hmmm… I’m pretty sure I’ve been around since before YouTube started and don’t have any idea, so I still think is the case.
I think people tend to not understand how big internet is, even back then. This makes it difficult to know which memes really made it all the way to become THAT popular (and even those are not know by everyone, some people just don’t follow memes)
I love how instead of "oh, I don't get this joke, oh well" you've gone directly to "these other people don't understand the internet as well as I do!!1"
😂
The lesson was “your experience is not universal, other people have different experiences than you”. Your reading comprehension needs work, also you lack empathy, and project your own insecurities on to those around you.
Also - “your experience is not universal, other people have different experiences than you” is exactly what this person should have told themselves and moved on instead of replying and making it all about their experience not being universal, that's entirely my fucking point lmfao
Except the fact that the joke relies on the concept everyone would understand it. So not getting the joke undermines the joke as that was it's whole fucking point. It's literally trying to say a generalized idea of the internet and is objectively incorrect. It tried to do it in a funny way and objectively failed when the premise is laughably untrue.
That would be me. The only thing I did back then was play video games. There was no web browsing unless it was for a game. I didn’t even know what a meme was until about ten years ago when I started using Reddit and branched out from gaming related themes.
Had a colleague that told me about some memes with a gay porn star. He couldn’t grasp that I neither know the guy nor the memes. Allegedly they were all over the internet for years. I’ve never seen any of them since.
This guy is a libertarian right wing incel, so I’m pretty sure our internet experiences are completely different.
I mean, there is a shared experience for people who were online when things started. I remember Newgrounds, eBaum’s World, Nyan Cat, Epic Rap Battles of History, StumbleUpon.com.
I imagine you also experienced some or most of that short list to some extent.
Eh, maybe. While I am familiar with those things, I don't think I'd ever assume everyone my age and on the Internet would as well. Different strokes for different folks. Moreover, this didn't even take into account age at all. So not only did it appear to strike out with many of the same age, it'll likely strike out with most users who simply weren't on the Internet for that relatively small period of time.
Eh, my mom was on the internet at that time and would know absolutely zero of those things because she didn't visit humor sites. I knew them because that is the stuff I looked for.
Kind of like how most people watched MASH when it was the most popular show ever, but not everyone did.
Open source is too far, but as part of a shutdown of a game and it’s servers there should be a year long period where the publisher is required to release the game without DRM, including the server software, to all customers.
I could see it going through Steam, you get a message “Delistment notification: The Crew is being delisted, get your permanent copy now!”
Worse solution, but I would accept if publishers were forced to clearly display the exact date when the game will stop functioning at the point of purchase and all advertising materials.
I see what you’re getting at but this would be difficult for a publisher to stick with in the event the game does horribly. Requiring them to keep their word to the date advertised would end up with them only guaranteeing a week, or send ramifications through all industries requiring truth in advertising.
A middle ground would be simply to legislate that when games require online connectivity for any reason, the appropriate software is released to allow a locally run server to enable online function at the time the company decides to decommission their servers. Then require them to hold these files in an accessible manner for at least as long as the servers had been active for.
That would be difficult in the event the company goes out of business, but I’m sure this would be a difficult thing to explain to most politicians so maybe not so simple after all.
If they can’t keep their committed date (or fold entirely), then the source goes open. If every copy happens to get deleted during the bankruptcy, treat it as criminal fraud by the top levels of the company and go after everyone that could have decided to improve backups and other IT methods of avoiding that but didn’t. That’s assuming it was accidental, higher penalties if it can be proven to be deliberate.
In an ideal world, the penalties you describe are suitable. Though, gaming industry aside, for the executive level of most any corporation, being a scapegoat and handed a golden parachute is the worst case scenario for them leaving. In many cases floating across the street right into another executive position.
Jail time isn’t a likely outcome. It just isn’t the world we live in, unfortunately.
Yeah golden parachutes are such a joke in this society that likes to pretend to be a meritocracy.
Though on that note, I’d love to see a law that limits golden parachutes to the lowest paid position in the company. Hell, I’d be ok with that being scaled to full time. Not because disgraced executives deserve even that much but because it would give some incentive to increase pay rates across the company. I’ve also long thought that executive compensation should also be limited by some multiple of the lowest pay. And yeah, I’d include stock options and grants in that (for both employee and executive compensation).
Agreed. The whole idea of these huge payouts could be eliminated and replaced with what exists for everyone else - severance pay. Calculated off a regulated minimum formula, based primarily on how long the person served the company.
I also agree with you that the top and bottom salaries should have a correlation. The C suite making the salary of a shelf stocker in one day should not happen. I think I could accept that the top gets somewhere around 10 or 20 times higher salary. Even 100x would be an improvement to the way it is now.
Like you point out, between stock options and whatever else, an executive salary could be a few hundred thousand, even if their total compensation is tens of millions. In fantasy land it would be nice if, once a company grows to a certain point, say a billion dollars in value, if it were required to convert to an employee owned cooperative entity.
It’s a shame things are the way they are. Maybe one day we won’t have politicians that can be bought. That’s a different discussion altogether.
I think the company should also be required to clearly state the amount of time they’ll keep supporting the game and will operate the servers for. If they decide to shut them down early, everybody should be given the choice to either receive a full refund or the non DRMd version of the game + the server software like you suggested.
In general I think all paid games should be required to clearly state the amount of time they’ll keep providing feature updates for, as well as support for new hardware, major bug fixes, and minor bug fixes. Although games that aren’t online and just reach EoL are still playable for quite some time, eventually there’ll be some breaking operating system or hardware change that will force the use of a virtual machine, compatibility software, or other types of emulation to keep playing. That might not happen for 50 years, at which point you probably don’t care, but still. I’d give more leniency to indie Devs and games made as passion projects, though.
Although obvious once you think about it, I don’t think most people realise or even think of the fact they will eventually not be able to play the game they’re buying. And these mega companies need to stop making games they dump 6 months after launch.
I get what you mean but that is not feasable, however, if we look back at the old multiplayer experience like in Unreal Tournament 2004, the company runs a master server, and the community runs the game servers.
The master server just lists the game servers and allows for a server browser. That is WAY less resource intensive and can be run almost indeffinately.
The master server for UT2004 ran continously for almost 20 years, and when Epic announce it was shutting down, a fan server was created and after a quick edit of the config file you can play UT2004 multiplayer exactly like it was in the past.
