So some rich fucks get lavatized. No big fucking deal. They made their money exploiting the colored man and the environment, now the environment is having its revenge. Fuck those haoles.
Hilo is not filled with rich haole. I grew up as a poor haole on O`ahu.
You do know that the "native" Hawaiians themselves claim that there were people living there when they got there, and they "drove them away" which means killing them, right? Fuck everyone. The rest of the life on the planet will be a lot better off without brown people or white people.
Hawaii was "discovered" multiple times. I remember stories of the Menehune - an earlier race who inhabited the Islands, often portrayed as Hawaiian Leprechauns. The last non-European colonials came from Tahiti which is why Captain Cook was able to communicate with them.
I think in the US they pay to receive SMS. Which is by the way a weakness of using internet data for a chat protocol : you'll have to pay for the bytes even to read messages sent to you. Unless.. the carriers sort this out. So in countries with cheap carriers or carrier competition perhaps this RCS carrier protocol may be interesting.
In particular they may have offers that give RCS chat acess but no Internet access. That's good if you don't want Internet on a phone.
Back when we had a limited number of SMS messages we paid to send and receive. I admit it's backwards to pay to receive, but c'est la vie. With most of our plans carrying unlimited messages, we don't care anymore.
like most poor States they don't have the resources to build a power grid without help. The same is true for KY, AL, SC and just about the entire South. That's one of the reasons they're a net importer of Federal dollars.
PR's problem is that they're like a state but they're not. They have the disadvantages (paying taxes, military service requirements, etc) but none of the benefits. They've been trying to become a full state for ages but they lean Democrat and the Republicans have been in charge since Reagan (I'm not counting Clinton, he was so right wing he might as well have been a Republican).
Every few years they vote on a non-binding resolution to determine their political status. Options are status quo (territory), independence, or statehood. In June 2017, 23% of those eligible voted due to a boycott by the PPD party, but 97% of those who voted indicated a desire for statehood. In the previous referendum (2012), 46% indicated they wanted to keep the status quo; if that wasn't an option 61% favored statehood.
Are you saying that criminals are more likely to be Democrats? Perhaps the other way around: Democrats are more likely to be criminals?
I believe that being black makes one more likely to be charged for a crime, more likely to result in a more severe sentence, and less likely to have that crime pled down to a lesser charge with a prosecutor. There's a difference between being more likely to commit a crime and more likely to be charged with a crime. And African Americans are much more likely to vote Democrat.
You turned a political identification question into a racist stance then back to political bigotry. wow!
Marijuana prohibition originated as an excuse to imprison/deport Mexicans. It then became a convenient way of subjugating African Americans and then hippies.
The real reason Republicans want to kill this quasi-public, self-funding agency is
because they can't make money (off the little guy) by buying stock in it and sucking
profits out through a golden straw. How dare the common man have a reliable
way to deliver mail that doesn't pay for their yachts?
Well thought out except for the aside saying that Republicans want to make money specifically off the little guy. Rich people of both parties have no qualms of making money off others - rich or poor. Also, our taxes shouldn't directly pay for politicians' yachts.
In the States, the ability to brand someone as a criminal forever has its origins in Jim Crow laws. It's one of the reasons that the American South consists of large homogenous voting blocks (first it was Democrat, and since the Civil Rights Act it's been Republican). By making crime a scarlet letter, police, prosecutors, and the judiciary can target minorities and then enact voter disenfranchisement laws to keep them subjugated. This is why being "tough on crime" is a longstanding conservative agenda. It allows them to strip voting rights from their political enemies, maintain ghettos by limiting opportunities to African Americans (which maintains segregation), and provides them an excuse to maintain unequal hiring practices. This is why guys like Sessions are so adamantly against legalizing marijuana. Marijuana charges are the easiest way to get that scarlet letter on blacks and hippies.
Are you saying that criminals are more likely to be Democrats? Perhaps the other way around: Democrats are more likely to be criminals?
We have this thing called computers now. It can sort out the "you are in GPS area XYZ, speed limit is 85mph". (Or even use some image recognition to see the posted speed limit.)
The only thing that would make "actual speed limits" for cars work, is if manufacturers were liable for speeding instead of consumers. Some people will point to the whole "gun makers aren't liable for how they are used". If a gun specifically went off during bank robberies but not during home defense situations, would the gun manufacturer be liable? Hell yes. So why not the same for speeding and cars? (Especially now that's its technically possible to have a car that obeys speed limits.)
