It's complete nonsense. The conversation in the UK right now isn't about whether or not teenagers should be allowed to own cell phones; it's about whether they should be allowed to have access to the myriad of addictive and harmful apps and services available on those devices, often maliciously targeted at them.

The drunk pervert filming them on the train has nothing to do with this argument. He's using his phone like a camera. Teenagers are allowed to have cameras, and assuredly every one of the girls he was filming had a camera of some sort on them of their own. Nobody was on uneven ground in this situation technologically.

If people actually were worried about perverted adults preying on children, they would take a look at the countless examples of perverted adults preying on children via their social media accounts and devices. It's been open season on children online for the past decade.

If people actually cared about accountability, they would stop pushing for age-verification laws, and start penalizing social media companies for their laissez faire attitude towards inappropriate sexual conduct, because currently, sites like Instagram and TikTok cater directly to pedophiles and do absolutely nothing about the predatory behavior coming from their user base towards children that are clearly too young to legally use social media in most parts of the world (<13 in the USA).

We need to reframe this whole conversation. It's not about keeping kids away from social media. It's about keeping trillion-dollar businesses from profiting off of children while actively doing harm to them with addictive algorithms, misinformation, and exposure to malicious actors.

My assumption when asked "do you trust this directory?" is that I am being asked if I am certain I understand what is in the directory and that it won't include some sort of prompt injecting attack. I would never dream that I was consenting to the complete exfiltration of that directory.

I can confidently say that Opus is the most powerful model I need 99% of the time. Fable might be marginally more capable than Opus for just about anything you might throw at it, but those gains aren't worth the cost for me.

But it is a huge waste of money for most coding tasks. Opus is still overkill most of the time, too.

Whereas minimizing the amount of free time people spend on their health, allowing people more time to labor or consume, is profitable.

If anything, you need honesty from healthcare companies in the first place if you're even going to begin making an informed decision. You're putting the cart before the horse here: people absolutely should be doing their own research before medicating themselves, but it is the OTC companies that obstruct that.

And, secondary to all of this, your analogy about shampoo is misinformed. Still, it is fitting for this scenario, but not in the way you intended. There are lots of different hair types, including ethnic hairstyles that require specific treatments. There are also a number of lifestyle choices that can change your hair treatment needs. As a result, the shampoo aisle actually is stocked with a wildly varying assortment of haircare choices, but actually figuring out what product works best for your needs can be challenging because it is walled behind layers of marketing nonsense that don't inform the consumer adequately on what makes each product different. This isn't much different than the problems in the medicine aisle.

It took a lot of secondhand research to find the ideal hair care product for my thick, curly hair that would mitigate the damage of thrice-weekly swimming in a chlorinated pool. I can assure you, not everything in the shampoo aisle is exactly the same. It was especially hard figuring this out as a man, when so many products are arbitrarily marketed to specific genders.

My entire Steam library is backed up to LTO tapes. I can get most everything running without needing Steam.

I will continue to support this business model, because I retain the power to own the system and the data.

Especially when the crux of this entire case was that the convicted are members of a terrorist organization - a fact that was declared at the whim of this same president.

I'm not saying that some of the people convicted don't deserve consequences for their actions, especially violence like shooting at officers. I'm not saying that this was a lawful assembly, especially given the documented intent to breach the facility and use pyrotechnics offensively. I am saying that this is an extreme escalation in action against dissent against the Republican agenda, with a highly visible inequality in enforcement against those who dissent similarly against the Democratic agenda.

If this kind of heavy-handed action was taken against everyone who challenges our government, I would still be concerned, but it is doubly concerning that some members of our society appear to have the permission to do these things, while we destroy the lives of others with different politics.

For one, as a city dweller, I would be absolutely terrified walking around at night, having to rely on a flashlight to see anything. Not just a "scared of the dark" thing, but good outdoor lighting discourages things like robberies and assaults. And sure, cars could just use their headlights, but still, visibility in populated areas would be very bad, and safety for pedestrians at night would be awful.

If I found out that my local bakery was funding regressive far-right politics, I absolutely would stop going to that bakery.

These are silly questions with easy answers if you have basic moral standards. By mocking people for having standards, you just reveal you lack them yourself.

But Mullvad isn't the government. I can get a VPN from somewhere else. I can opt out of funding something that I consider morally abhorrent.

I agree 100%, which is why the dehumanizing intolerance of the Mullvad CEO completely disqualifies your organization from being on the same side as that statement.

So my point here is that, whatever argument you are making, it is already debunked. You're arguing against statistics with platitudes.