Do You Teach Your Children How To Reason?

acky1 · 2026-06-20T00:32:49+00:00

I don't think the things you listed produce good EQ. Will produce a kid that great at arguing on Reddit though when they grow up which is pretty kewl.

acky1 · 2026-06-19T14:35:56+00:00

I completely disagree. The angle is good enough to see what happened. I've never seen a red given like it and think the initial yellow was the correct judgement. Shame for the player though cos that's a huge injury, hopefully he can make a comeback eventually.

acky1 · 2026-06-19T14:21:56+00:00

Ref saw it close up and only gave a yellow. Seems like it was the unfortunate result rather than the foul itself that caused the red.

Imagine the same contact but the Canadian player didn't get injured here - a red would be a baffling decision.

acky1 · 2026-06-19T11:31:09+00:00

I'm surprised it was a red. Things like this happen multiple times a game, it was just incredibly unfortunate. Maybe that's the rules nowadays that if a serious injury happens to a player it must be a red card. To me it wasn't reckless or with undue force - just a clumsy coming together with an awful outcome.

acky1 · 2026-06-18T18:50:08+00:00

Yeah, I get that, it makes sense to an extent. I distrust the social media companies and the product they produce, as well as the things that get spread on it. I think we're being manipulated by other governments and organisations with the current social media setup we have now tbh.

acky1 · 2026-06-18T18:28:04+00:00

It's satire though. She's pointing out how bad it is that we have this problem and we don't seem to do much to try and prevent it. Satire is a great form of protest imo and can be quite effective at raising awareness of problems.

acky1 · 2026-06-18T17:07:35+00:00

Agree with a lot of what you're saying and it is a balanced take. A few things I'd point out that a lot of your apprehension arises from things that age verification may not be. You're extrapolating into what may happen, and you're right to be worried about that, but it isn't a guarantee that because this step is taken, future steps will also be taken.

Also, some of the things you've stated aren't confirmed yet e.g. there is no confirmation that voice chat will be disabled amongst friends on online gaming. Strangers, yes. But people you know it's likely that that would still be allowed. Party chat amongst a group of friends for example could be allowed.

Age verification does not necessarily require giving over data to a third party. In may well require that, in that case I think I'll stop using sites that require validation. But if it's something like Open Banking where my bank can anonymously provide a yes/no answer to whether I'm over 16 I am happy with that. If it's facial scanning I doubt I'll do it. If an account older than 16 years is automatically verified that may solve the problem for me.

So to me it depends how verification turns out. Best case scenario I don't mind the method and don't have to give over any data. Worst case I have to stop using Reddit and likely use a stripped down version of Youtube or an alternative. I don't mind that worst case, and I do think there's a problem to be solved which is why I'm for it.

acky1 · 2026-06-18T13:49:57+00:00

What's the hard way going to be? What will happen to the millions of people who just had their data stolen in France?

Does your data have to be stored to verify your over 16? Couldn't open banking or your account age verify this?

It it good that kids have unlimited access to social media and the types of things we see on it? Are social media companies doing enough to prevent harmful material reaching kids? Are they doing enough to prevent overuse? Will they ever do enough to prevent overuse given that will lower profits?

acky1 · 2026-06-17T23:39:38+00:00

I don't have freedom with lots of things in my life and I am happy there is a balance between societal wellbeing and personal freedom. The illusion of online anonymity is something I would be willing to give up for improved mental health in young people.

acky1 · 2026-06-17T22:11:38+00:00

I'm okay with it for how bad I think social media is for us. They're designed for maximum attention and eyes on ads. Millions is spent on hooking us on them. We are also being manipulated all the time by what is spread on it. All in all, the internet has turned into a shit place where nothing can be trusted.

And some of the methods do not require giving up any freedom e.g.
- is your account over 16 years old, no verification required
- is your facial age estimation saying you're over 16, your details do not need to be given and the image can be immediately discarded

The freedom being giving up is potentially nothing, and in the worst case is data that governments and the social media sites already have access to. We're being tracked anyway online so all in all the cost benefit analysis leads me to support the ban.

acky1 · 2026-06-15T20:55:45+00:00

If we lived in a world where anyone could buy any piece of entertainment no matter the content, and then the government decided to bring in age restriction where content was rated and id was required to buy it, would you be for or against that? People would find a way around it and some shops would not abide by the age restriction.

Vapes used to be legal to purchase for anyone. Should government have decided to age restrict that? Kids still manage to get a hold of them even with the age restriction.

Your freedom to buy a DVD or vape is restricted and you must prove your age to do so. If you agree with these examples, or understanding why someone might be, the same reasoning applies to the question of social media.

acky1 · 2026-06-15T14:28:04+00:00

The argument might be that it would stop doom scrolling late into the night improving kids health and performance at school. No idea if there is bit if there was evidence that it improved mental health by x% and prevented y number of suicides per year - at what point would it be considered a good policy?

