In your comment, is allowlist a list of videos only they can watch? (not a list of 'age ranges' or 'channels', but actually being able to select individual videos). I was never able to get something like this out of youtube kids when I've tried it in the past.
All these services curate for kids and I want to choose what my kids watch, so they are all failing me. (I'm with the others who go with YT premium, youtube-dl, kids watch with vlc or something on a tablet).
I always think of this quote from the movie, "Body of Lies":
"Our enemy has realized that they are fighting guys from the future. Now, ahem, it is as brilliant as it is infuriating. If you live like it's the past, and you behave like it's the past then guys from the future find it very hard to see you. If you throw away your cell phone, shut down your e-mail pass all your instructions face-to-face, hand-to-hand turn your back on technology and just disappear into the crowd"
> If you throw away your cell phone, shut down your e-mail pass all your instructions face-to-face, hand-to-hand turn your back on technology and just disappear into the crowd
Except we've been fighting tax evasion for as long as there have been taxes.
Your supposed "enemy", has barely even noticed you. If the big bad government wants to shut down your little cryptobubble, it can do so anytime it wants with the stroke of a pen.
But yes: please walk into a forest and "life as if you don't exist". I suppose that includes not posting conspiracy fanfic online, right?
Why the vitriol. The comment was meant to allegorically offer a conceptual approach to fighting the dystopian onslaught of oppressive technology.
By oppressive technology I am referring to the kind of tech that obviously oppressive governments would have built decades ago if it had been possible, and that the US will gradually arrive at soon enough without explicitly seeking to do so.
>If the big bad government wants to shut down your little cryptobubble, it can do so anytime it wants with the stroke of a pen.
Let's think this through. How well has government prohibition of what private citizens do in their own homes worked in practice for anything else it's been tried on? Then consider that we're talking about data rather than physical objects, which are even slipperier.
All such an action would do is drive it underground. Anyone who wants to use bitcoin still will.
Now, if china makes them pull shadowsocks(R) clients from the apple/app/itunes store...then we'll know they are serious. Sorry for all the vpners in china on apple, at least you can go get a cheap android device in china and monkey around and patch together a mobile vpn based solution of some sort.
Sounds like the Alinsky bit in "Rules for Radicals" about working inside and outside of people's experiences:
"....In a similar situation in Los Angeles four staff members and I were talking
in front of the Biltmore Hotel when I demonstrated the same point, saying:
"Look, I am holding a ten-dollar bill in my hand. I propose to walk around
the Biltmore Hotel, a total of four blocks, and try to give it away. This will
certainly be outside of everyone's experience. You four walk behind me
and watch the faces of the people I'll approach. I am going to go up to
them holding out this ten-dollar bill and say, 'Here, take this.' My guess is
that everyone will back off, look confused, insulted, or fearful, and want to
get away from this nut fast.
From their experience when someone approaches them he is either out to
ask for instructions or to panhandle — particularly the way I'm dressed, no
coat or tie."
I walked around, trying to give the ten-dollar bill away. The reactions were
all "within the experiences of the people." About three of them, seeing the
ten-dollar bill, spoke first — "I'm sorry. I don't have any change." Others
hurried past saying, "I'm sorry, I don't have any money on me right now,"
as though I had been trying to get money from them instead of trying to
give them money. One young woman flared up, almost screaming, "I'm not
that kind of a girl and if you don't get away from here, I'll call a cop!"
Another woman in her thirties snarled, "I don't come that cheap!" There
was one man who stopped and said, "What kind of a con game is this?"...."
I lived off handouts for a year while I writing up my research results. Finished it and got a job through a friend. When I got my first paycheck, I went to an ATM and took out a $100. I was so disorientated about actually having some money in the bank that, when I removed my bank card, I left my money behind. I walked about 15 meters before I realised what I had done. I naively returned to the bank and went inside to explain what had happened. (I mean did I really expect the teller to believe me or be able to do anything about it?) There were two young guys at the bank's information desk handing in the money. I said "That's mine", took it and walked away. I wanted to give them a reward, but thought their good deed would have to be its own reward.
given that there are a lot of scams that start by giving the mark something in order to create a sense of obligation, it's not an unreasonable response
oh obviously don't get into a fight, but I see no problem in being annoying to con men if you can do so safely. It's not like you're gonna get decked straight away if you refuse to give it back. As always use your own judgement.
Agreed. I don't believe you are implying this, but neither Saul nor I intend to state their reactions are unreasonable. Merely to indicate how divergent reactions can be in different populations and how this can be utilized.
Except the fact that one is (most of the time):
- a characteristic that is outwardly visible and generally perceivable
-a characteristic upon which many societies have historically (and/or currently) organized biases around
While the other is generally related to how big one's feet are.
I would gather the submission intend to point out that this 'news event' was 'rare' and therefore worth submitting (rare because of the success, being a single founder, and being a woman in a field where (I presume) women are significantly less numerous). Anyway, looks like there were issues with the submission for some reason since it has been edited.
I don't get it. So if things are not fun we don't do them?
Is someone claiming they love to dance to the doctor to see their child in pain?
I have a newborn. He has been upset, in pain, and sick in his first 6 months - we always try to do what is best for him, our family, his health, and public health. Dancing or allowing his discomfort to heavily bias our decisions never even remotely occurred to us.
Seems that I can't 'shuffle' play my own library by genre (or 'mood'). Which makes Beats about the thousandth company to not offer this (common sense?) option. I can do this with Google Play Music (thankfully). Personally, there are plenty of ways to get 'curated' music...make it easy for me to play what I want.
Also, spent about 15 minutes on their site and still couldn't find the web player...maybe launch day issue?
Edit: found listen.beatsmusic.com (thanks to a comment here)
Don't worry, you are not the problem...the problem is all these morally, self righteous people doing their best to abide by the intent of the tax code even when they think the system isn't fair (or well managed)....even though you have more control in what is 'collectively decided' then they do...
All these services curate for kids and I want to choose what my kids watch, so they are all failing me. (I'm with the others who go with YT premium, youtube-dl, kids watch with vlc or something on a tablet).