are different beliefs to different people. There isn't enough overlap to justify calling them the same, because there's no objective truth to fall back on, like a mountain that you can point to and say "See that's what I'm talking about!" and the other guy is like "Oh okay yeah that's what I'm talking about too, I guess it's just different words for the same thing."
Or another example is Germany vs Deutschland vs Allemagne. You can talk to someone who doesn't know your name for Germany, and point to a map and say "That!" and then they will immediately know that you're talking about the same thing.
Now if YOU personally think God and Allah overlap enough to call them the same, that's just YOU. To many people it's quite important that God had a son named Jesus who was actually God himself and came to Earth to die for our sins and was resurrected etc. To many other people it's quite important that Allah did NOT have a son named Jesus, that Allah could not possibly ever die for anything including our sins, therefore Allah could never be resurrected, etc.
It's the basis of two different religions, so there are huge differences, otherwise they wouldn't be separate religions right?
Now of course there are Arab Christians who use the word Allah to refer to the Christian god, and you're right for that, but not in general. It's all about context. That's why they're not semantically equivalent.
Our major population centers are further apart than Europe's.
In the US, LA to NYC is 2700 miles. Even a Chicago-NYC line would be about 800 miles.
You're defining major population centers as only the very top cities by population? If you want to do that you'd find Europe is also quite spread out. The top 3 cities in Europe by population are Istanbul, Moscow, and London. They are quite far apart. Istanbul to Moscow is like 1500 miles. Istanbul to London is 1800 miles. I don't think there's high speed rail between those cities.
But really there are hundreds of population centers of interest that could be connected in the US and many of them are much closer than that. Forget Chicago to NYC, how about Chicago to Minneapolis or something. And it doesn't even have to be population centers, it could simply be popular attractions. I live in Raleigh, NC and I think high speed rail to the beach would be great, combined with a bus service that went up and down the coast to major beaches, hotels, shopping areas, etc. If I could get to the beach in 1 hour instead of 3 hours driving, I'd go a lot more often, even in the off season. It's quite nice to walk along the beach in fall and winter, but not nice enough to justify 6 hours round trip driving more than once every few years.
Oh and getting rid of the terrible, awful menace of trying to find a parking spot at the beach? Priceless.
Think about some of the issues that come with roads though. 1. The federal government uses highway funds to coerce states into all kinds of things, from the drinking age to speed limits. 2. You need special licenses to operate various vehicles on the road and to transport hazardous materials 3. Roads (from what I've heard) end up with huge hidden subsidies that vastly benefit some users over others (e.g. trucks which account for a huge share of road wear but pay very little) 4. There's a huge amount of corruption when it comes to planning new roads (e.g. leaking plans so property developers know what land will go up), and it's a very slow process
That's not to say private roads would necessarily be better, but it does show that government roads aren't perfect and government internet may well have its own set of problems.
Do you want the government requiring licenses to use "their" internet? Do you want more material being restricted on the internet? Do you want the town council to say, possibly to huge voter approval, "no porn on our fiber, which by the way is the only game in town?" Do you want entrenched government interests to be in charge of maintaining and upgrading the network? I mean fiber is great, but what if we'd done this 30 years ago, and the government owned and operated the copper phone network, and they said "it works, it's good enough, it's too expensive to replace what isn't broken, etc" when you want faster internet?
I just don't know. As bad as cable companies and phone companies have been, is the government necessarily better? I know in some cases municipal networks have worked very well, but like in so many situations sometimes the early adopters are the most motivated and most dedicated and what works for them doesn't actually scale. Meanwhile with our crappy cable/phone system, suddenly we're saying massive improvement when new players enter. Google Fiber is coming.. and now our cable company has upped their internet speeds tremendously. AT&T is also here. I have gigabit internet now. My mom is still on cable, but is suddenly getting 20mbps up, 200mbps down... which is really damn good... for the same as what she was paying before (and less than what I pay).
Are you making the code as ugly as you can? It's a mistake to think that leaving out useful visual cues like parentheses and semicolons is "no worse" or that these markers are redundant. They may be to a compiler but not to a human. (Not most humans anyway.)
Re:Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
Here are some examples of Bay Area jobs and what they pay
The Bay area is one of the most expensive places in the world though. There are plenty of areas in this country where $15/hour suddenly gives you close to a median income.
