Students do have rights - and indeed also property rights - here. Of course, when in class the students could be asked to bring their phones to the front and be given them back afterwards, but without the law, the use of phones couldn't be restricted during breaks etc. Thus the new law which can make the restrictions even more severe during school hours.
Students don't have many rights when it comes to what you can bring to or do at school. We were prohibited from wearing certain styles of clothes, hats, couldn't even chew gum in class. Pretty much anything that could be called disruptive, damaging, or dangerous was banned. I'm not sure how phones ever were considered acceptable in the first place. Even in the pre-smartphone days, SMS was a huge distraction.
Phone is a personal item. It doesn't disrupt anything by itself.
If a kid is using it during the class, then it is disrupting, but that can be dealt old-school way without the overall phone ban. If a kid starts stabbing others with a pencil, it will have to be dealt with, without the need for a pencil ban.
The phone disruption happens to the kids themselves and during the breaks (their free time).
Of course people have rights... the point is that schools seem not allowed to set their own rules.
The school my children went to in the UK has had a no phone policy for many years: phones must be off and kept in the pupils' bags. No need for a law change...
I think this is about approach to regulation and flexibility. In general being too restrictive about what is allowed makes things inflexible and poor at adapting.
Of course this comment is mostly ironic, but noting for the whole class, when the MAGA talked about DEI they only ever meant ethnic and sexual minorities, competence be damned!
That is of course the thing about ideologies like it: loyalty before all else.
DEI at its worst is exactly what you say. (At its best, it's "we hire for abilities, but we also look for abilities in non-traditional people".
But, even though that's what DEI can be, not all "someone got a git not because of ability" is DEI. Cronyism, racism, and sexism all do that, too.
In the case of this administration, I think the traditional term is "yes men" - people who are hired not for ability, but because they will not say no to the boss.
If it's not pushed down users' collective throats, the owning class that has invested so much on this fad would not get to rake in as much money and that would make their investment actually risky, can't have that. I hate to sound cynical about this, but that's what it looks like. If they had these things be opt-in add-ons, no one (or at least a sufficient amount of people) would not use these, because people are sick of LLMs being pushed everywhere.
While this is our course a good point, one extremely good part about text is that unless there given text is quite literally just plain text data, it's a lot easier to embed things like videos, pictures, audio, etc. into a textual medium especially when compared the other way around -- that is the fact that text in videos and pictures and so on tends to be quite limited when compared with the kind of "rich text" with the more audiovisual content added between blocks of text.
So one can use the thousand words of pictures while most content is textual, whereas the other way is significantly worse, since it of course lacks all the searchability et al.
You're discussing a mixed content document format, the original point was about some mythical benefits of text, explicitly vs video, which removes all the embeds from your document
I can only assyme that you meant something more akin to "absolute monarchy" but I still feel like pointing out that Norway, Bermuda, and Luxembourg are all monarchies. And of course out of all the monarchies listed Qatar is probably the closest to an absolute one.
And in the inverse Monaco is a multi-party representative (semi-)constitutional principality, so a monarchy as said.
So I don't necessarily disagree with your points, I'm mostly just adding thy these aspects of politics can and do coexist.
Ironically enough, as climate change becomes worse, we here in Europe might ironically end up with a way colder climate due to the melting ice caps especially in the Arctic disrupting the Gulf Stream among other things.
Also, this kind of "how can climate change be real since it's winter, snowy, and cold" is a climate change denier take. I'd refrain from it if I were you.
I'd rather recommend Forgejo (a fork of Gitea developed under the auspices of Codeberg e.V.) instead. The way in which Gitea broke the trust of the community seems like it probably should be avoided nowadays.
> RMS asks you to give something up: Your right to share a thing you made, under your conditions (which may be conditions even the receiving party agree on), nobody is forced in this situation, and then he calls that evil. I think that is wrong.
This is not true, though. As a copyright holder, you are allowed to license your work however you wish, even if it's under for example GPL-3.0-or-later or whatever. You can license your code outside of the terms of the GPL to a particular user or group of users for example for payment.
Really, it's only when the user agrees to abide by the license that you'd have to give access to source code when asked, for example.
> I love FOSS, don't get me wrong. But people should be able to say: I made this, if you want to use it, it's under these condition or I won't share it.
And they can. Whether that wins one any friends or not is another matter.
I personally run Fedora Kinoite (the KDE equivalent of Fedora Silveblue) and Emacs works fine for me. I ended up installing it as a sysext[0] and it works just fine. I did also use it at one point both in a toolbox container and a flatpak, but it always felt a bit flaky there.
But honestly, since Emacs is so core to my personal workflow, I think that it's fine to use a system extension for it. Alternatively it could be layered on, which would also of course work. After that, interacting with the containers is of course just using TRAMP to "connect" to them, and that of course works just fine.
It’s not really about emacs, but the fact that it relies on software being available on $PATH. You could use proxy scripts for stuff that are in containers, but yeah, it’s flaky.