Would police also have to use a "speed limited car"? (I'm pretty sure most laws state that unless sirens are on, they can't do illegal maneuvers like speeding. This could be enforced also.)
The GPS in my phone can't even tell if I'm on the interstate or a frontage road. The interstate has a limit of 70 (actually 60 right now because of construction) and frontage road is posted as 35. There's another spot where my GPS jumps among 3 different roads not knowing which one I'm actually taking.
I like having a cache of money to use in case of emergencies. What do you do in a power outage and merchants can't take electronic payment? What do you do if your phone's battery dies or if your phone gets stolen? What do you do when you want to make a purchase you don't want tracked?
How do epidemics on those vessels differ from airplanes? Seems it would be even less likely to occur given the fresh air and far less cramped accommodations, yet haven't several occurred in the past few years?
Very few flights last more than 12 hours, but many cruises last for days. Cruises provide fresh air, true, but you have more time together.
"nothing in federal law allows them to exempt themselves from standard time"
Does it really work that way, that states can only do things if federal law explicitly allows it? That seems to run contrary to all western law since the Magna Carta, in the sense that they're asking for permission rather than having freedom by default (natural law) and then perhaps an explicit law is made to limit that for the good of wider society.
The Constitution was written such that any power not specifically given to the federal government is reserved for the state / local government (or the citizens). Unfortunately it rarely works that way in real life.
And those people could maybe lose the headscarf or turban when they move to the United States, a place where that isn't the norm. You can't expect only the GP to have to adapt to others. People immigrating to the US need to adapt their lives to fit in with ours too.
Immigrants should assimilate as much as is practical. They should learn our language as feasible. They should learn and respect our culture and religious beliefs, even if they don't convert. At the same time, they should maintain all that was good from the culture of their previous home. Immigrants should feel free to continue to practice their own religion as long as it's peaceable. People call America a melting pot, but it's more like a stew. You still recognize the ingredients, but they taste wonderful together. As for turbans and headscarves, aren't those religious clothing in some instances?
I do not want to pay $2500 out of pocket after insurance covers their portion. (happened)
There is a reason I am taking an Uber for $20.
My max out of pocket (in-network) is $2500 per person ($4500 per family); I thought this value was fairly common (I've had the same values for the past 3 insurance companies). What I don't know is if ambulance rides are covered.
If you're upfront with the uber driver and he accepts, then ok. He shouldn't be dinged if he refuses.
Most times an Ambulance isn't required. I don't see a problem here. If they choose an Uber over an ambulance, that's their chose.
It's more nuanced when using a taxi, Uber, or Lyft. At a minimum, you are putting the driver and other passengers (if any) at risk of contracting whatever you have. Then there's possibility of infecting the car or spewing unwanted bodily fluids onto the seats and carpet. The driver doesn't have EMT training so they can't be held legally responsible if your condition worsens or you don't make it to the hospital on time. If I'm driving myself (or have my wife drive me) it's my prerogative to take those risks.
Yes, and importantly we can do without Slashdot's click bait like headline.
The headline should have read 'female uber drivers earn less than men'.
In this day and age, is there any doubt as to how they chose to word the headline? Female Uber drivers earn less means the onus is on the female drivers; Female Uber drivers get paid less suggests bias on the part of Uber. Which wording is more sensational and more likely for earn clicks?
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?
There is this thing with the misnomer of common sense; apparently it's not that common. Anything can be taken to the extremes. When a baby is learning to crawl, we protect the stair cases with baby gates. As the child is ready, we open the baby baby gates as we traverse the stairs with the infant, ready to catch them if they fall more than a few steps. When the baby is more stable, we remove the baby gates all together. Appropriate protection based on the kid's age and maturity.
When I was 9 some neighborhood dogs broke the back of a neighborhood cat in our backyard. My dad stopped the fight, then took the cat into the shed where he euthanized it. Are you saying that my younger brother (5 years old) and sister (4 years old) should have seen my dad mix the chemicals, soak the rag, and hold it up to the cat's mouth? Knowing how to humanely kill an animal in pain is a useful skill, but one which should be reserved for more mature individuals.
So you let services which say kids aren't allowed to use them baby sit your kids then you blame those same services for not having child friendly features. Parents are full of themselves. There are kid friendly services out there, go use one of those if you need to use something.