So let’s go back to that model of multiplayer, it requires a bit of skill to set up your own server securely, but you’ll have way more choice and less commitment of resources from the publisher making it available for longer at less cost.
eventually there’ll be some breaking operating system or hardware change that will force the use of a virtual machine, compatibility software, or other types of emulation to keep playing.
I still can play Unreal from 1998 on modern Linux. Faust bless Torvalds and his “never break userspace”.
Fellas, easy way to get on a girl’s radar is to ask if she can peer review your drafts for the textbook you’re writing and give her editor/writer credit. Apparently girls love that shit.
More like a supply and demand issue I would think, the issue here being there is no demand for first class seating so they are limiting the amount of “supply” of those seats to accommodate for less demand. Some airlines don’t offer first class seating at all, like Southwest.
There is demand for first class seating from nearly 100% of fliers. They’re just not willing to pay what AA is charging. This isn’t a supply and demand decision. Econ 101 says that means AA should reduce the price, but capitalism in practice says the constant desire for more profit and the monopoly that most industries have been allowed to grow and maintain means never lower the price and find a new way to fuck the plebs who don’t even own a single yacht.
That is the definition of no demand. Whether customers don’t want your product or the price you’re charging, it’s the same. It’s then up to your business decision which way you go from there, increase coach seats or lower the price of first class. Make the right choice and you stay in business.
Employee: “Customers are not seeing the value on the service priced at 4X of an economy seat. Let’s offer first class at a discount. Market research shows customers willing to pay a premium markup of up to 2X for it.”
Boss: “Great idea, let’s increase plane occupancy by making more economy premium seats and marking up all of them 2X!”
Boss gets bonus for innovation and promotion. Employee gets RTO orders, 1% merit increase, 2% COLA adjustment and a pizza party from the boss to thank for being part of the AA family!
It’s less that there’s not a demand so much as supply and demand work together. Not appart. When it comes to accounting, there are different ways to look at different things. The main one is financial accounting. Another one is taxes.
In the case of this: managerial accounting. Something that a lot of corporations seem to be failing at lately. Managerial accounting is basically finding information to report to the managers. For instance, breaking down the cost of an item to see how much it costs to produce, comparing it to how much it makes, etc.
One thing they do is figuring out how much to raise the cost of a good/service. It’s a slight gamble in that you can never be 100% sure, but they try to find that sweet spot where they can raise it without scaring away too many people and eventually losing money. In this case, they charge too much. The cost of flying, like everything else, has gone up. And we get worse service while there. So if you’re raising the cost of the different services, and you find that people are now only going with the cheaper option, you have likely started over charging. You need to drop the price of both services.
For instance, I might be willing to spend an extra $50 for an upgrade. But if you raise the price of the cheap service by $100, now I don’t have the money. Make the gap between the two $100, and now I really don’t have enough.
Of course, when every company made it a race to riase proces as much as possible, at this point I don’t think many companies have much of a choice. They all kind of fucked everything all at once, including themselves. But they made a profit in the short term, so there’s that.
The 16 first class seats will be replaced by 30 economy plus seats, increasing capacity by 14 additional passengers per flight and reducing cost of first class food and equipment to serve. A win-win for company and shareholders but a loss to consumer choice.
If you have 40 first class seats instead of 60 regular seats, why would you drop the price of the first class if you could make more with the 60 regular seats.
I mean I’m not that extreme lmao that’s also a safety issue. Kids will be kids, they will not sit quietly all school day and be total lesson sponges lol
How much of a safety issue would it really be? Cell phones didn’t really become a thing for my age range until high school. If there was an emergency, there was a landline in the classrooms.
No kidding. Not to sound like an old fogey but we did really well without them for both “emergencies” and “fact checking”. I can only see them primarily as a distraction.
Yeah, it would suck for the staff, but I don’t think it would be that much more unsafe. I don’t think it’s a good idea, but I don’t think it’s particularly unsafe.
I already did unpack it: “Smart phones are a distraction for social media 99% of the time.”
Nor did I say the word “just”. You’re both ignoring what I did say and inserting your own words. They can be distractions with you know social media. But also back in my day they taught us Word, Excel, programming. You had a class with that. You didn’t need it in your pocket 24/7.
Yes you can find a way to goof off in any class instead of doing your work. Isn’t that the whole point of this discussion? To remove ways to goof off, you know, smartphones. Ban them in class. And just like you can catch people playing video games in computer class, you can catch people using their phone in class. Just because some people will break rules doesn’t mean we throw our hands up and say ok then no rules.
You’re really comparing this to teaching abstinence? Wow. And then you rage against something as basic as rules, blaming rules for what seems like everything you think is bad. Ok then. Cheers.
I don’t think y’all realize that not a single staff member or administrator or any employee of the school would be able to use a phone either (other than landlines I guess?). Schools aren’t just full of students lol
You mean that thing I specifically mentioned? Yes, I realize that. Would it be inconvenient? Yes, it absolutely would. Would it suck to work in that environment? Again, yes it would. If I’m just thinking about safety, I’m not sure it’s that much more unsafe.
It’s incredibly unsafe when you live in a society built around smartphones/tablets for health and safety tools to remove said smartphones.
But is it? Landlines can make the same emergency calls. A Faraday cage also doesn’t mean you can’t have an internal wifi that reaches outside that the staff can connect to, or even the students can connect through with a proxy controlling their connection.
I agree it’s impractical. But it doesn’t mean laptops and phones suddenly don’t work. They can still work within the cage and you can poke holes through it with a landline and a proxy to control traffic in and out.
Ultimately, it’s definitely not worth the engineering and the effort. I just don’t think that safety is the reason it is impractical.
I’ve done active shooter drills in the military. The first thing you do is cover the window in the door, which is often by the front of the room where the phone is. The beauty of a landline is that it doesn’t move. You can dial out to 911 and they know exactly what building you’re in without you having to even tell them. The teacher doesn’t need to hang out at the front of the room.
What is different? Cover the windows to hide the number of people, hide, and barricade. You’re also very conveniently ignoring the rest of the comment that addressed your concern. Care to try again?
I’m not a boomer. And I’m in no way advocating the use of a Faraday cage. Maybe read what is actually written instead of what you think was written. Hell I work in tech trying to get people up with the times…
No, but the attention span kids have these days seem to be shortening.
I hear this a lot but have yet to see evidence/sources from anyone. It’s just “look around you.” I don’t find it particularly compelling. I didn’t exactly sit quietly as a kid myself.