Statistically speaking, people who make more money tend to get better education, and this results in having fewer kids, not more.
Yeah but I don't think you can assume that if you're artificially raising salaries. With respect to education, this raise will affect many people who are already done with education, as well as people who simply aren't capable of finishing high school or going to college.
With respect to birthrate, if this chart is accurate ( http://www.statista.com/statis... ) you're right that there is a shockingly high birthrate among the very poor and it declines quickly with additional income. But even if we assume artificially raising salaries will lead to the same results, it becomes question of whether more people will be bumped from the very poorest into a lower birthrate bucket, or from the $20k range into the $30k range which would result in an increase.
Anyway these were just some quick hypotheticals to illustrate how the effects of a minimum wage increase might increase overall prices more than just (cost of big mac * percentage share of labor cost * percentage minimum wage increase)
Re:Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
Raising the minimum wage form the current $7.25 an hour to $15 an hour is calculated to raise the cost of fast food for example by 4.3%
If some segment of the population suddenly has twice as much income, and maybe 5x as much disposable income, that's going to put upward price pressure on lots of goods and services.
For instance, the people who are living with 3 roommates each making minimum wage now decide to get a bigger place, or just have 1 other roommate (maybe a GF/BF). Suddenly demand for housing goes up. The people who used to compete for low rent places in crappy neighborhoods are now competing for medium rent places in decent neighborhoods. Now the manager, who lives in a decent neighborhood, faces a rent increase and wants a higher salary. Did your 4.3% include that?
I think people who think the minimum wage doesn't have a big impact are missing this key idea. It's all relative, and it's not just about direct costs. It's about, if I make 4x minimum wage right now, and suddenly I'm only making 2x minimum wage, that hurts me in many small ways that add up. Maybe these poor people start having more kids, and my kids' school gets crowded, and there's a bond referendum to build a bunch of new schools and hire teachers, and my property taxes go up. Maybe poor people stop taking the bus or walking to work and buy cars, and now there's more traffic, and the city/county/state need to add lanes to a bunch of roads, and there's a tax increase to pay for it. Now I'm being affected even if I don't eat fast food.
It's a selfish viewpoint, but really it's no more selfish than those who want a higher minimum wage.
Of course I did, they were installed when the neighborhood was built, and priced into the homes.
Maybe they're more expensive to add, and definitely if yards are sloped and need regrading to add a sidewalk, but from a quick search they're not exorbitant.
I guess another factor is yard size... a neighborhood with 1 acre plots will be more expensive per homeowner than one with 0.2 acre plots.
But hey, if there's a decent chance that some overcautious nutjob is going to get the city to lower the speed limit to 15 and/or install speed cameras and/or install speed bumps, the neighborhood may rather put up with the cost of sidewalks.
I wonder if your perspective on "unfair" moderation is related to your word choice? Maybe you think you're being fair here, but calling disagreement with feminist perspectives "a He-Man Woman Haters Club" is stupid. Adding "even if not of the flaming nutjob variety" to "conservatives" makes you sound like a troll.
How do you think your post should be moderated? Insightful? Interesting? It's not either of those. It probably should be Troll because it's designed to upset people and make them post a defensive reply ("I'm not a woman hater! You're a man hater!").
I've got mod points but I almost never mod posts down, so I thought I'd just ask you... what do you think should happen to your posts when you talk like that?
Are you sure? Unless you mean historical fences and walls that end very close to the street, people would only be giving up like 6 feet of yard to get sidewalks. And lots of people actually love sidewalks... having moved from an older neighborhood without them to a neighborhood with them, I think they're great.
You're not considering that the 4 lane avenue is wider and probably busier, and thus scarier to kids. A sleepy residential street on the other hand is the kind that a kid might cross without really thinking about because 9 times out of 10 (or more) a car isn't coming.
Therefore you can't assume the streets have to be treated the same just because of proximity.
Without disagreeing, I'd like to point out that if anyone can compel me to print their words on my platform, I no longer have the right to choose with whom I associate.
I see what you're saying and that's a great point, and perhaps I didn't make this clear, but I wasn't talking about the government enforcing a greater protection of free speech than it currently does. I'm only talking about whether a given individual can say they support free speech, and to what extent.