You Tube Kids advertises itself as a kid-friendly version of the full-blown You Tube. The parent is ultimately responsible. A minor cannot enter into legal agreements, so Google has the parent sign up. I don't use You Tube Kids to babysit. I do not blame You Tube Kids when something slips through the cracks. Making suggestions as to how to improve the service isn't blaming, is it?
Even on Netflix there was pictures of penises on one episode of a kids show. Unless every video is manually approved something will happen, and even then a rogue employee can sneak something in.
In that particular case, Netflix trusted the producers of Maya the Bee which somehow missed it. Your comment sounds kinda defeatist: since we can't get 100% every time, we shouldn't even try. It became a big deal because parents made a big deal, so the media made a big deal, so more parents made a big deal, so children wanted to see what the hoopla was all about. Labeling it as dirty gave it the same appeal as the forbidden fruit.
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.
You are deciding what's appropriate for your kids. You are creating a safe teaching environment. The same thing could be accomplished by screening instructions on regular You Tube and watching that video later with your kids. As a father of 2 toddler boys, I'd want my wife present to help keep the kids within viewing distance without trying to touch the knives. The difference is the age of my kids and yours. You Tube Kids markets itself to parents of toddlers and preschoolers. If you could create filters per child on You Tube Kids, you could decide. As it stands, You Tube Kids doesn't know who's watching - just the email of the parent.
Is a useful skill. The earlier to learn the better.
Why is that disturbing?
Age and maturity are key. If a toddler sees someone sharpening a knife on YouTube, they might try to do it themselves without notifying a grownup. Toddlers lack the fine motor skills for sharpening a knife safely (plus might not understand the instructions correctly), creating an unsafe situation. One of my older brothers cut his hand badly trying to cut an apple with a butter knife because the sharp knives were out of his reach.
That would depend on the age of the children. Sharpening knives is not a task any responsible parent would assign to a pre-schooler; and pre-schoolers are the target audience of the YouTube Kids app. Older children can easily figure out how to get to the real YouTube and find all the cutlery-based entertainment they want.
I wish I had mod points! When my boys use YouTube Kids, it's under my email address (they're too young to create their own Gmail accounts according to the ToS). There is no way for YouTube Kids to know which child is watching or their ages. As a result, the recommendations are based on both boys' viewing habits. I've actually submitted a request to Google to remedy this situation. Having a per user profile also allows them to use some sort of ratings system (such as MPAA) to filter what gets shown to whom. Even Netflix lets me indicate who is watching: myself, my wife, my older boy, or my younger boy. We all get good recommendations and I can configure the boys' profiles to filter stuff I feel is inappropriate.
I started shooting before Kindergarten. Of course, back then my dad or grandpa would be present and teach all the proper safety rules. My nephews went on deer hunts at 5 with their dad. I learned to sharpen knives in Cub Scouts under the watchful eye of the den leader. Getting my own pocket knife was a reward for passing off merit badges and showing I was mature enough to handle it.
My older boy is only 3, so I don't want him to learn gun and knife safety from a random stranger on the internet. He does help in the kitchen with adult supervision. He turns the handle when we make popcorn on the stove. He cooks his own scrambled eggs. He uses a butter knife to spread peanut butter on bread. Based on age and maturity level I don't let him use sharp knives. He has seen his older cousins shoot guns, but he hasn't yet pulled the trigger. As his parent, this is what I feel is appropriate for him. Other children mature more quickly or more slowly. Give us some ratings and let us define the filters.
Why do you believe that fact checking websites are unbiased?
Years ago I went to Snopes because I heard from another source that a Republican candidate often blatantly lied. The Snopes article basically said the Republican candidate told the truth, but classified it as a lie because Snopes didn't think it was relevant.
This is doubly useful because it also keeps effluvia off your mitts. Not nice if you are wearing short sleeves, though. Personally I use a big bandanna when I can. These come in handy for lots of stuff, including sneezes, but especially to dry my hands in places that lack towels
Being./ I couldn't tell if sarcasm was included or not.
Slashdot Mirror
So some rich fucks get lavatized. No big fucking deal. They made their money exploiting the colored man and the environment, now the environment is having its revenge. Fuck those haoles.
Hilo is not filled with rich haole. I grew up as a poor haole on O`ahu.
You do know that the "native" Hawaiians themselves claim that there were people living there when they got there, and they "drove them away" which means killing them, right? Fuck everyone. The rest of the life on the planet will be a lot better off without brown people or white people.