It’s a pretty well known fact that constant tech decreases attention spans, in both children and adults. How many times have we been on Lemmy/Reddit on the browser and picked up our phone to… check Lemmy/Reddit?
That appears to be a quickly referenced theory by one (yes qualified) person on one blog post without a study behind it. I could also argue that kids generally have short attention spans but social media just allows them to indulge in it more, and they will of course prioritize attention to that over other things. That is not the same as “it shortens their attention spans.” We need at least one study here or at least something more substantive than a one-liner linking social media and decreasing ones attention span. I’m not sure if you noticed, but blog is actually focusing on how to reach kids and strategies to get them to pay attention. It has one throw away non-cited line about social media shortening attention spans.
I should also point out that I also did a cursory Google search before writing the previous comment, and that was the only post I saw as well. The reason you selected it is because there was no other decent hit when you searched I imagine.
Let me be clear here, the only reason I am sort of arguing about this is because there is a really bad propensity for older people to say something is wrong with younger people. We see it over and over again. I think social media is actually very harmful to kids, but I have yet to see anything that shows it actually diminishes ones attention span. And the reason I really don’t like that claim is because it seems to be just another variation of “kids these days.”
I’m not them, but while ADHD is a problem, social media and the dopamine quick-hit style that internet content has taken has had a noted effect in reducing attention spans.
I mean, I’m doing quite well having gone though school without smart devices and 100% would have never gotten straight As if I had one when I was a kid. And I’m every type of ADHD you can be diagnosed as…
The thing about smartphones and the internet in general is that there is a lot of crap out there. Sure kids may read more, but what they read matters. If they’re reading websites that deny the Holocaust or give bogus health advice like bleach curing autism or things like that, that’s not good. Without education, how are they going to know what they read on their phone is garbage?
Well, you can quickly search up some information. I don’t remember what it was, but I remember that once in middle school teacher said something I wasn’t quite sure about, but also I wouldn’t ask if I wasn’t more sure. So I looked it up, seeing that I was right, I asked if it rather wasn’t meant to be that other thing, he checked too and indeed he was wrong.
Also, my mind often wanders off. And it may happen that I suddenly can’t remember something. Could just be some word I could look up on my phone in less than a minute. Option B: Keep thinking about it till the rest of the class. I can’t stop thinking about that until I either remember or find it.
Next, spine. I am currently in high school. Phones are allowed here. Any time. So, I utilized my scanner and digitized one 500 or so page book I couldn’t find on the internet, and then used it as PDF instead of a physical book. It is less likely that I would forget my phone. I wish schools would have options for e-ink tablets instead of having to carry many heavy physical books. That used to be problem mostly in elementary school and middle school. Same goes for note taking.
Obviously, the last example can be easily solved by modernization.
Fast talking teachers. I can’t write that fast. I mean, I can, but then I can’t decipher my handwriting, which is already hard anyway. Voice recorder is a quick solution. Obviously, it is easier to look through notes than audio, but IT IS NOT MEANT TO BE A REPLACEMENT FOR NOTES, just a help.
But do take that with a pinch of salt. Especially in elementary school, I used to be one of those weird kids who greatly preferred being liked by the teacher over having friends. So even though I had a phone at the time, I never used it during classes because teachers disliked it.
But at least during breaks it should be allowed. Otherwise kids will find much more dangerous ways to entertain themselves.
I mean, comparing class with active kids throwing stuff around and ones just sitting and playing on their phones, I’d take the second. Cyber bullying may be hard to detect though, but it’s not like schools care either way.
If you want to teach kids how to look up information, you can create spaces for that. They don’t need unrestricted access to their smart phones to accomplish that throughout the day. Hell you can relax your policies as they grow up and show the maturity to handle having a smart phone in the classroom. If schools want to do that, I am all in favor of it. But they would have to start early and build a system, which is a lot to ask of already overworked educators.
I am not talking about unrestricted access either. It depends on age, but they could always just ask the teacher if they’re allowed to look up something. And also I don’t see how disallowing phones during breaks helps education. It’s meant to be a break.
Bugging you until you remember? You write it so that you can’t forget and so it stops bugging you.
Bugging you because you need that info itch scratched right now? Aka instant gratification. Then you have to learn to not need instant gratification. Seriously, it’s another skill.
Another skill is not caring if someone has a solution other than yours. It’d take half the time to write it down as it would just to look up the answer.
All this is spoken like an entitled bratty immature kid. (No offense, it’s just your age and you’ll grow out of it)
There’s a reason why you can get a ticket or be charged with distracted driving while you’re on your phone and behind the wheel of a car. IT IS A DISTRACTION. FULL STOP.
This phone issue has never affected me personally. I am defending OP and others.
I am not talking about using the phone all the time for some stupid thing. It gives you access to a lot of information when needed.
Also if you trust kids with making life changing decisions, this is unfair.
Also sorry if I sounded as you described. I only started carrying the phone with me since I was 15. I was too worried about breaking it (it’s not cheap thing). That makes finding positive points (that would apply to younger kids) a bit harder.
Edit: Also, don’t be worried, I would almost never voice my opinions in real life.
Spoken like an introverted someone who HAS ALREADY been affected socially in a negative way by their cell phone use.
The entitled and bratty part of your comments = when people tell me not to use my phone I simply DONT use it or bring it. What’s the problem exactly? You want access to an encyclopedic knowledge in class? You don’t have a laptop or computer in the room you can use ?
Maybe you use your phone only for the most strictly academic things, but most people don’t.
Finally, I don’t trust kids to make life changing decisions. See all the high schoolers who got suckered into a worthless degree from the University of Phoenix. It’s very fair to take the reigns from people who can’t control themselves and their impulses.
Spoken like an introverted someone who HAS ALREADY been affected socially in a negative way by their cell phone use.
Can’t disagree with this. I got a tablet when I was 8. With unrestricted access. On the positive note, it did help me learn quite a lot of stuff. Like English.
The entitled and bratty part of your comments = when people tell me not to use my phone I simply DONT use it or bring it. What’s the problem exactly? You want access to an encyclopedic knowledge in class? You don’t have a laptop or computer in the room you can use ?
No problem, really. If someone wanted to search up something during class, teachers could just allow it, and generally they did. Except when I was in grade 9 and the school decided to prohibit even just having them at school, as if it were grenades. Some teacher would always just collect all into a bucket and return at the end of the day.
