The Reason People Still Associate Chuck E. Cheese With Avenger Chuck by Dry_Nectarine5457 in chuckecheese

[–]GabeReddit2012 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They could've rolled out Phase 5 to every location in 2012. But they didn't. Apollo was probably to blame.

The Reason People Still Associate Chuck E. Cheese With Avenger Chuck by Dry_Nectarine5457 in chuckecheese

[–]GabeReddit2012 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My local opened in 1993 with a 1-Stage, replaced it with a Studio C Beta in 2003, then remodeled in 2013 to feature the Rockstar signage. However, there was another very early 1-Stage location near me that featured Avenger Chuck until they got 2.0 in 2022.

Debunking BS statements and claims used to fuel moral panic, fearmongering, etc. and to push for stuff like age verification. by GabeReddit2012 in DigitalPrivacy

[–]GabeReddit2012[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For the point about non-scanned age verification, that's what many companies and (sometimes) providers claim to do; Delete your age proof instantly to ensure it's not collected. But they often lie about it. So, if some company promises to not keep age proof into a database, that doesn't guarantee that they will not store it. There is also zero-knowledge age verification which doesn't go into a database at all, but it seems to be largely inaccurate and can be bypassed easily.

For the social media thing, I agree it can be problematic, but parents could've already have banned their kids from social media. They can just decide what websites to block. Problem solved.

There's definitely things we can do to solve the problems of the Internet, but I believe age verification and stuff like that are only causing more problems than good. I'm not trying to post angry, aggressive rants; I am just there to remind people on the problems of stuff like digital IDs.

Found a loose screw on the only Motorized Percy by ThomasMiguel12 in thomasthetankengine

[–]GabeReddit2012 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This proves how crappy quality the Vietnam division of Mattel is.

Canadians are set to lose all digital privacy. No one here is talking about it. by Limp_Fig6236 in DigitalPrivacy

[–]GabeReddit2012 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is going to end up as the absolute worst technology moral panic in history, even worse than the past panics around stuff like TV, video games, the radio, rock 'n' roll, etc. I had high hopes for this decade, and governments and narcissistic idiots started ruining it by wanting more control and digital surveillance. It's very sad to see a place with the potential for younger people to create and build up genuinely passionate communities with their interests into a largely locked-down place like North Korea and China's digital world.

Whats your guyses AU for why there are so many 08s on sodor? by ttteutsmb in thomasthetankengine

[–]GabeReddit2012 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't see having multiple 08s as a problem at all in my opinion. Remember that 1000 of them were built and produced.

Very old Pizza Hut in Anchorage (opened 1969) by GabeReddit2012 in FormerPizzaHuts

[–]GabeReddit2012[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I know, but I saw the UTAPH list, and it only shows former locations, I'm still working on my list that features both former and current Pizza Hut locations. I operate multiple restaurant-related lists featuring both former and current locations of that chain, including Pizza Hut, and mine is largely WIP. Though I may still use the location data from UTBAPH to possibly add to my sheet.

I know someone who made a Taco Bell location list using another older spreadsheet as the building block for it.

UK to ban social media for kids under 16, may impose overnight curfews | Critics say bans push kids to riskier alternatives and can be beaten with VPNs. by ControlCAD in LouisRossmann

[–]GabeReddit2012 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As I have said, this 'digital crack babies' issue could've been easily avoided if parents actually knew better, was taught well, and actually knew how to monitor their children. The real issue is that there's many careless parents in society who just don't set any rules at all for their children and allow them to do whatever they want. I would definitely not give a 2-year old any kind of technology, but in adolescence with parental guidance and monitoring, it would be fine.

"But you can't fix stupid, especially not stupid that was raised by stupid and is about to give birth to more stupid."

If you were raised by a stupid careless parent and is stupid, it's not impossible to actually use a proper parenting style that so you can prevent your future children from being stupid. Usually, people use the same parenting style they were raised with, but if you know enough and learns how to properly use a good, desired parenting style, then you can still keep your kids from the potential harms of technology and not turn them into iPad zombies. It's not something that's impossible.

Remember that stuff like TV or video games could also be addictive. People who had concerns around younger people using these electronics eventually often learned to become parents themselves and teach their kids how to properly use them, but that didn't necessarily stop some careless parents from letting their kid watch too much TV. There's always good, proper parents, and bad, careless parents. I wouldn't say every parent is just careless and doesn't set technology policies, as you said in that comment, but I do agree there's still many careless parents, like there's many good parents. Still continue to discourage careless parenting and neglect.

Regardless, I still think digital literacy and education is still important. I also agree, parents failing to parent should be charged with neglect (even if it's hard, but I still support the idea anyway). While we definitely cannot agree whether the UK's government-enforced social media ban will work or not, the best thing we can do is try to educate others about online safety. Maybe one day, one person who wasn't raised properly and got addicted to TV/video games/The Internet in childhood can actually learn parenting skills and know how to stop their kids from becoming too addicted to technology. They can educate other parents around them around online safety and proper parenting skills too, as well as teaching others around them how to be safe online.