Hawaii was "discovered" multiple times. I remember stories of the Menehune - an earlier race who inhabited the Islands, often portrayed as Hawaiian Leprechauns. The last non-European colonials came from Tahiti which is why Captain Cook was able to communicate with them.
I've been to South Dakota. SD bison burgers are no substitute for Texas cow burgers. Texas cows are tastier every day of the week.
The answer is the beefalo; or possibly grind bison meet with domesticated cattle meet to get the desired fat content.
Are you kidding, China is super diverse. They are like... 100% Asian!
That reminds me of something I recently saw about the diversity of Black Panther.
I think in the US they pay to receive SMS. Which is by the way a weakness of using internet data for a chat protocol : you'll have to pay for the bytes even to read messages sent to you. Unless.. the carriers sort this out. So in countries with cheap carriers or carrier competition perhaps this RCS carrier protocol may be interesting. In particular they may have offers that give RCS chat acess but no Internet access. That's good if you don't want Internet on a phone.
Back when we had a limited number of SMS messages we paid to send and receive. I admit it's backwards to pay to receive, but c'est la vie. With most of our plans carrying unlimited messages, we don't care anymore.
like most poor States they don't have the resources to build a power grid without help. The same is true for KY, AL, SC and just about the entire South. That's one of the reasons they're a net importer of Federal dollars.
PR's problem is that they're like a state but they're not. They have the disadvantages (paying taxes, military service requirements, etc) but none of the benefits. They've been trying to become a full state for ages but they lean Democrat and the Republicans have been in charge since Reagan (I'm not counting Clinton, he was so right wing he might as well have been a Republican).
Every few years they vote on a non-binding resolution to determine their political status. Options are status quo (territory), independence, or statehood. In June 2017, 23% of those eligible voted due to a boycott by the PPD party, but 97% of those who voted indicated a desire for statehood. In the previous referendum (2012), 46% indicated they wanted to keep the status quo; if that wasn't an option 61% favored statehood.
Are you saying that criminals are more likely to be Democrats? Perhaps the other way around: Democrats are more likely to be criminals?
I believe that being black makes one more likely to be charged for a crime, more likely to result in a more severe sentence, and less likely to have that crime pled down to a lesser charge with a prosecutor. There's a difference between being more likely to commit a crime and more likely to be charged with a crime. And African Americans are much more likely to vote Democrat.
You turned a political identification question into a racist stance then back to political bigotry. wow!
Marijuana prohibition originated as an excuse to imprison/deport Mexicans. It then became a convenient way of subjugating African Americans and then hippies.
Citation, please?
Is the USPS a private for-profit company? No.
The real reason Republicans want to kill this quasi-public, self-funding agency is because they can't make money (off the little guy) by buying stock in it and sucking profits out through a golden straw. How dare the common man have a reliable way to deliver mail that doesn't pay for their yachts?
Well thought out except for the aside saying that Republicans want to make money specifically off the little guy. Rich people of both parties have no qualms of making money off others - rich or poor. Also, our taxes shouldn't directly pay for politicians' yachts.
In the States, the ability to brand someone as a criminal forever has its origins in Jim Crow laws. It's one of the reasons that the American South consists of large homogenous voting blocks (first it was Democrat, and since the Civil Rights Act it's been Republican). By making crime a scarlet letter, police, prosecutors, and the judiciary can target minorities and then enact voter disenfranchisement laws to keep them subjugated. This is why being "tough on crime" is a longstanding conservative agenda. It allows them to strip voting rights from their political enemies, maintain ghettos by limiting opportunities to African Americans (which maintains segregation), and provides them an excuse to maintain unequal hiring practices. This is why guys like Sessions are so adamantly against legalizing marijuana. Marijuana charges are the easiest way to get that scarlet letter on blacks and hippies.
Are you saying that criminals are more likely to be Democrats? Perhaps the other way around: Democrats are more likely to be criminals?
We have this thing called computers now. It can sort out the "you are in GPS area XYZ, speed limit is 85mph". (Or even use some image recognition to see the posted speed limit.)
The only thing that would make "actual speed limits" for cars work, is if manufacturers were liable for speeding instead of consumers. Some people will point to the whole "gun makers aren't liable for how they are used". If a gun specifically went off during bank robberies but not during home defense situations, would the gun manufacturer be liable? Hell yes. So why not the same for speeding and cars? (Especially now that's its technically possible to have a car that obeys speed limits.)