When we had free substituted classes, sometimes they would tell us something like “Sorry, I’d allow you phones now, but if I did I could have problems from it.” So clearly they would punish teachers for that. That’s just crazy.
And computers aren’t in every class. Even if they are, they might not always work. Now we use our phones even to do exams sometimes. But, yeah, school isn’t even mandatory for me anymore, so it’s already different.
Finally, I don’t trust kids to make life changing decisions. See all the high schoolers who got suckered into a worthless degree from the University of Phoenix. It’s very fair to take the reigns from people who can’t control themselves and their impulses.
I wasn’t even talking about such late decisions. For example, when I was 10 I was given the decision between going into class A or class B since I had good enough results for A. A was class for a little more talented kids. They even had some additional subjects. Well, my dad discouraged me from going to class A. He told me “There won’t be any normal kids. I’d choose B if I were you.” So I did. I regret. I could have gotten to a better school later on.
Some explanation of those classes:
A - Talented
C and D - sport classes (basketball and hockey respectively)
B - everything else
Next, when I was 14, I told my psychologist about my living conditions. Including photos of how our home looks like. She told me that she could call social services. Then asked me if I agreed. I was scared, so I said no. I regret, once again.
And something that’s there always, choosing high school when you’re 15.
I am not sure how it works across different school systems. In Slovakia, they are focused just on 1 particular field of study determining where you’ll be for the rest of your life. 3 year fields are without graduation (e.g.: various mechanics and plumbers). 4 year and 5 year fields are with graduation, meaning you can go to college/university.
I’ve had a few classmates who only chose particular field because their friends were going there too, even though they weren’t interested in it.
Well, by their teenage years, why not all the reasons adults need smartphones fully accessible? Looking up information from authoritative sources? Emergency contact? Coordinating schedules for office hours?
Schools often simultaneously demand more from children than workplaces do adults, and give them less opportunity to excel.
I’m not saying work-inappropriate phone use should be accepted, but taking them away entirely is downright irresponsible. Just like schools who still demand students write on a notebook instead of using a laptop. Raise your hand if you had RSI-related issues for a decade or more after high school? We old people tend to forget how bad school used to be (and can be) for physical and mental health AND for learning.
Didn’t know it had a name.
That once stopped me from registering a video game title.
I was feeling silly so I figured I’d go for a nonsensical contrast. “Evil Grape” got rejected. After several failed attempts it eventually dawned on me that some dumb algorithm thought it was a reference to sexual violence.
It kind of annoyed me but I just picked an other fruit. It wasn’t until later that I considered that “Evil Banana” was probably more sexually evocative but it was too late by then.
So if you’re ever playing a video game and shoot (or get shot by) “Evil Banana”, know that, if it weren’t for the Scunthorpe Problem, it could have been “Evil Grape,” but either way, it wasn’t intended as a sexual reference at all.
The octothorp (easily recognized as #) is the symbol used in censorship. Has been for ages.
Sure, some modern online chatter now uses asterisks, but that’s only because they became the symbol for hiding passwords and in the eternal September people forgot about octothorp. But censorship is not hiding passwords, it’s saying “sh#t” instead of the proper word for fear of legal repercussions. Even markdown formatting is incompatible with the imposter that is the asterisk because it recognizes the true censorship history of the thorp.
Wait until you hear about languages where everything is gendered.
We’re currently debating, whether BürgerInnen, Bürger:innen or “Bürgerinnen und Bürger” is the proper way to address all citizens. This is not even about anything LGBTQ, it’s simply acknowledgement of the concept of non-male people (which is really hard for some conservatives).
I prefer the elimination of gender by using the participle because I think it’s easier to read and say, e.g. instead of Student:In you say Studierende (I guess also using the genderless plural of the participle, similar to the English concept). I’m not sure what the equivalent for Bürger would be though. Geborgene?
Don’t think that works for words that don’t have a verb as a base, i.e. Krankenpflege works because Pflege is a Verb and can be conjugated to Krankenpflegende but Mechaniker:in doesn’t conjugate.
Also Geborgene means nothing even adjacent to being a Bürger. I’d personally would have guessed Bürgende but even that is a major stretch. You would either have to create an entirely new way to conjugate nouns or you have to use synonyms that can be conjugated that way. Both ways will be a huge change to how German is spoken
Why not just use the generic plural form (Bürger) as people always have? It has always been used for mixed groups so why shouldnt it continue to? And sometimes it doesnt even work (eg. for “Bauer”. The plurals would be “Bauern” and “Bäuerinnen”.
Most things in Portuguese are gendered, yet we sometimes care fuck all about them (e.g: Sandwich is usually feminine, but it can be masculine depending on who you talk to).
In French we have a similar problem. Currently the most popular form is “citoyen.ne.s” or “citoyen.nes” (besides the good old “citoyens” or “citoyennes et citoyens”), which sometimes gets rendered as a website by some text displayers (e.g. les habitant.es). It’s technically supposed to be a middle dot (citoyen·ne·s) but nobody has that on their keyboard (I literally had to copy-paste it from wikipedia) so people use the point instead. We used to use parentheses like “citoyen(ne)s” but these have vastly be replaced by the dots.
Interesting. In German typography we used to use lower quotation marks at the beginning of a quote and lower quotation marks at the end of a quote, both in handwriting and print:
„Amazing“
But the lower version isn’t found on the default QWERTZ keyboard layout so in personal digital communication (instant messages, emails, etc) especially you find double upper ones a lot:
“Amazing” or ‘Amazing’
The formal spelling rules haven’t been updated and you may still find the lower-upper vision in professional publications where the software adjusts the quotation marks according to a global setting. But most anything that is typed directly by a user will use the lazy lower-lower version.
Or, you know. Just Bürger, the generic masculinum. That all-inclusive. And it worked for a long time. It’s only because some snowflakes thought they needed something to complain about that we’re having this whole debate.
I wouldn’t mind a generic feminimum just as I don’t mind a generic masculinum. Grammatical gender doesn’t have anything to do with actual gender. It’s just a quirk of the language.
No it’s not and there’s scientific evidence. Studies have shown that female children will name career paths as their dream job less often if only the male version is shown to them, presumably because they think it’s not an option for them, as it’s perceived to be only possible for males to follow that path. Explicitly mentioning both genders suddenly makes girls also want to become doctors.
