I might be older than your dad and I don’t recall seeing an offer like this. 😊

This is not just the US, it is the norm world wide.

It’s also not limited to job relations either. “New customer? Let me show you this sweet deal.” - “Oh, you’re already a customer? Then it’s full price I’m afraid”

You need to regularly review/change contracts.

It should be very obvious that I have kids just as well as it is obvious that you seem to be outsourcing parenting.

Of course kids are different, that’s true for every living being. Of course setting boundaries is hard, in my observation it requires way more that 2-3 times teaching - sometimes way way more. Especially when it’s an important thing that’s also fun like „don’t run across the (busy) street” or “don’t touch the hot thing” or whatever is going on with your phones.

Just to be clear by the age of 3-4 a child should be aware of the concept of not taking what belongs to others including their pictures.

If your SO was fine with their phone being used to take nudes of them it would not be an issue. However in your 1st comment you state they are not.

The kids is old enough to understand boundaries and the word “no”. If that behavior is limited to your own household then fine you do you. It never is though.

To me gender isn’t isn’t relevant here, even if the kid is way older. The violation of privacy however is.

I don’t recall the age I had to teach my kid not to film me taking a shower or a dump. I believe by the age of 5 they had their own mind when they wanted to be filmed/have their picture taken.

My kid sometimes takes pictures of my SO naked because they know how to access the camera.

WTF?

Yeah, that works too.

Thanks

If we follow the logic of “doing your job” = “quiet quitting” then you need to call it “quiet suffocating”.

The song by itself could be seen as someone reminiscing about teenage love, I.e. both parties are teens.

The video is quite disturbing though. They could have shown a teenage couple while the singer is the narrator. Instead they went full pedo.

Apparently they had fines before, are facing increased gun violence and thus increased the punishment.

see fay, michael and singapore.

I almost forgot that asshole. No one outside the US thought the intervention was warranted. Case in point: the Swiss vandal in 2010

Or just serve alcohol to people of legal drinking age (in your country) along with the Kinder eggs.

TheControlled@lemmy.world (Nomen est omen?) removed any doubt you might have had about his character with this last comment.

He’s also the type of person who hears a radio alert about a wrong way driver on the Autobahn and thinks “One? There are thousands (and all of them are racists)!”

I, as a German, once asked Syrian and Turkish friends on their opinion on Jews. Their answer “The only thing Hitler did wrong was not finishing the job.” sure surprised me as did other really shitty experiences with non-friends from the same Region.

Do I hate Syrians and Turks now? No, because I’m not a fucking asshole that generalizes whole groups of people.

Sorry, I thought it was clear: there was and is also fish ‘Inland’ that is poor people’s food.

The inlander could eat freshwater fish like trout or carp, no fancy saltwater fish.

Bummer, your straw man didn’t work.

You were done for before you started. Your sole way of ‘winning’ for your precious, precious nuclear fission is bringing up fossil fuels to steer the discussion away from renewables.

You’ve proven again and again that you only read headlines that you understand only partially. Your impotent ranting against ‘my definition’ of toxicity was especially entertaining.

The constant bad of your person culminates in claiming that I said that fissionable material good for only a short time which is a short 230 years. I did not. You constantly misinterpret and misrepresent facts. This can’t be blamed on your reading capabilities alone.

Again. At present consumption level fissionable material lasts about 230 years. That’s a massive amount of time and would make fission an option as risks and cost involved are outweighed by the benefits.

Then you factor in Germany and Japan going fully back to nuclear and rising demand for energy and realize you’re off by a factor of 20. Let’s be very conservative and say it’s a factor of 10. Since you either didn’t get that or tried to bury it in BS again:

230/10=23; 230/20=11,5

Result: fissionable material lasts 11,5 to 23 your if we followed your masters’ advice. Is very simple maths I’m sure you can follow.

I could now try to explain as to how long it takes to get a reactor on the net and how it would be active to short to make a dent. You’ll either not understand it or misquote it again.

Next you again throw another bunch of shit on the wall: technology we don’t have yet (fusion, thorium, etc). We might be able to build reactors using that hopefully within the next decade. Right know we don’t and we don’t know when we can. Shit didn’t stick, sorry.

Does the fission lobby pay you well for your service?

Ok, never mind that the people with most expertise and practical experience will inevitably work in the nuclear sector. Lets give this one to you, since I really have no way of knowing if it is honest.

So If you buy a used car you only use the sales guys expertise as he knows the car best and don’t bother asking an independent mechanic? Got ya, bless your heart.

… Ok sure, its not perfect, but it is pretty good evidence without trying it in practice.

No, it’s just a couple of statistics. It’s better than the other piece but that’s a low bar.

Please explain the relevance pertaining to this discussion.

… did not exactly have Geiger counters around it to know there were no issues, but it is good evidence there are no catastrophic ones.

Natural occuring radiation exists elsewhere as well. Intensity and containment are pretty important. You didn’t bring anything to the table.

Add to it the low risk that underground disposal will not be perfectly safe and a relatively small area of land may become uninhabitable in the future.

You have literally no idea what you are talking about. Never heard of underground aquifers for instance?

Now compare that to the yearly deaths cause by air pollution that the coal and gas plants Germany had to reactivate to replace nuclear produce. Then add to it the certain future damage from climate change and tell me that was a reasonable trade-off.

Straw man again, really?

This article is by psychologists. Relevance?

This one might interest you if you intellectually understand nuclear is safer than fossil fuels yet you still feel afraid of it.

I’m only interested in factual evidence. You tend to only read headlines and that only partially while again peddling the fossil straw man.

PS: Oh right, almost forgot.

No, you tried to hide the iceberg. Didn’t work. How obviously bad faith are you trying to be?

At current (nuclear energy) consumption level the global stockpile of fissionable material is estimated to provide energy for another 230 years.

I never claimed nuclear should be a permanent solution and I really don’t want to start another long discussion.

Sure because that one just ripped an iceberg-shaped hole into your HMS Nuclear Titanic. But keep on shilling.