Would police also have to use a "speed limited car"? (I'm pretty sure most laws state that unless sirens are on, they can't do illegal maneuvers like speeding. This could be enforced also.)
The GPS in my phone can't even tell if I'm on the interstate or a frontage road. The interstate has a limit of 70 (actually 60 right now because of construction) and frontage road is posted as 35. There's another spot where my GPS jumps among 3 different roads not knowing which one I'm actually taking.
I like having a cache of money to use in case of emergencies. What do you do in a power outage and merchants can't take electronic payment? What do you do if your phone's battery dies or if your phone gets stolen? What do you do when you want to make a purchase you don't want tracked?
The Belkin Linksys was another product as evidently they kept some rights to the name after they sold Linksys to Cisco.
No Foxconn did not buy Cisco.
I think you have that backwards. Belkin bought Linksys from Cisco in 2013.
How do epidemics on those vessels differ from airplanes? Seems it would be even less likely to occur given the fresh air and far less cramped accommodations, yet haven't several occurred in the past few years?
Very few flights last more than 12 hours, but many cruises last for days. Cruises provide fresh air, true, but you have more time together.
"nothing in federal law allows them to exempt themselves from standard time"
Does it really work that way, that states can only do things if federal law explicitly allows it? That seems to run contrary to all western law since the Magna Carta, in the sense that they're asking for permission rather than having freedom by default (natural law) and then perhaps an explicit law is made to limit that for the good of wider society.
The Constitution was written such that any power not specifically given to the federal government is reserved for the state / local government (or the citizens). Unfortunately it rarely works that way in real life.
And those people could maybe lose the headscarf or turban when they move to the United States, a place where that isn't the norm. You can't expect only the GP to have to adapt to others. People immigrating to the US need to adapt their lives to fit in with ours too.
Immigrants should assimilate as much as is practical. They should learn our language as feasible. They should learn and respect our culture and religious beliefs, even if they don't convert. At the same time, they should maintain all that was good from the culture of their previous home. Immigrants should feel free to continue to practice their own religion as long as it's peaceable. People call America a melting pot, but it's more like a stew. You still recognize the ingredients, but they taste wonderful together. As for turbans and headscarves, aren't those religious clothing in some instances?
I do not want to pay $2500 out of pocket after insurance covers their portion. (happened)
There is a reason I am taking an Uber for $20.
My max out of pocket (in-network) is $2500 per person ($4500 per family); I thought this value was fairly common (I've had the same values for the past 3 insurance companies). What I don't know is if ambulance rides are covered.
If you're upfront with the uber driver and he accepts, then ok. He shouldn't be dinged if he refuses.
Most times an Ambulance isn't required. I don't see a problem here. If they choose an Uber over an ambulance, that's their chose.
It's more nuanced when using a taxi, Uber, or Lyft. At a minimum, you are putting the driver and other passengers (if any) at risk of contracting whatever you have. Then there's possibility of infecting the car or spewing unwanted bodily fluids onto the seats and carpet. The driver doesn't have EMT training so they can't be held legally responsible if your condition worsens or you don't make it to the hospital on time. If I'm driving myself (or have my wife drive me) it's my prerogative to take those risks.
Yes, and importantly we can do without Slashdot's click bait like headline.
The headline should have read 'female uber drivers earn less than men'.
In this day and age, is there any doubt as to how they chose to word the headline? Female Uber drivers earn less means the onus is on the female drivers; Female Uber drivers get paid less suggests bias on the part of Uber. Which wording is more sensational and more likely for earn clicks?
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?
There is this thing with the misnomer of common sense; apparently it's not that common. Anything can be taken to the extremes. When a baby is learning to crawl, we protect the stair cases with baby gates. As the child is ready, we open the baby baby gates as we traverse the stairs with the infant, ready to catch them if they fall more than a few steps. When the baby is more stable, we remove the baby gates all together. Appropriate protection based on the kid's age and maturity.
When I was 9 some neighborhood dogs broke the back of a neighborhood cat in our backyard. My dad stopped the fight, then took the cat into the shed where he euthanized it. Are you saying that my younger brother (5 years old) and sister (4 years old) should have seen my dad mix the chemicals, soak the rag, and hold it up to the cat's mouth? Knowing how to humanely kill an animal in pain is a useful skill, but one which should be reserved for more mature individuals.