You might not like it, but there’s enough evidence to show that it has merit.
Just like the ‘scientific evidence’ that, for whatever reason, in countries where women are way less free than in the west, many more women go into STEM?
You might not like it, but just because it’s “Die” Sonne And “Der” Mond, That Does not suddenly mean that the moon is male and the sun is female, just how “Der Schüler” Does not imply that they are male or female.
This whole discussion about grammatical gender is stupid and biased as fuck by “researchers” who come to the conclusion they want to come to. I work in academia myself, I know how much bullshit gets pushed through.
Don’t get me wrong, I support anyone being able to do whatever they want. Women can do engineering just as much as men can, same for medicine and everything else. The literal only upside that men have is - on average - higher physical strength. And that just means that a higher percentage of men is strong enough to do certain physical job than the percentage of women. Doesn’t mean the women strong enough to do that job do it any worse than men.
Ja, Kumpel * in dud * in bro* sephine. Diese ganzen Gendersternverherrlicher innen brauchen einfach etwas worüber sie innen sich aufregen *innen könn *innen.
Ausserdem, bro *sephine, hast du mein Profil soweit durchgeschaut dass du rausgefunden hast dass ich männlich bin, oder hast du gerade mein Gender assumiert? Hier hättest du, um deinen eigenen Standards zu entsprechen, ein Genderneutrales Pronomen verwenden sollen, Bro *sephine.
Gerade nachgeschaut. In meinem Profil steht überhaupt nichts zu meinem Gender. Du hast also zwangsweise einfach mal so angenommen, dass ich ein Mann bin. Stimmt das mit deiner Ideologie überein?
Bro ist mir egal ob du den Stern nutzt oder nicht, du bist nur bissl cringe im Internet unterwegs und ich wollte mich drüber lustig machen.
Dass du da nen ganzen Paragrafen schreiben musstest, ist schon telling ne
The Austrian state I used to live in (Niederösterreich) actually just outlawed gendering words like that on any government documents. Absolutely idiotic.
If you’d told me the most upvoted comment on my profile would be about inserting my lebanese blind vegan hamster in my urethra while playing Country Roads on the kazoo with a sombrero, I wouldn’t have believed it!!!
Kids need access to the internet at a super young age these days for school. If you don’t have some sort of filter in place when they are in single digits or tweens you are just negligent. The internet has some dark corners.
thats not the kid, thats the parent, how do I know? My parents used filter Software when i was younger. And if i was myself, i wouldnt want any of my kids to have raw unfiltered access to the Internet and thats coming me; a teenager. A teen can very easily develop a porn addiction, sorry if I’m a religous zealot and I’m a horrible being for going to church. but I also check your post history and I think you need a therapist or something. Your not ok in the head
If the kid is old enough to purposely bypass the security, they’re probably around the right age to find some of the stuff on the other side. But you don’t want them accidentally stumbling into it because they searched something seemingly innocent.
I just wanted to look up blueberry waffles but I was derping hard and couldn’t remember the word for blueberries… I was an adult at that point but just imagine a kid doing that on accident iykyk 💀
If the kids old enough to figure out VPNs, dual booting, and all the other pretty simple workarounds then it is what it is. You can’t control everything. I am talking about the little guys. And this dudes kid is googling how to teach crabs to talk. If someone is searching that they probably aren’t ready to get completely unrestricted access because they are probably pretty young. Like I said, single digits or tweens.
If the parents still try to restrict, which most unreasonably will, then the kid will simply grow better at this
This leads to the kid growing up with confiding in random people more than their family(this might lead to said friends being a bad influence on them, since they didn’t learn how to differentiate good and bad people)
That or a general sense of distrust and surveillance
Parents can literally get sued by the state for letting their children watch inappropriate stuff (at least where I live). You are obligated as a parent to restrict the access of your children to inappropriate media.
There’s a HUGE difference between restrictions via blockers and surveillance. I can assure you that no one here is arguing in favour of letting kids watch porn…
And the proper way is to teach your kids about it and stop treating kids like super fragile glass beings.
Your city probably has some dark corners too, but you don’t set up geofenced tracking beacons to be alarmed if they stumble slightly off the path you intended them to go.
Children should feel comfortable enough to talk to you about bad stuff they encounter, not feel frightened, that they broke a rule.
If you use these trackers and barge in “hey I saw what you did on the internet, you’re in trouble.” then you’re doing it wrong. Kids need guidance. If you were negligent enough to let your kid roam the city without supervision, you SHOULD have a tracker on them. We’re talking about little kids not 16+. Many young kids get themselves killed or groomed or into some kind of cult online. When that happens to young kids, parents are negligent. When 12 year olds get addicted to porn, negligence. You can guide your children without being an asshole. I know a lot of us grew up either completely neglected or completely terrified to make a mistake, but there is an in-between.
Not every state in the US is the same so your comment is mostly based on smug ignorance anyway. It’s not paranoia if you live in a city with a lot of crime etc. You just wanted to try and feel superior. Giving me reddit vibes tbh.
By the time I was 17, at least on my windows PC, every search I made was reported. Every setting I touched was reported. Every app I use, and how long, reported. Every startup and shutdown reported. Games with chat features were banned. Online games were banned. Every week on Sunday, an email with all this went to my parents, and my dad would forward it to me as a kind of intimidation that “we know all”…
And yes, they used geofenced tracking too.
But I’m a geek, so my Linux laptop and phone were no longer bugged (my only access to other people at the time) by the time I figured it out (around age 16).
Still had to turn the tracker on so they wouldn’t ask why the location pings stopped though.
This kind of obsessive control ought to be illegal. I propose privacy rights at age 16, enforceable by fines, with a safe hotline for those with obsessive parents. They were emotionally abusive, control by external restrictions is often only part of the story in cases like mine.
I’m all for safety filters, but parental controls that can be classified as spyware have no place in a parent-child relationship after the age of 16…
The thing is, parents can get sued for not restricting access of their children to inappropriate media. When you think just talking to your children “the right way” and they will suddenly act wise and smart and good all the time you are incredibly naive.
Invasive reports of literally everything. Making it way too easy to control your child to the point of psychical damage, and with some parents a tool for abuse.
I’d like to go against the stream and say that if you let your kids use the internet, spy the fuck out of everything they do in there. At least until they’re something like 16yrs old.