I would note that your freedom of association is already limited by the government if your platform is public. For instance, anti-discrimination laws are a pretty blatant violation of that right. I'm not 100% sure but I anti-discrimination might also cover speech, like if your platform says that people can't publish anything that is in the interest of black people (at the discretion of some officer of the company), is that legal? You might let black people publish stuff, and white people publish stuff, and make it a uniform ban (so black and white people both can't talk about things in the interest of black people), but is that legal? What if it turned out that the ban was affecting black people 90% of the time, so it was disproportionate based on race? I don't know.
Certainly even if it were legal, if your platform had a policy like that, nobody would agree that you're a strong supporter of free speech.
I think it's unfair to characterize a typical degree of support for the right to free speech as "not supporting it very much".
Perhaps I'm more optimistic of you, but I think most people support free speech outside of government interference. For instance, if you see a comment that you disagree with here on slashdot, do you mod it troll? Probably not. What do you think of people who do mod comments as troll if they just disagree with them? If you have a negative opinion of them, then you're demonstrating that you don't like their abuse of the moderation system to suppress speech. If you've ever shared those feelings, or commented "why was this modded troll?" then you've participated in exerting social pressure to protect free speech.
Again, if you go around modding comments troll just because you disagree with them, I don't think you can call yourself a strong supporter of free speech.
Nope, you got it backwards. The concept of free speech has nothing to do with the government. The 1st amendment right to free speech is a constraint put on the government to uphold the principle in limited circumstances, it does not define or limit the principle itself.
One's support for free speech is generally a matter of degree. If your support ends at the 1st amendment, and you think that private "consequences" for free speech are fine and dandy, then you don't support it very much.
That's the only difference huh, not the sex slaves that ISIS has, the people they burn in cages, the children they have participate in beheadings, the islamic motivation of the group, and so on? That's all about the same to you? So edgy, much wow.
Interesting points, although I'd note the total cost of production is not the criticism, it's the scrap value of the metal.
If a 5 cent coin costs 10 cents to produce, but 9 of those cents are labor and 1 is of material, then nobody is going to scrap 5 cent coins, and nobody is going to counterfeit them either.
If a 5 cent coin costs 10 cents to produce, but 9 of those cents are material and 1 cent is labor, then people will scrap them to get those 9 cents back.
I know lots of people who "backed up the truck" when silver "dipped" back down below $30/ozt in 2012
Oh man, my dad almost did that. He was really into gold and silver, but luckily I was always able to talk him out of it. Unfortunately he did invest in some gold-related stocks that have done horribly.
I limited the devices to 1 Mbit on the home network and they haven't complained of any problems. They are actually able to watch more videos while at the same time using less of the limited resource.
So you have a data cap on your home internet connection? That sucks.
There's almost no reason to use a high quality stream on a device with a 4 inch screen.
You typically hold a 4 inch screen pretty close, so you actually do need high quality streams.
That said, kids don't seem to care that much about HD. They'll happily watch cartoons on youtube that appear to be from a 30 year old VHS tape ripped with the highest compression settings available, to the point where you can't make out features on characters' faces.
Personally I can't stand it. Perhaps it reminds me too much of the few years I went without glasses as a child when I actually needed them. No thanks, 1080p all the time when available for me.
Slashdot Mirror
If your line in the sand is "affect others" then guess what, some starving artist who has a "right" to stay in his apartment is depriving someone else of living there. That is certainly an effect on others.
That's a good example of someone I would take very seriously under the right circumstances. He is probably crazy. If he's babbling away on the corner, and I pass by, and he starts following me or something, I'd get ready to defend myself. Far more so than if I'm walking on the sidewalk and some random person talking on their cell phone is walking next to me. Similarly if some random normal person immigrates to my country, no problem, but if some nutjob who wants to kill people who insult his prophet wants to come, to me that's a problem to take seriously.
It's not rational to ignore irrationality.
I don't understand. The fact that they get all riled up over someone offending their imaginary buddy is why you need to take them seriously.
Oh, please, do fuck off. Remember the Inquisition? Burning at stake? Killing of the unbelivers?
And what does that have to do with idiots today calling Islam the religion of peace?
It's standard practice for any religion: you're either with us or you're next on the list.