So you let services which say kids aren't allowed to use them baby sit your kids then you blame those same services for not having child friendly features. Parents are full of themselves. There are kid friendly services out there, go use one of those if you need to use something.
You Tube Kids advertises itself as a kid-friendly version of the full-blown You Tube. The parent is ultimately responsible. A minor cannot enter into legal agreements, so Google has the parent sign up. I don't use You Tube Kids to babysit. I do not blame You Tube Kids when something slips through the cracks. Making suggestions as to how to improve the service isn't blaming, is it?
Even on Netflix there was pictures of penises on one episode of a kids show. Unless every video is manually approved something will happen, and even then a rogue employee can sneak something in.
In that particular case, Netflix trusted the producers of Maya the Bee which somehow missed it. Your comment sounds kinda defeatist: since we can't get 100% every time, we shouldn't even try. It became a big deal because parents made a big deal, so the media made a big deal, so more parents made a big deal, so children wanted to see what the hoopla was all about. Labeling it as dirty gave it the same appeal as the forbidden fruit.
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.
You are deciding what's appropriate for your kids. You are creating a safe teaching environment. The same thing could be accomplished by screening instructions on regular You Tube and watching that video later with your kids. As a father of 2 toddler boys, I'd want my wife present to help keep the kids within viewing distance without trying to touch the knives. The difference is the age of my kids and yours. You Tube Kids markets itself to parents of toddlers and preschoolers. If you could create filters per child on You Tube Kids, you could decide. As it stands, You Tube Kids doesn't know who's watching - just the email of the parent.
Is a useful skill. The earlier to learn the better.
Why is that disturbing?
Age and maturity are key. If a toddler sees someone sharpening a knife on YouTube, they might try to do it themselves without notifying a grownup. Toddlers lack the fine motor skills for sharpening a knife safely (plus might not understand the instructions correctly), creating an unsafe situation. One of my older brothers cut his hand badly trying to cut an apple with a butter knife because the sharp knives were out of his reach.
That would depend on the age of the children. Sharpening knives is not a task any responsible parent would assign to a pre-schooler; and pre-schoolers are the target audience of the YouTube Kids app. Older children can easily figure out how to get to the real YouTube and find all the cutlery-based entertainment they want.
I wish I had mod points! When my boys use YouTube Kids, it's under my email address (they're too young to create their own Gmail accounts according to the ToS). There is no way for YouTube Kids to know which child is watching or their ages. As a result, the recommendations are based on both boys' viewing habits. I've actually submitted a request to Google to remedy this situation. Having a per user profile also allows them to use some sort of ratings system (such as MPAA) to filter what gets shown to whom. Even Netflix lets me indicate who is watching: myself, my wife, my older boy, or my younger boy. We all get good recommendations and I can configure the boys' profiles to filter stuff I feel is inappropriate.
I started shooting before Kindergarten. Of course, back then my dad or grandpa would be present and teach all the proper safety rules. My nephews went on deer hunts at 5 with their dad. I learned to sharpen knives in Cub Scouts under the watchful eye of the den leader. Getting my own pocket knife was a reward for passing off merit badges and showing I was mature enough to handle it.
My older boy is only 3, so I don't want him to learn gun and knife safety from a random stranger on the internet. He does help in the kitchen with adult supervision. He turns the handle when we make popcorn on the stove. He cooks his own scrambled eggs. He uses a butter knife to spread peanut butter on bread. Based on age and maturity level I don't let him use sharp knives. He has seen his older cousins shoot guns, but he hasn't yet pulled the trigger. As his parent, this is what I feel is appropriate for him. Other children mature more quickly or more slowly. Give us some ratings and let us define the filters.
Why do you believe that fact checking websites are unbiased?
Years ago I went to Snopes because I heard from another source that a Republican candidate often blatantly lied. The Snopes article basically said the Republican candidate told the truth, but classified it as a lie because Snopes didn't think it was relevant.
Well duh. Why would I dry my hands with a banana?
Look at the parent post by bdwoolman:
This is doubly useful because it also keeps effluvia off your mitts. Not nice if you are wearing short sleeves, though. Personally I use a big bandanna when I can. These come in handy for lots of stuff, including sneezes, but especially to dry my hands in places that lack towels
Being ./ I couldn't tell if sarcasm was included or not.