‘Monitoring’ if anything is worse. After puberty a human needs some degree of privacy and autonomy. By all means use blockers, but reading their every google search, and especially making them aware of that, is only hurtful.
Not giving your kids access to the internet at all is insane. You’re setting them up for failure by not actively teaching them how to navigate the Internet and what bs to look out for. Anyone that does this is just trying to indoctrinate their kid and prevent them from being exposed to any other ideas. The ego on parents that think they know enough to entirely prepare their kids for the world is ridiculous. Especially these days. You’re just setting them up to be behind when they’re older and they’ll resent you while they struggle to catch up.
Anyone that does this is just trying to indoctrinate their kid and prevent them from being exposed to any other ideas.
Books, magazines and libraries still exist, though.
Nevertheless, I won’t probably be as radical as to completely ban Internet from my two younger kids. But the idea is interesting after seeing via my older kids what an unrestricted access led to.
I’m curious of this as a thought experiment: what do you think the children will miss if they don’t access the Internet before the age of 16? What did the hundreds of generations of children before the invention and spread of Internet lack?
The thing is, the internet does exist now. And it is part of the world kids grow up in. So the question is not what someone thinks what the children will miss. They will not miss anything because they will have friends who will show them what the internet is. The question is: who do you want your kids to learn from what the internet is and can do?
The thing is, the internet does exist now. And it is part of the world kids grow up in.
I wouldn’t be so defeatist. Things can be changed if enough people want to change them. Children have been and are being protected from various things right now. There’s no reason why new things couldn’t be added to that.
My parents used this as part of their obsessive-control emotional / psychological abuse. Mostly to try to indoctrinate me into their cult, and their extremist right-wing ideology. There is a place for filters, and even search reports - but search reports ought to end around 14 years, and by 16 there needs to be some form of legal recognition of privacy rights as a human being for cases of isolating abuse as a part of indoctrination. P*rn blockers etc on the router are fine though, the network legally belongs to the parents. But human being, at least after puberty, requires privacy for proper psychological development. Complete surveillance after that time is psychologically and emotionally harmful to both the child and the relationship.
I disagree, do not let them use internet as they wish. The age of 12 is so vulnerable for porn addiction, video game addiction, gambling gacha addiction, meme consooming addiction and all the psychological damage that slot machine style colours and visuals can do permanently to a kid’s brain early on. The kid struggles until they are 30, due to this.
Edit: let me just say, hand them over a book called “Irresistible” by Adam Alter. It is not difficult to understand, easy to read.
Warning: Wall-o-Text incoming, please bear with me as I have a few points to make.
Maybe with modern phone games and social media, you might think so, but let me tell you this. At age 10 I played video games in my spare time, but had no other hobbies.
My parents didn’t willingly take away video games from me. The fucking government did.
“Sure, he has Asperger’s and no friends and no other hobbies, and has an anger issue. Take away video games because the fucking director of ‘Children and Families’ in [home town redacted] got his job by reading shit from that BS doctor who wrote that book in the 70s, and thinks video games like Kirby Super Star or Diddy Kong Racing are basically Mortal Kombat or Doom 64 or said director will have him forcibly removed from your home.”
(Please note I learned to swear when I was in high school, the above angry cursing is entirely because I was not informed of any of the meddling done by people who had never even met me and never would, until 15 years later, not because I was one of those screeching spoiled brats on multi-player servers.)
“Oh, he took that poorly and gets upset because you can’t tell him the real reason he can’t play video games? We’re taking him away and putting him in a foster home.”
Yeah, I have issues, but taking away a kid’s biggest hobby does not take away addiction, it creates escapism addicts who will do anything to avoid reality because they were forced to deal with reality 24/7 during their childhood.
Maybe look up “Hikikomori” and the reasons they refuse to talk to parents or even leave their rooms because they were denied a balance between work and downtime; given the choice but not the option for balance, all humans choose the latter as their imbalance.
I know how this works because that’s my life. I am only an addict to video games because I was unfairly starved of them for 2 years at ages 11-13 and it didn’t even make my anger issues go away during that time. I know because it wasn’t just video games, it was TV and even having friends.
I had no friends for my entire childhood because I was taught 1-1 by a teacher’s aide in Elementary school just because of government interference with my entire life. The Ministry of Children and Families in BC, Canada was apparently corrupt from the top and leaking down in the period when I was 11-13, and while it wasn’t personal to them that they interfered with hundreds of already-damaged childhoods, it ended mine just before my 11th birthday.
I spent half of high school watching shows from the early 00s just after they went off the air (anyone remember tvlinks.cc?) because I had to play catchup with people 2 years ahead of me pop-culturally. I never made any friends because my peers viewed me as “the outcast who literally was made so by real adults” and decided that meant I should be completely alone for all of high school.
Compound that with my dislike of mid-00s gangsta rap and you have a recipe for someone who is too petrified of everyone to make friends. You know why I live with my parents? Because I don’t like being completely alone all the time and I don’t like being alone in public. At least my parents apologized and admitted they’d f-ed up all those years ago, and are and were otherwise the best parents I could have had.
I can’t say the same for the BC government who I was forced to be fed by (disability pension) because I can’t handle the stress of a normal job without flipping out at the first sign that a customer or co-worker is being a jerk and I’m not just talking verbally; I have so little patience for people being assholes that I have to actively avoid it.
Hopefully all that explains why I hate you for being one of those parents. Fuck you, you’re just like the goddamn foster parents who wouldn’t even let me watch TV of have friends, let alone use a computer, and people like you ruined my life without even having a good reason to.
Give your kid a freaking Switch or, if you want him to actually learn stuff, a Steam Deck and some simulation genre games and maybe a pair of replacement joysticks so you can show them how to replace them if the Steam Deck gets stick drift. Let them know that, even if you get upset about them having made a serious mistake online like being photographed by some creep, you’re worried for them and not wrathful.
I know that, even though I’d never be able to practice it, because that’s how my parents handled it when they were allowed to. It prevented further damage after they literally had to go to court to have me come back home from being taken away from them and shoved into a household I didn’t want to be in and wasn’t wanted in.
Do not hold your kids to any standard of perfection, yours or a religious one or even an objective one. The government of my province did exactly that last one and it destroyed the rest of my childhood and damaged me mentally. I’m lucky my parents did get me back home when they did.
I have a good understanding of the situation, I’m not saying gacha games or commercialized social media are good influences, but you are making a terrible mistake if your kid is being censored from games with minimal microtransactions or told not to use Lemmy. The internet isn’t perfect and your kids won’t be, but what ever is?