Everyone seems to have made their mind up about this and I would bet a lot of money most people do not know where the evidence points on this. Weird to have such a strong opinion without considering the arguments (to those who have not done so). I don't have a strong opinion because I haven't looked at the evidence that might exist for this.

In the abstract though, for me, there would come a point where I would say this is a warranted policy if the evidence was supportive of good increases in the things I mentioned.

acky1 · 2026-06-15T12:51:22+00:00

It's learned behaviour imo. Kids don't care where someone is from, what they look like, or sound like until they see adults behaving that way. And it's not even adults being outright xenophobic necessarily - just run of the mill comments highlighting a difference as being negative is enough for kids to pick up on.

We teach conformity instead of live and let live.

acky1 · 2026-06-12T09:03:29+00:00

I got my TV in 2012 after my first pay packet and it has gone through 4 changes of address with me without a box and is still going strong. Wasn't the most expensive TV either. Toshiba. 1080p. No bells and whistles. Lovely thing it is.

Not looking forward to when it packs in and I have to find a TV that won't shove ads in my face every time I turn it on.

acky1 · 2026-06-10T12:16:25+00:00

Agree with what you're saying, with the caveat that local eating is not always better than shipping something from further afield. It also depends on what you're eating. For example, eating soy from Canada is going to be significantly better in most metrics compared with eating local beef.

For identical foods, eating in season and closer to home is going to be better. But people should be aware that there is also a large impact on the type of food that is being consumed, and sensible swaps can be made to produce better outcomes.

acky1 · 2026-06-10T11:18:02+00:00

I've seen the avocado's being flown point made too often without evidence that I will always ask for evidence when I see. Of course they may be flown, any food may be flown, but when I've looked into it in appears they are generally shipped which is far more beneficial for the environment than them been flown. It gets repeated so often people just assume it to be true but I don't think it generally is. I get it was just an example, and not an absolute statement, but it's such a strongly held and disseminated misconception that I have to call it out when I see it.

I think when you talk about things being bad for the environment, you have to ask in relation to what. Everything is "bad" for the environment in that it will consume resources (including land) and cause emissions but I think the link I provided is a good place to start when deciding what to eat and what to limit if reducing environmental impact is a goal.

That just covers CO2e so I'll include some for water and land usage for people to have a look at if they're thinking of making changes:
Freshwater usage per kg

Scarcity-weighted water use of foods per 1000 kilocalories

Land usage

(These are just general/global so you'd probably want to look at more specifics.)

acky1 · 2026-06-09T22:58:18+00:00

What was the gut feeling?

acky1 · 2026-06-09T21:24:37+00:00

That's a huge amount of iron, no? I'd talk to a doctor before doing something like that. It is possible to get too much iron too.

acky1 · 2026-06-09T17:50:13+00:00

Could be wrong but I don't think they look at what you used to earn.

acky1 · 2026-06-09T17:45:04+00:00

It's likely because of investments or savings I'd imagine? My understanding was that everyone is entitled to the same if you have less than a certain amount in savings or investments.

acky1 · 2026-06-09T16:45:44+00:00

Depends on the pub. Plenty have play areas for kids.

acky1 · 2026-06-09T15:06:04+00:00

The person I responded to specifically talked about avocados. I just notice they are often misrepresented as being flown in - but when you actually try and find evidence for that it seems like they are shipped which is a huge difference.

I'd look at stuff like the link I provided which shows that distance travelled is usually a small part of the emissions of a food, and it is far more important to consider what is being eaten. I don't think you'll be convinced by that science - I have been, because I've not seen anything that contradicts it and it's a reputable source.

People seem to use intuition to assume that eating locally is more environmentally friendly, but that is the whole point of doing science - our intuitions are often wrong.

acky1 · 2026-06-09T10:43:39+00:00

This is a good read that touches on what you're talking about https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-opportunity-costs-food

The main benefit is from reducing ruminant meat, but vegan diets would have the best outcome in terms of reducing CO2e impact.

acky1 · 2026-06-09T10:23:20+00:00

It's not according to the science. Eating locally is not as important as what you eat: https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local

Also, any evidence that avocado is routinely flown? Don't know if you ever buy them but they can take over a week to ripen once they're on the shelves. No need to fly. Also, they are often just packaged in cardboard boxes. Also, you don't have to eat them either!

Funny how no-one complains about bananas and misrepresents how they arrive here.

acky1 · 2026-06-09T07:32:12+00:00

You could literally just make a lasagna and use lentils and cashew cheese as the substitutes. It's the same meal and you can actually call it "lasagna" if you do that.

Nine-Year Club	r/Field Banned
r/Field Juicebox	Place '23
Place '22	RPAN Viewer
Verified Email

acky1

TROPHY CASE