Well that's wrong. 0/2, keep swinging buddy.
What you have to remember is that since God/Allah/etc don't actually physically exist, they aren't words for the same physical thing. "God" is a set of beliefs, so is "Allah", but they are different beliefs to different people. There isn't enough overlap to justify calling them the same, because there's no objective truth to fall back on, like a mountain that you can point to and say "See that's what I'm talking about!" and the other guy is like "Oh okay yeah that's what I'm talking about too, I guess it's just different words for the same thing."
Or another example is Germany vs Deutschland vs Allemagne. You can talk to someone who doesn't know your name for Germany, and point to a map and say "That!" and then they will immediately know that you're talking about the same thing.
Now if YOU personally think God and Allah overlap enough to call them the same, that's just YOU. To many people it's quite important that God had a son named Jesus who was actually God himself and came to Earth to die for our sins and was resurrected etc. To many other people it's quite important that Allah did NOT have a son named Jesus, that Allah could not possibly ever die for anything including our sins, therefore Allah could never be resurrected, etc.
It's the basis of two different religions, so there are huge differences, otherwise they wouldn't be separate religions right?
Now of course there are Arab Christians who use the word Allah to refer to the Christian god, and you're right for that, but not in general. It's all about context. That's why they're not semantically equivalent.
Our major population centers are further apart than Europe's.
In the US, LA to NYC is 2700 miles. Even a Chicago-NYC line would be about 800 miles.
You're defining major population centers as only the very top cities by population? If you want to do that you'd find Europe is also quite spread out. The top 3 cities in Europe by population are Istanbul, Moscow, and London. They are quite far apart. Istanbul to Moscow is like 1500 miles. Istanbul to London is 1800 miles. I don't think there's high speed rail between those cities.
But really there are hundreds of population centers of interest that could be connected in the US and many of them are much closer than that. Forget Chicago to NYC, how about Chicago to Minneapolis or something. And it doesn't even have to be population centers, it could simply be popular attractions. I live in Raleigh, NC and I think high speed rail to the beach would be great, combined with a bus service that went up and down the coast to major beaches, hotels, shopping areas, etc. If I could get to the beach in 1 hour instead of 3 hours driving, I'd go a lot more often, even in the off season. It's quite nice to walk along the beach in fall and winter, but not nice enough to justify 6 hours round trip driving more than once every few years.
Oh and getting rid of the terrible, awful menace of trying to find a parking spot at the beach? Priceless.
Think about some of the issues that come with roads though.
1. The federal government uses highway funds to coerce states into all kinds of things, from the drinking age to speed limits.
2. You need special licenses to operate various vehicles on the road and to transport hazardous materials
3. Roads (from what I've heard) end up with huge hidden subsidies that vastly benefit some users over others (e.g. trucks which account for a huge share of road wear but pay very little)
4. There's a huge amount of corruption when it comes to planning new roads (e.g. leaking plans so property developers know what land will go up), and it's a very slow process
That's not to say private roads would necessarily be better, but it does show that government roads aren't perfect and government internet may well have its own set of problems.
Do you want the government requiring licenses to use "their" internet?
Do you want more material being restricted on the internet?
Do you want the town council to say, possibly to huge voter approval, "no porn on our fiber, which by the way is the only game in town?"
Do you want entrenched government interests to be in charge of maintaining and upgrading the network? I mean fiber is great, but what if we'd done this 30 years ago, and the government owned and operated the copper phone network, and they said "it works, it's good enough, it's too expensive to replace what isn't broken, etc" when you want faster internet?
I just don't know. As bad as cable companies and phone companies have been, is the government necessarily better? I know in some cases municipal networks have worked very well, but like in so many situations sometimes the early adopters are the most motivated and most dedicated and what works for them doesn't actually scale. Meanwhile with our crappy cable/phone system, suddenly we're saying massive improvement when new players enter. Google Fiber is coming.. and now our cable company has upped their internet speeds tremendously. AT&T is also here. I have gigabit internet now. My mom is still on cable, but is suddenly getting 20mbps up, 200mbps down... which is really damn good... for the same as what she was paying before (and less than what I pay).
Are you making the code as ugly as you can? It's a mistake to think that leaving out useful visual cues like parentheses and semicolons is "no worse" or that these markers are redundant. They may be to a compiler but not to a human. (Not most humans anyway.)