Please just show your kids where you recommend they go. Watching everything your kids do is creepy, but denying them access to computers entirely is draconian and cruel because kids who are forcibly left out of media consumption grow up to be kids who are up to 18 years behind their peers.
Fuck you too for ignoring the millions of young adults, who were once children like you, who are now many years ahead of you in terms of psychological damage that the capitalist slot machine world has done to their brains permanently. Fuck you for being insensitive to the effects on millions of people, just because you love your video games and do not want to be left out in “social teenager discussions”. Fuck you for wanting to become another cog of the rotten capitalist bingbingwahoo machine.
I can play the rant game the same way you do, since you choose to come up with the most bizarre irrational justifications to cope with the conditions you faced as a kid, where you were confined to this horrible place. The confinement is the problem, NOT confinement from video games. Video game was not the only missing puzzle piece of your childhood, let alone being the most important one.
If you are thinking that inventing rationalities makes you a rational person, then you are more irrational than the people you call irrational.
I may not be very mature, but legally I’m 32. I still struggle, but despite not even knowing what porn was until I was 15 and never being supervised online, I don’t have an addiction to porn and basically won’t play any game that has a gambling mechanic as the only means of getting something (even something cosmetic) for my character that I want. 1a. You don’t care about kids, you only care about enforcing your beliefs on them. You act just like someone I once knew, an asshole by the name of Mike Elliot, who was paranoid that I would turn out as a criminal or something because I “lived an unstructured life” and “was too defiant and needed to be disciplined”. Guess what? My life is unstructured but now I know enough about the world to decide for myself who to be defiant towards. I’m not a criminal. Yet as recently as when I was 26 Mike and his bitchy wife were apparently still claiming I was bound to end up in prison. Never been to prison, I had to move a long ways from my hometown to get away from my past. 1b. Being that I’m 32, that I am trying to argue in good faith here, and that I still have no friends 15 years after graduation because I was the only intelligent student at my high school to not get to go to university (see #2), I think you’re the one in the wrong here.
I have no job and am lucky I live in Canada; due to Autism Spectrum Disorder and the damage done to me psychologically, I can’t hold a job. Therefore, I make less than $10,000 USD a year and entirely on government support and support from my parents (money goes a lot further when you can do grocery shopping for a family instead of a retired couple and two independent bachelors).
Video games are not mindless entertainment, nor was I just “not allowed to play video games” and “forcibly confined”. I was, for two years, not even allowed to touch a video game console OR computer for any reason, and was banned from social contact with anyone younger than 18 (despite the fact that I was 11-13 when that rule was forced on me by random government bureaucrats) or any adult who wasn’t my foster parents or a government worker, yes that EXCLUDED MY BIOLOGICAL PARENTS AND MY SIBLING. This was in 2001 to 2003. It took me 6 years to catch up for having missed 2 years of pop-culture, which I had to do entirely online because I was now a pariah for having disappeared from all my classmate’s world for two years. I didn’t even know that I would have liked Y2K aesthetic and similar until it had all been replaced by McBling and Frutiger Aero, which themselves were replaced by newer styles. It’s not just the time or the pop-culture or the aesthetic or even the loss of social contacts, I had a seething hatred of the “gang thug or emo” lifestyle teenagers subscribed to circa 2002-2008. There were no actual teenage conversations I ever wanted to be part of, because I NEVER EVEN GOT TO EXPERIENCE THE PART OF MY LIFE I’M NOSTALGIC FOR. I have no childhood, it was reduced to nothing but school and reading books. I’m a writer and, because I’m a sci-fi writer, I hate the idea of restricting readers to being readers. Kids and even adults need to be allowed to experience the world without assholes like you telling them that Dr. Lipschitz said “oReO cReAm Is BaD f0r KiDs WiTh AuTiSm SpEcTrUm… but a-okay for normal kids, so make sure your autistic child is told they’re not allowed to be normal in every way you possibly can!”.
It’s not about the fucking oreos, it’s about the fact that I AM NOT PROPERTY OF WHOEVER IS RAISING ME. YOUR KID IS NOT YOUR FUCKING SLAVE, GET IT THROUGH YOUR FUCKING HEAD AND GET THE OVERBLOWN FEAR OF ADDICTION OUT OF IT BECAUSE THEY DESERVE TO BE ABLE TO ENJOY WHAT THEY ENJOY AND NOT WHAT YOU SAY IS OKAY! YOU WARN THEM, AND THEN YOU FUCKING STEP BACK BECAUSE IF THEY WANT TO MAKE A MISTAKE THEN THAT’S A GODDAMN HUMAN RIGHT TO MAKE ONE. INTERVENTIONS EXIST FOR A REASON, YOU CAN’T PRECRIME ADDICTION OUT OF EXISTENCE.
This was never about pro-capitalism or being rational about my life, this was about rational parenting. No, I’m not a parent, but my parents would have raised me a hell of a lot better than you plan to raise your kid, and at least at this point of my life I know how to judge good parenting for myself. My parents were rational, and seeing you not be in such a blatantly arrogant way is the final straw. You want a lemmy posting war, you fucking monster?
Maybe go read 1984 first. You know, the GEORGE ORWELL book. Then read Neuromancer or watch Blade runner. See how both a capitalist and socialist dystopia don’t look so different? Now watch Escape from L.A. and realize a theocratic dystopia isn’t any different either. Then watch Mad Max and see how even anarchy is dystopian.
I’m not saying go with the popular choice or even let the child just do whatever. I’m saying check yourself you fucking hypocrite because right now the popular choices are all some form of extremism and I’m the guy saying “a balanced approach is often the best option”. Taking away video games entirely is not balanced, taking away internet is outright censorship, and taking away ANYTHING from an innocent person “for their own protection” or even “for everyone else’s protection” instead of “because you made a mistake” is unjust if it isn’t universally-applied. Punishments prepare kids for “if you commit a crime, there are consequences”. Censorship by parents like you on their own kids teaches them only that they are not the equal of their peers. It’s not your fucking choice to make for your children, it’s only your responsibility to make sure that if it goes wrong, they know why and why they should never do it again, and that does not include manipulative mind games like sabotaging things when they don’t do what you want.
I’m fucking done talking to you, you clearly don’t want to argue in good faith and there’s a block button for a reason.
