No, they won’t. The schools have internet but they also often don’t even allow phones these days. And those networks block almost everything.
They might still get some content downstream of other kids. However, I doubt a “look at this tiktok” here and there has any harmful effects.
What’s harmful is excessive social media use, especially unmonitored. So, either monitor your kid or do not give them access. It’s perfectly fine to have a family computer in the living room if you’re worried about little Timmy looking up “boobies”. Problem solved, and I saved you some money.
I think a lot of parents do basically nothing and then are unhappy with the results. Yes, if you don’t try, you won’t get your desired result. But you can try stuff out, and you can always pivot if you feel it becomes inconvenient. The reality is we don’t need these complex technological solutions. There are simple, brain-dead solutions like “don’t give your kid a phone for hours on end” or “give your kid a flip phone”.
Yeah but don't expect much sympathy on a forum full of uber rich folks whose very income is directly tied to the same revenue streams you mention.
I love freedom as a general principle, but internet 2026 is a undefendable cesspool of amorality, scams and worse. We are not in the 90s or early 00s anymore, and never will be again that era is gone.
If there was enough demand for high speed rail, couldn't a company form a profitable business model to provide that service? Many people don't take trains because the service is abysmal in the US. People who visit Europe tend to use the trains and prefer it over flying. It seems we're in a chicken and egg situation in the US. Even subsidies to Amtrak don't seem to fix the issue.
>doesn’t seem to be replicating documents all too well based on the many other testimonies in these comments
Ironic, that you are agreeing with a post saying they put in little effort for the implementation when you have put in absolutely no effort in saying that it doesn't produce pixel-faithful documents, such as producing a single concrete example.
Government maybe rather than legislating big companies stores could not back up smaller open HW/SW vendors? It seems we gave up increasing competition on HW and what is left is app store level...
It replaces the "list of short shell-scripts" aspect of Make, but it doesn't replace the "only execute rules that need to be re-executed" part, which is the actually useful bit.
This is the most frustrating bit of this weird recursive ecosystem of build tools. No one really uses all of make, so they only clone the bits they need, so their tool is simple and clean and beautiful to a subset of the community that has their same problem. But it can't replace make, so seven months later someone with a slightly different problem shows up with a make replacement, and the circle of life continues.
And you see this on the other side of the problem area too, where large and ugly tools like cmake are trying to do what older large and ugly software like autotools did, and trying to replace make. And they suck too.
I continue to believe the GNU make in the late 80's was and remains a better generic tool than everything in the modern world in all ways but syntax (and in many cases, again c.f. cmake, it had better syntax too). Had the original v7 syntax used something other than tabs, and understood that variable names longer than 1 byte were a good thing, we might never have found ourselves in this mess.
they do place themselves as an alternative to make, but imho they're entirely different and not at all comparable. make is centered around creating artefacts and not rebuilding what is already built. just is a command runner.
The main benefit I see with using Make as a command runner is that it's a standard tool that's installed "everywhere". Even though these replacements seem nicer to use, I never felt like they bring enough to the table to warrant having to install an extra tool.
I also use just as a command runner, but I gotta agree with the others here that it should be described accurately as a command runner, while make is a build system.
There are some uses of make, especially by people who have never used it to build C/C++ projects, which makes more sense to replace with just. It doesn't have the baggage that make does, and they're not using it to actually make files. They also quite likely don't know the conventions (e.g. what a lot of us expect "make install" to do), and I support them in not learning the conventions of make—as long as they use something else. :)
Other uses of make will need other modern replacements, e.g. Cmake or Bazel.
It is possible that Kids These Days can say "no thanks" when someone tries to teach them make, and that the future of make is more along the lines of something us greybeards complain about. Back in _my_ day, etc.
it usually isn't because banks are not all-seeing and cannot tell which local employer or industry is likelier to go bust. in that sense all metro areas are often equally risky.
We can have a problem with forms being on paper and not doing "add this" or "subtract that" automatically? It was available in other countries 10+ years AGO ;)
Global albedo modification happens today its just not very directed (eg. pitch black tarmac next to concrete sidewalk there is significant difference in temperature on sunny days, AC bills would be probably bit cheaper we didn't have tarmac).
Yeah I'm sure it'll be great and we will think about every single potential side effects, just like with asbestos, DDT, lead in gas, freon in fridges, &c.
We're most likely utterly fucked whatever we do unless we go back to live like pre industrial revolution humans
Sounds about right.