I have a middle school student and have observed this trend personally. Our school is considering a cell phone ban during school hours (can still bring the phone to school, goes in locker, get it on the way out), which I 100% support.
We use parental controls on iOS but those are buggy (and Android even worse from what I heard).
> a student could be reading a bunch of fiction on their phone
It's a nice thought, but I have kids that age and never have I once seen this happen or heard of it happening with any of their friends/classmates; that's not what phones are for according to GenZ/GenA
Man, I love reading, but I simply can't focus on reading a long book on my phone. There are too many distractions, too many urges that are way too easy to satisfy with all sorts of time wasters. So if I, as somebody who reads a lot of books and has been an avid reader since childhood, can't resist wasting time and focus on reading on my phone, then I can't imagine any significant number of kids would be able to.
According to everyone, I think. E-readers exist for that precise reason, although actual books are the best according to me: no battery, more resilient, can be lent. Phones are great as dictionaries (notably foreign language dictionaries).
Because most liberals consider that one person having full control over what is meant to be a neutral social platform, is anti-democratic (the philosophy, not the party). Even when Bezos bought WashPo, he took steps to ensure that its editorial process remained independent.
Yes, you do have media networks that are clearly partisan: Fox on one side, MSNBC on the other (though not nearly as blatantly), but Twitter is/was an open network for _individual users_ to communicate and broadcast their views. Elon has turned it into a partisan media network.
Regardless of which party you support, there is a clear problem with an activist billionaire having complete control over a major media platform. And to all the people who said this was never going to happen when Elon took over Twitter, you should have known better.
Certainly the Twitter board and CEOs had political biases. But they didn't have the control over the network and were ultimately accountable to public shareholders, and even to the Twitter userbase themselves (pissing off a great deal of them is bad business). Elon is accountable to no one, and he has enough $$$ that he can piss off anyone he likes.
X is now Fox 2.0.
As for the politics, I don't disagree so much with Republicans as I do with Trump. He supported an attempt to violently overturn a democratic election, something that only happens in, to use Trump's words, "shithole" countries. That for me ends the discussion right there -- no need to debate the merits of either candidate.
It just shows how far off the path of democracy the USA has fallen, and Musk along with it. He's just another wanna-be dictator now.
Could reduce the number of bureaucrats, but supporting the elderly is part of having a stable somewhat equitable society. The post Ww2 boom and the birth rate decreasing has made that a greater burden on the younger generation than it would otherwise be.
"Sorry just because older generation didn't have enough children you will now be forced to give up 50+% of your income to support them".
That will surely encourage young people to have their own children. They will pay even more!
60% is about how much you would pay in Germany on 100k EUR salary - 50% in income tax + social security + healthcare tax and then 19% VAT on most things you buy.
In my view it's just immoral to place this burden on young people.
EZ pass lanes are not a good example because they require very few employees relative to the number of cars, at least on high-traffic roads like Golden Gate. So those can be eliminated without impacting a large number of jobs, and at significant benefit to all drivers.
A better example would be replacing all baristas with robots, or truck drivers with self-driving trucks. Those would have massive negative impact on employment and society in general, while bringing huge returns to some lucky corporate winners, in effect a massive transfer of wealth from workers to shareholders.
All that to say, the US definitely needs more unions.
Per the article [1], the same ILA union president was previously against EZ Pass.
Baristas provide a point of human contact and socialization which cannot be automated while preserving humanity. Truck driving can, and it’s an isolated job. Automating it would lower shipping costs, which lowers inflation, enables faster turnaround since robots don’t need to sleep, improve safety (theoretically) because robots don’t get tired and robots don’t take amphetamines to work crazy schedules, and can be programmed to respect speed limits etc.
Now that said, truck driving is also an absolutely huge job source. To replace that would be to kill of a decent income for a huge percent of the population. More important than a union, we need to have government/policy handle any massive workforce transition.
Yes, I like that I don’t have to order things in person anymore, just use the web, an app, or a kiosk. I’m not sure I’m in the minority either, but that’s for the entrepreneurs to figure out.
> All that to say, the US definitely needs more unions.
What do unions have to do with industries where not many humans are needed. If you use unions to protect legacy jobs, in the long run investors will just stop investing in them (or let their investments wither as they withdraw capital) and invest in new industries where unions haven’t stuck their hands in things yet. So goodbye cafes, hello drones delivering coffee via your chimney or something (no barista job was replaced by a robot, they just replaced the entire industry instead). You can’t distort the cost of labor for too long without strong government control over the economy; better to just spread the benefits of automation out more evenly via corporate rather than labor taxation (to fund UBI, universal healthcare, etc…).
>A better example would be replacing all baristas with robots, or truck drivers with self-driving trucks.
For something less speculative, how about elevator attendants? Needing one in every elevator equates to a massive workforce, probably bigger than dock workers. Why shouldn't we bring those back aside from status quo bias?
> while bringing huge returns to some lucky corporate winners, in effect a massive transfer of wealth from workers to shareholders.
Everyone else would also benefit from cheaper espressos and goods (through cheaper shipping)
we're well on our way to replacing truck drivers; baristas are probably safer due to social acceptance more than technology
> Needing one in every elevator equates to a massive workforce, probably bigger than dock workers.
Back when elevators required an attendant, there weren't that many elevators compared with today. I'm talking about displacing large existing workforces. Also, people wouldn't spend their lives standing in an elevator; whereas millions of people do make a career out of truck driving or working at a port, both of which require skills developed over time.
> Everyone else would also benefit from cheaper espressos and goods (through cheaper shipping)
That's assuming the price of espressos and goods would drop; I don't think that's likely.
>Back when elevators required an attendant, there weren't that many elevators compared with today. I'm talking about displacing large existing workforces.
Sounds a lot like status quo bias. If you think truck drivers are worth keeping around as long as a jobs program, you should be in favor of introducing elevator attendants as one as well.
>Also, people wouldn't spend their lives standing in an elevator; whereas millions of people do make a career out of truck driving or working at a port, both of which require skills developed over time.
Does this matter? Whether it's elevator attendants, truck drivers, or even programmers, if they're out of a job because it's been automated, the impact is the same: a bunch of people who need job retraining. How much effort they put into their previous career is largely irrelevant.
> That's assuming the price of espressos and goods would drop; I don't think that's likely.
Globalization brought us cheap chinese shit from aliexpress, didn't it?
Works in Europe and established politicians get voted out regularly.
You can also establish campaign spending limits without it being funded by taxes. In other words anyone can raise money for their campaign but only up to X amount (and no PACs).
We use parental controls on iOS but those are buggy (and Android even worse from what I heard).
reply