Here are some examples of Bay Area jobs and what they pay
The Bay area is one of the most expensive places in the world though. There are plenty of areas in this country where $15/hour suddenly gives you close to a median income.
Statistically speaking, people who make more money tend to get better education, and this results in having fewer kids, not more.
Yeah but I don't think you can assume that if you're artificially raising salaries. With respect to education, this raise will affect many people who are already done with education, as well as people who simply aren't capable of finishing high school or going to college.
With respect to birthrate, if this chart is accurate ( http://www.statista.com/statis... ) you're right that there is a shockingly high birthrate among the very poor and it declines quickly with additional income. But even if we assume artificially raising salaries will lead to the same results, it becomes question of whether more people will be bumped from the very poorest into a lower birthrate bucket, or from the $20k range into the $30k range which would result in an increase.
Anyway these were just some quick hypotheticals to illustrate how the effects of a minimum wage increase might increase overall prices more than just (cost of big mac * percentage share of labor cost * percentage minimum wage increase)
Raising the minimum wage form the current $7.25 an hour to $15 an hour is calculated to raise the cost of fast food for example by 4.3%
If some segment of the population suddenly has twice as much income, and maybe 5x as much disposable income, that's going to put upward price pressure on lots of goods and services.
For instance, the people who are living with 3 roommates each making minimum wage now decide to get a bigger place, or just have 1 other roommate (maybe a GF/BF). Suddenly demand for housing goes up. The people who used to compete for low rent places in crappy neighborhoods are now competing for medium rent places in decent neighborhoods. Now the manager, who lives in a decent neighborhood, faces a rent increase and wants a higher salary. Did your 4.3% include that?
I think people who think the minimum wage doesn't have a big impact are missing this key idea. It's all relative, and it's not just about direct costs. It's about, if I make 4x minimum wage right now, and suddenly I'm only making 2x minimum wage, that hurts me in many small ways that add up. Maybe these poor people start having more kids, and my kids' school gets crowded, and there's a bond referendum to build a bunch of new schools and hire teachers, and my property taxes go up. Maybe poor people stop taking the bus or walking to work and buy cars, and now there's more traffic, and the city/county/state need to add lanes to a bunch of roads, and there's a tax increase to pay for it. Now I'm being affected even if I don't eat fast food.
It's a selfish viewpoint, but really it's no more selfish than those who want a higher minimum wage.
Yeahhhhh... you sound like quite an idiot.
Seriously, you're exactly the kind of moderator and moderation I'm talking about
lol yeah might want to bone up on that "working grasp of the English language" hehe
But what do I know, I'm a kind of moderation. Dummy hehe.
Of course I did, they were installed when the neighborhood was built, and priced into the homes.
Maybe they're more expensive to add, and definitely if yards are sloped and need regrading to add a sidewalk, but from a quick search they're not exorbitant.
I guess another factor is yard size... a neighborhood with 1 acre plots will be more expensive per homeowner than one with 0.2 acre plots.
But hey, if there's a decent chance that some overcautious nutjob is going to get the city to lower the speed limit to 15 and/or install speed cameras and/or install speed bumps, the neighborhood may rather put up with the cost of sidewalks.
Totally agree on downmods, even though I rarely use them.
But is it true that unpopular opinions are downmodded? I see unpopular opinions sitting at +5 quite often.
I wonder if your perspective on "unfair" moderation is related to your word choice? Maybe you think you're being fair here, but calling disagreement with feminist perspectives "a He-Man Woman Haters Club" is stupid. Adding "even if not of the flaming nutjob variety" to "conservatives" makes you sound like a troll.
How do you think your post should be moderated? Insightful? Interesting? It's not either of those. It probably should be Troll because it's designed to upset people and make them post a defensive reply ("I'm not a woman hater! You're a man hater!").
I've got mod points but I almost never mod posts down, so I thought I'd just ask you... what do you think should happen to your posts when you talk like that?
Are you sure? Unless you mean historical fences and walls that end very close to the street, people would only be giving up like 6 feet of yard to get sidewalks. And lots of people actually love sidewalks... having moved from an older neighborhood without them to a neighborhood with them, I think they're great.