I’ve not encountered OS crashes for a long time, and I’m fairly confident on troubleshooting config issues. Image based OS could be fine for single purpose computing, but I tinker a lot on my PC. Anything that is declarative is usually an hassle.
We... do? Of course, if you'd like to name whatever wars we're a) involved with and b) not fighting ourselves, then that would be splendid.
Anyway, how is that relevant to enforcing the DSA on X?
> We civilized them. And we may have to civilize them again.
What does this even mean? What do you mean by "civilize"? Also this sounds very much like how colonialism and imperialism were justified back in the 19th and 20th centuries.
But again, what does this have to do with X and DSA?
> But until they turn to yet another genocide maybe we should just let the Europeans have at each other.
Russia is currently conducting a genocide over in Ukraine, for example by kidnapping children and bringing them over to Russia and beyond, for example to North Korea.
This is a war crime and also genocidal. So by your admission you ought to be helping.
But again, what does this have to do with X and DSA?
> We can pay them the $150m to let them take care of Ukraine themselves. It was bad enough we had to drag them by the nose to the water. Maybe enough is enough.
We are taking care of Ukraine. Most of the aid is coming from various EU states, and the organisation itself.
Of course, the United States is the largest singular donator and also has donated some very important capabilities to Ukraine, for which people should be and are thankful for, but the claim that Europe isn't doing anything for Ukraine is just false. Could we do more? Absolutely. Should we? Yes. But that doesn't mean that nothing is happening.
But I must ask again, what does this have to do with X or the DSA?
> What does this even mean? What do you mean by "civilize"?
Teach them not to gas millions of people, that kind of thing. Nothing outrageous or anything.
> Russia is currently conducting a genocide over in Ukraine, for example by kidnapping children and bringing them over to Russia and beyond, for example to North Korea.
Ukrainian casualties are nothing like what Germany was inflicting on people. The latter rises to the standard. The former perhaps not.
To be honest, at first I thought we had to help a European country being invaded by Russia, but over time I've realized that Europeans mostly don't want us there. This is an internal affair for them. Some Europeans killing other Europeans. If it gets to the millions of civilians dead, then yeah they've fallen back into their atavistic ways and we have to go clean up again. But otherwise you kind of have to let Europeans be Europeans.
Blowing up their pipeline to get them to help themselves was unnecessary. If they don't want to help, they don't have to. It's up to them. We've got stuff to deal with. And they don't appreciate it anyway. They primarily treat the US as some kind of pinata to pop out money and weapons any time they decide to go kill each other.
> Ukrainian casualties are nothing like what Germany was inflicting on people. The latter rises to the standard. The former perhaps not.
The UN convention on prevention of genocide doesn't have any victim threshold for what counts as genocide.
> To be honest, at first I thought we had to help a European country being invaded by Russia, but over time I've realized that Europeans mostly don't want us there
Anyone using "Europeans" to broadly paint a whole continent with a single brush as expressing a singular opinion is at best extremely misinformed, at worst...
Anyways, Ukrainians very much want American support. And have been providing invaluable information on exactly how the Russians work and think in exchange for it.
In most EU member states, the majority of people, wanted US and EU side by side helping Ukraine. After all, most of those countries sent soldiers to help US kill a bunch of Iraqis, wouldn't it be nice to do it for a good cause for a change? Of course, the ~20-30-40% of Russophiles in multiple Central and Eastern European countries (like Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, etc) didn't want that, they wanted their "brothers" to win. But they're mostly irrelevant, and mostly dying off.
That's also why it's stupid to paint any war as just "it's just Europeans killing Europeans or just Africans killing Africans". How does that change anything about the war, or its casualties? Was Srebrenica not a genocide that merited being stopped just because both were Balkan peoples? Does the war in Sudan deserve no attention because it's just Africans?
But Trump and Vance have completely changed how Europeans see the US. Now everyone knows that they're no longer a partner. There is no going back on this.
> Trump and Vance have completely changed how Europeans see the US. Now everyone knows that they're no longer a partner. There is no going back on this.
The quietly released (no fanfare) 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) of the United States of America that dropped last night explicitly steers the US away from traditional European allies and embraces Russia.
> But Trump and Vance have completely changed how Europeans see the US. Now everyone knows that they're no longer a partner. There is no going back on this.
Exactly. Europeans believe we are not partners any more and that we never will be. There’s really no reason for us to send anything to Ukraine. When we were partners it made sense but as you point out, Europeans don’t believe that’s the case. So I think it’s time to move on and stop trying to force an alliance that doesn’t want to be together.
We should disband NATO and adjust to the new world order where Europe and the US are not allies, just participants in a multipolar world. If Europeans want to fight Europeans, we should let them work it out.
It’s not our business and they don’t want us in it. The allies we pick should be ones who want to be allied with us. America lost four hundred thousand men for your last internal conflict. We requested and got a token few thousand men over all the times we needed you. The debt will remain unpaid. And that’s okay.
You don’t want us and we don’t want you. It’s time to get a divorce.
reply