I love how you demonised me in the earlier comment, and now this one, treating me like a “fucking” “monster” “slave” owner or whatever mental image you form in your head, as you continue to passionately rant, doused in your traumatic past, hurt by it and thinking that attacking me is going to do anything about it. Then you even claim I am the one who does not want to argue in good faith within the span of 1 exchange, where you write 2 thesis long comments.
Your perspective is irrational and purely one sided. You not having been addicted to porn and games does not mean millions of kids have not gotten addicted. You are less important than the millions of other kids for a society, going by a simple logical analysis of the society’s current condition.
You have claimed how you missed out on “catching up” with pop culture, wanting to live a video gamer childhood and so on, and want to force that onto other kids because your creativity urge desires that. You are the one who is wrong to want other kids’ brains to get rotten, just because of your fictional creative desires. The abuse of human psychology in advertising, gaming, porn and media industry in general is a more important concern than your personal bickering, and I am okay with being rude about it. I will be an asshole to you, since you first chose to be one.
I have watched Blade Runner, and I know about 1984 pretty well. George Orwell was a fascist who sold out communists to the police, and I do not consider his fearmongering picturisation fully valid, even if it lays out one of the possibilities of a future world. There are many, many wrong claims and assumptions you make to formulate the conclusion, and it is heavily tainted by your traumatic childhood and your anger largely based in FOMO.
There is not much rationality in your emotionally loaded rant, and I simply do not have the time or inclination to help you and address this. Generally I am known to help people, but I do not have the energy required to help you, and in life I am getting tired of helping people when almost nobody reciprocates with helping/protecting me. I despise one sided transactional relationships, simply put.
Seek professional therapy and meditation sessions. You need A LOT of healing. A LOT. I cannot emphasise enough.
If there’s a reliable way to only be alerted to specific activity, then the parents aren’t really actively spying, in the sense that the kids still have privacy when they aren’t transgressing into prohibited space. As long as that prohibited space is reasonable (huge debate possible there of course) and the kids know about the restrictions. imo
this post is about a child being blocked then reported to their parents for ‘teaching crabs to read’
I don’t think you can defend it as a reasonable prohibited space
I get the “haha” of this particular search getting reported on…but I think that this sort of surveillance is definitely stepping into creepy territory that will end up doing more harm than good.
There were definitely web searches I performed about topics back when I was younger that I would never want my parents to know. When you live in an oppressive household where you are taught never to think outside of the box or be anything your parents don’t want you to be, having the internet available is supposed to be a path to liberation.
If they want to set up filters that block certain results, fine. But tattling is just unethical, especially if the child does not know their search history is being monitored by their parents.
to investigate, study, or analyze : look into
➡️sometimes used with indirect questions
This definition makes no distinction between factual and speculative, and in fact invites speculative use with the second point. Additionally, there’s a long history of using the word “explore” in this exact type of situation.
Anyway, the point is, don’t be such a wet blanket, plz.
The thing is, parents get incredibly conflicted messages about this. When a child DOES end up looking at something bad parents get all the blame for not supervising and controlling their child and get called abusive. If they supervise and control their child they get called helicopter parents or abusive as well.
And it’s not only regarding the internet. When parents let their children roam, for example, the neighborhood and something bad happens, the parents get the blame and called abusive for letting their child roam the neighborhood. If they control outdoors time for they child, they are abusive again.
It literally doesn’t matter what you do as a parent, a lot of people will call you a bad parent or an abuser for it. I believe it is one reason why some people don’t want to have children at all. It’s basically an impossible task.
This sort of oppressive situation is my childhood in a nutshell. And you’re right, it’s entirely unethical, and in combination with other factors can be used as a factor in psychological abuse. I know I at least am traumatized from it, and surveillance was definitely one of many signifigant factors.
Exactly. Kids grown in high volume of surveillance (e.g. my nieces) end up being more aggressive towards rules, which creates people who think rules are there to be broken.
Man, I hate identity politics. It really has been an extremely useful tool to get the wealthy to divide us so that we won’t care about our own deliberate impoverishment.
At the same time, whenever someone is mean to my trans homies I want to punch them in the throat.
I legit had this stupid fucking argument with this moron who claimed that they should have the right to be intolerant. No dude, your rights end where your fist hits my face. People claim freedom we aren’t completely free, we live in a society together. We agreed as a society that murder and assault are not allowed, and that could be considered curtailing “freedoms”. These morons though don’t see the nuance and just want to be racist pricks
Hear, hear! I mean, that moron has the right to be intolerant, but not to reshape society in their image. And they aren’t free from the social consequences of their personal intolerance.
I disagree with tax & rent being lumped together. I have no problem with my (high) tax rate as it supports education, infrastructure, etc. The outrageously inflated rent goes to the same guy that stole 95% of your pizza in the first place.
While I agree in principle, when tax dollars go to corporate tax cuts, handouts to failing financial institutions, and billionaire lunatics selling snake-oil space-based internet “solutions”, its easy to get disillusioned about taxes.
We absolutely should be taxed to a high degree, but that money needs to be spent on collective benefits, not private corporate interests.
That’s a different topic though! Don’t conflate collecting funds with usage/distribution of funds. We all need to accept that we have to pay (high) taxes. That the upper 10% haven’t paid their fair share in decades and that there is misuse has nothing to do with my tax rate. We need the upper 10% to pay way way more and we need better accountability for usage of the money. Pretty much regardless of where you live on this planet by the way.
Yeah I think playing into the idea that it’s being taken unjustly though is bad. It’s better to portray it like the rich roommate never paying their portion of any of the bills and leaving you to cover it all.
You realize someone has to pay for public infrastructure and services, yes? If corporate interests do not pay the taxes that are typically expected of them, then someone else will have to cough up that money, or services will need to be cut.
“Paying” for tax cuts makes sense in the context of changing budgets while trying to keep them balanced. But no money is ever spent on tax cuts. It’s spent on the public infrastructure and services you mentioned. If you properly account for the money as being used to pay for public goods, then saying it’s also used to pay for tax cuts would be double counting.
Alice and Bob agree to buy a shared lumber splitter. Alice takes a loan to pay for it, which Bob agrees to pay half of. When payments are due, Bob bails and does not pay, and he uses the lumber splitter anyways. Now Alice has to also pay the share that Bob agreed to pay.
Having to pay more for a shared cost so that someone else can pay less… I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the shorthand “pay for someone else’s tax cuts”.
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.