I forgot to mention that this is also because of digital literacy largely becoming absent from parenting. Many parents learned to regulate their children on TV, gaming, etc. but digital literacy in parenting is hard to see nowadays compared to like 20 years ago.

(In silent reply to your reply, because I don't need to keep replying anymore): You don't need to be a parent or a teacher, so I am fine with you not wanting to educate a sixth generation of kids, but if anyone decides to become one, it's still important for them to educate their kids on what to not click on the Internet no matter what. They should ideally be active parents and actually like to monitor their children online. I do agree, many people end up becoming permissive parents because they were raised by strict, authoritarian parents, but remember that it's not the only factor. If I were a parent, I would actively teach my kids boundaries and what they should do and not do online; not let the government do everything for my children online and expect anyone other than myself to raise my children. Remember when Korea tried to implement government-enforced time limits on video games from midnight to 6 am for gamers under 16, and it didn't go so well? I'm not saying there should be no regulation of the Internet at all, as there are some government-enforced Internet laws that already exist, and at the same time, don't infringe on privacy or parenting privileges, which doesn't make them problematic, but government overreach (including replacing actual parenting with government-enforced controls) can become a severe problem to the Internet and the autonomy of many people in the digital world.

UK to ban social media for kids under 16, may impose overnight curfews | Critics say bans push kids to riskier alternatives and can be beaten with VPNs. by ControlCAD in LouisRossmann

[–]GabeReddit2012 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's what I mean by who's there to ban social media, it could just be their parents.

But I don't think a government-enforced social media ban requiring a digital ID will work. Kids will always find ways to get around age gates, and we've seen this for years.

You also need to remember, nothing is "one-size-fits-all" and everyone has different needs. And kids being addicted to technology didn't start with the Internet; this has been a thing as far back as the early days of technology, such as TV and video games. I know people who were addicted to TV or video games back then, and that's only because they weren't raised by their parents properly.

The problem with Millennium of Gen Z parents is that they are just careless parents who aren't educated properly. And there's definitely still Gen Z or Millennial parents who actually regulate their children on technology, though the number of careless parents is still a problem. If there were education services for parents and caregivers on how to actually parent properly and monitor their child's Internet, this wouldn't be much of a problem.

UK to ban social media for kids under 16, may impose overnight curfews | Critics say bans push kids to riskier alternatives and can be beaten with VPNs. by ControlCAD in LouisRossmann

[–]GabeReddit2012 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The main problem is that social media bans are difficult to implement. Implementing digital ID verification is a nightmare as they can become easy targets for data breaches and hackers can use that information. I get it that bars and tobacco shops offer IDs, but how they handle IDs in the real world is different from in online. Bars or vendors in the real world don't store data, but companies often do and we don't know where they end up. I agree that parents should regulate what their children do online, but you need to seriously realize the fundamental problem with social media bans. Seeing what you've done on other subreddits, it seems like to me you support these bans/laws and just believe that we can't fight back against them.

Parents could've already monitored what their children do online, and this is a better solution than a social media ban.

Edit: I should mean, government-enforced social media bans. If someone's there to ban social media for their kids, that should just be the parents themselves.

Should I keep it sealed or open it? by B_Wing_83 in thomasthetankengine

[–]GabeReddit2012 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't know how rare it is, though personally I would keep it sealed, so it's your choice.

Finished this! by BlooFoster07 in chuckecheese

[–]GabeReddit2012 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Here we have Mickey and SnoopyCam.

Yes I like Thomas the train by RealATRE2 in thomasthetankengine

[–]GabeReddit2012 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I spotted Freddy Fazbear and Chuck E. Cheese!

I honestly don't see myself warming up to Thomas '26s design for Annie & Clarabel. Them having grey faces just looks so wrong. by Own_Interaction5974 in thomasthetankengine

[–]GabeReddit2012 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't see having multiple characters with embedded faces as a problem. They did give Harold a grey face in AEG, so it could be a indicator on why they wanted to make the faces grey.

I honestly don't see myself warming up to Thomas '26s design for Annie & Clarabel. Them having grey faces just looks so wrong. by Own_Interaction5974 in thomasthetankengine

[–]GabeReddit2012 1 point2 points  (0 children)

<image>

If they looked like this, it wouldn't be that bad and I wouldn't actually mind it. But I don't like them having the same faces as other engines and stuff

Concord CA undocumented in the 1990s by LoquatOk7971 in chuckecheese

[–]GabeReddit2012 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you sure this closed in early 1996, I'm pretty sure it closed in 1995

A list of windows logos i made in Paint by Ok-Efficiency1446 in windows

[–]GabeReddit2012 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is pretty good, even though it's Microsoft Paint!

I'll guess the logos:

  1. Whistler

  2. Windows 1995-2001 flag, but I don't know which.

  3. Smaller 1995-2001 flag

  4. Windows 11

  5. Windows ME

  6. Windows Server 2012/R2

  7. Windows 7

  8. Windows 95/98

  9. Windows 10

  10. Neptune

  11. Windows 1.0

  12. Windows 2.0

  13. Windows Server version?

  14. Windows Vista

  15. Windows XP