You're not considering that the 4 lane avenue is wider and probably busier, and thus scarier to kids. A sleepy residential street on the other hand is the kind that a kid might cross without really thinking about because 9 times out of 10 (or more) a car isn't coming.
Therefore you can't assume the streets have to be treated the same just because of proximity.
Without disagreeing, I'd like to point out that if anyone can compel me to print their words on my platform, I no longer have the right to choose with whom I associate.
I see what you're saying and that's a great point, and perhaps I didn't make this clear, but I wasn't talking about the government enforcing a greater protection of free speech than it currently does. I'm only talking about whether a given individual can say they support free speech, and to what extent.
I would note that your freedom of association is already limited by the government if your platform is public. For instance, anti-discrimination laws are a pretty blatant violation of that right. I'm not 100% sure but I anti-discrimination might also cover speech, like if your platform says that people can't publish anything that is in the interest of black people (at the discretion of some officer of the company), is that legal? You might let black people publish stuff, and white people publish stuff, and make it a uniform ban (so black and white people both can't talk about things in the interest of black people), but is that legal? What if it turned out that the ban was affecting black people 90% of the time, so it was disproportionate based on race? I don't know.
Certainly even if it were legal, if your platform had a policy like that, nobody would agree that you're a strong supporter of free speech.
I think it's unfair to characterize a typical degree of support for the right to free speech as "not supporting it very much".
Perhaps I'm more optimistic of you, but I think most people support free speech outside of government interference. For instance, if you see a comment that you disagree with here on slashdot, do you mod it troll? Probably not. What do you think of people who do mod comments as troll if they just disagree with them? If you have a negative opinion of them, then you're demonstrating that you don't like their abuse of the moderation system to suppress speech. If you've ever shared those feelings, or commented "why was this modded troll?" then you've participated in exerting social pressure to protect free speech.
Again, if you go around modding comments troll just because you disagree with them, I don't think you can call yourself a strong supporter of free speech.
They have a "no hate speech" clause? They must not enforce at all, or have a very biased idea of what hate speech is.
Nope, you got it backwards. The concept of free speech has nothing to do with the government. The 1st amendment right to free speech is a constraint put on the government to uphold the principle in limited circumstances, it does not define or limit the principle itself.
One's support for free speech is generally a matter of degree. If your support ends at the 1st amendment, and you think that private "consequences" for free speech are fine and dandy, then you don't support it very much.
That's the only difference huh, not the sex slaves that ISIS has, the people they burn in cages, the children they have participate in beheadings, the islamic motivation of the group, and so on? That's all about the same to you? So edgy, much wow.
Erm no, because the banks in turn borrowed that money from other people... investors, savers, the government, etc.
Interesting points, although I'd note the total cost of production is not the criticism, it's the scrap value of the metal.
If a 5 cent coin costs 10 cents to produce, but 9 of those cents are labor and 1 is of material, then nobody is going to scrap 5 cent coins, and nobody is going to counterfeit them either.
If a 5 cent coin costs 10 cents to produce, but 9 of those cents are material and 1 cent is labor, then people will scrap them to get those 9 cents back.
I know lots of people who "backed up the truck" when silver "dipped" back down below $30/ozt in 2012
Oh man, my dad almost did that. He was really into gold and silver, but luckily I was always able to talk him out of it. Unfortunately he did invest in some gold-related stocks that have done horribly.
The inverse problem is that when you can profit by creating money, you get more counterfeiting.
So what is a bigger problem currently, counterfeit money or scrapped money?
And when it comes to pennies, how many are melted each year vs just lost or thrown away?
I limited the devices to 1 Mbit on the home network and they haven't complained of any problems. They are actually able to watch more videos while at the same time using less of the limited resource.
So you have a data cap on your home internet connection? That sucks.
There's almost no reason to use a high quality stream on a device with a 4 inch screen.
You typically hold a 4 inch screen pretty close, so you actually do need high quality streams.
That said, kids don't seem to care that much about HD. They'll happily watch cartoons on youtube that appear to be from a 30 year old VHS tape ripped with the highest compression settings available, to the point where you can't make out features on characters' faces.
Personally I can't stand it. Perhaps it reminds me too much of the few years I went without glasses as a child when I actually needed them. No thanks, 1080p all the time when available for me.