Because we aren't doing anybody any favors when we permit the industry to give teenagers a chemical addiction to their commercial product, even if their product were harmful in no ways other than financial.

(Yes, I also object in strong terms to other addictive substances in consumer products, don't even bother replying with whataboutism.)

I heard this same sort of thing back when Obama banned flavored cigarettes. I wasn't very sympathetic to it back then and I'm still not. But with the passage of several years I think we should be able to evaluate the impact of banning flavored cigarettes. Have any adults been unduly impacted by this restriction? I can't imagine how anybody would be, but there is no reason to speculate since it's been several years. Is there any demonstrable harm caused by the banning of fruity flavor cigarettes?

Germany did declare war with the US, hence there was in fact a war with the US. Of course, Germany was also at war with lots of other people. All Americans are taught that in schools. It's called a World War for a reason and people do understand that, even when they're going out of their way to mention it. If Americans don't mention Canadian participation much it's simply because they don't talk about Canada much in the first place. It's not because they're unaware that Canada participated in the war. Canada is a commonwealth country, of course they participated in the war. Everybody here knows that.

Relative to national size, the Soviet Union received more tanks and planes from the British than the Americans, but the American trucks in particular were incredibly important for the Soviets. During that same period the Soviet Union only produced a fraction of that many trucks and Soviet trucks were frankly inferior trucks. Beyond the obvious logistic advantages of trucks in a war largely characterized by mobility, receiving American trucks allowed the Soviet Union to dedicate more of it's (relatively limited) industrial capacity to the production of tanks and airplanes.

Incidentally, here is something else American students aren't taught (I wonder if Japanese students are?): The leadership of the Japanese military considered the emperor to be a figurehead and after the 2nd atomic bombing when the Emperor was preparing to surrender, the staff office of the Ministry of War as well as several members of the Imperial Guard seized control of the Imperial Palace, with the goal of preventing surrender. They failed of course, but only due to the bravery and good luck of a few people in the Palace. The point here being, there were high ranking elements of the Japanese military that wanted to continue fighting even after the second bomb, and even with the Soviets preparing an invasion. Nationalism is a hell of a drug...

That shouldn't matter; youtube should not be showing adult ads to an adult when the adult is watching a children's show. Did nobody at youtube consider the probability that the adult's account is watching a children's TV show because there is a child in the room and the adult put the tv show on?

My above comment seems a bit unpopular, but I really don't think youtube is deliberately trying to show inappropriate content to kids. I think it's happening despite their efforts to do something about it. In other words, they are trying and failing. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit, but you've got to remember a lot of youtube employees have kids too.

It may also be the case they're totally incapable of doing it right, despite trying their best. I'm not sure that possibility really changes the situation though; either way the outcome is not quality entertainment for kids.

With an organization like PBS, they have a reputation of manually curating what they show, while something like Youtube Kids just has automated systems and manual reports to supplement it. It's hard to believe Google/Youtube could ever provide automated curation as well as PBS. How many media articles that boil down to "youtube showed this to kids but PBS never would have" are we going to have before people get the idea?

I'm not sure about that. It would be true with a spherical cow, but I don't think it's true when real people are involved because people sweat to cool down. I believe that phase change of water evaporating off your skin should continue to cool you down no matter how hot it gets, like a swamp cooler in Arizona. A fan should help this by rapidly replacing the humid air around you with more dry air.

(However my understanding is that evaporation cooling stops working once humidity hits 100%)

If a private property owner has trouble with people loitering or sleeping on their property, what options do they have? Call the police or hire a security guard, who will use [threats of] violence to solve your problem. Or using "hostile design" that non-violently but clearly communicates the desires of the property owner, thus avoiding any potentially lethal confrontation.

It seems obvious to me that "hostile" design is in fact the humanitarian approach.

Junkies defecating in the train station discourages me a hell of a lot more than "hostile design", which for the most part is purely decorative from my perspective because my perspective is not that of somebody wishing to do precisely that which the "hostile design" is meant to encourage.

"Hostile design" is in fact defensive design, designed to protect the common people from the anti-social and frequently hostile behaviors you frequently see on public display in Californian cities. We need more of it.

(Note also that "hostile design" does not focus just on the homeless, but in fact encompasses a wide range of techniques aimed at addressing a wide range of anti-social behaviors. For instance, skate boarders can be discouraged from playing in crowded areas where they present a risk to bystanders with use of furniture and structures specifically designed to discourage skateboarders. This addresses the problem of skateboarders causing property damage or frightening bystanders without threats of force (e.g. property owners calling the police or hiring a security guard) or any other form of confrontation. Isn't that better, or at least safer, for everybody involved? Similarly, "hostile" design allows property owners to discourage the homeless without instigating a confrontation between the homeless and police officers.)