Both scenarios I give involve the parent attempting to address the problem the child has. In the first one, the child had to ask for a way around an age blocker. The parent was never going to say no to the request because they’re not going to make the case that the child “doesn’t deserve to use devices”. You could even theorize that the last part, discovering “HotChat”, happens on their own time.

In the second one, the child was advised to consult an adult before using a chat program. The answer to their problem was a direct refusal - a NO from the parent, and an explanation as to why not to proceed - rather than any form of direct help. I’m even positing this second scenario starts from the child being left to their devices.

I’d need a much more detailed description of what a universal, government-driven, “simple explanation for first time setup” would be, for all operating systems on the market: Forcing all users to make admin accounts, store a password, and then create a child account; and trusting that people won’t take simple paths for it, when most children are granted their own devices.

I’m very much in favor of giving parents tools for those things. But the way security works is, it will always be at war with convenience. As soon as people lean towards shortcuts that circumvent the intent of security (because not everyone’s lives are based around these secure systems), the tight-gripped approach to security fails out. We want parents to choose to learn these tools on their own time, not simply have them presented as a roadblock to access.

In the normal case where a moderate/low-tech mom buys a child an iPad, there is no step at which they’re likely to recognize it has an “admin setup”, or configure a password. They unwrap their christmas gift, and they’re likely the one to figure it out.

I can easily picture this discussion in a household strangled for time.

“Mom! I tried to use that new tablet, but it wouldn’t work!”
“Okay…sweetie, I’m running late for my shift, what’s the problem?”
“It says I’m…that I must be 18 or older to akkept the terms-”
“Did you give it your age?”
“My birthday? Yeah. Does it give you like presents on your birthday?”
“Put in…put in 1980 for the year. It’s fine. I gotta go. Love you.”
"Really? Okay. …Hey, it worked! I can play Fortnite now!-
slam
“Huh. What’s HotChat…?”

Versus this: (What the website proposes)

“Mom? Is it okay if I chat with people on the internet?”
“Chat with who? You mean like your friends? Is Derek from school on there?”
“Well there’s this thing that came installed on the tablet. It says I can chat with people on the internet. But I should ask first.”
“Let me see. …Sweetie, this doesn’t look like something that’s for you. We don’t know if the people you’re talking to are strangers, or even dangerous people.” “Ohhh.”
“I can…I gotta go, but I’ll try to find you some apps that will let you chat with kids from school. Okay?”
“Aw. Okay. I can still play Fortnite though, right?”
“I…yeah. Fortnite is fine. Don’t put anything on there without talking to me, you promise?”
“I promise.”

The site even backs this up: That open communication about dangers, rather than hard, automatic restrictions tends to lead to healthier upbringing from kids. Setting up fully automated barriers just leads to creative workarounds, since ultimately, adults and businesses will demand convenience - and kids will find ways to get access to it too.

Funny thing is, I knew a long time ago it was a boomer shooter. I was miffed that it boiled down “detective work” to gunning down whole rooms of people.

But, on a second look, I’m surprised to see there’s a lot of genuine worldbuilding, exploration, and conversations to go into the mystery! Sure, gunning down hordes is still used as the central play, but I like when it’s not overly reductive.

I think the big counter example to that is Fortnite. Battle royales were already pretty successful, and then Fortnite (previously a fort zombie defense game) pivoted to a battle royale, and the rest is history.

So it’s hard to say it can’t be done. Certainly most of them are a waste of time.

You do realize that speech in The Witcher was at the beginning of a character arc, and he gives up on that viewpoint as the story goes on?

This buys too far into the claim that Republicans are all hicks afraid of communism; something Russian bots suggest heavily to keep America divided. When Bernie and AOC toured the nation, they saw that people overwhelmingly support universal healthcare. Many of them, in 2024, foolishly believed vague claims by Trump that he was going to “revamp” healthcare, not cut it.

Apologies; didn’t read that far when I saw it. But to be fair, your exact quote was “Requires Windows”, not “Requires Windows or Linux”. You’re sort of the odd one out on macs.

And would then be touched by which state? Individuals? They organize too - based on race. Who will prevent that organization?

It feels like every hole poked in anarchism is responded to with some level of leadership and organization, defeating the whole argument.

I’ll appreciate that it’s hard to be a devil’s advocate on an argument and provide a nuanced take. But I will say the points made on the Ageless Linux website demonstrate why that’s an issue, primarily around how you’re teaching kids from their first time on the internet to lie. It really doesn’t matter whether this happens through a drivers’ license pic or a DOB selector.

Keep in mind, Israeli invaders (often mislabeled “settlers”) would be an example of self organizers.

Wait, what? The game is Steam Deck verified. How does it require Windows?

I have a story idea, for a training program for spies.

As an exercise, a trainee is told to enter a poker game, read the expressions of the other attendees, and win the pot. The agency can give them a near unlimited budget, but they’re advised to pull out if things are not going well.

Then, they enter the game, win maybe one hand; but after eight or nine hands it would become increasingly obvious there’s some serious cheating going on, and everyone at the table is in on it except the agent. They would never be allowed to win, and cannot complete their mission.

Maybe some trainees would relent to force to get the cash, which would be arranged to make a splashy headline about “The agency’s brightest caught cheating at poker, attempts to murder club owner!”

The lesson there would be to dispel feelings of invincibility, or pursuit of perfection, by the agent; to get them to accept there will be bad, failing circumstances they need to pull out from. Learning when to fold, and then to walk away from the table, is honestly a pretty important life skill.

“I’ll just hold off on the termination notice until you’ve finished writing it.”

A long time ago, Steam was hated on its release. People just wanted to play Counterstrike and Half-Life 2, and this studio with like three games wanted you to install a launcher and taskbar app for it, and make an online account to play a singleplayer game.

Part of me is baffled and a bit weirded out that we’ll have stories like Injustice, where a kryptonian god rules the world but Batman is STILL insisting on his “Do not kill” rule.

I want to see more heroes that will string up a purse snatcher and give them a stern talking to, but will also end the lives of truly evil people.

“You want my thesis? I hate college!! My thesis is going to be about taking a SHIT up your ASS!”
(Four years later)
“Wow, Mr. Blake! The results of your medical trial were astounding! These are excellent results!”
“Wait…huh?”

Yeah, so often I want Capcom to process that Apollo Justice: Ace Attorney is my least favorite of the whole series, not because of the new protagonist, but because Phoenix is way too present in it.

I can start to see some indie games following through on the formula, which to me is a great evolution though. Very little has the creative inventiveness of the original trilogy though. So hard to alleviate from brain drain.

I’ve never been a big Minecraft fan, but has Hytale reawakened any of that passion in people?

The only caution with that is, private companies have a LOT of power and control right now. Easy to argue they shouldn’t, of course.

An example might be Visa enforcing “content guidelines” on any paid content on Steam providing NSFW games. Like, say, any game that acknowledges gay people exist. Payment processors and similar companies have claimed that’s a freedom of speech stance.

But yes, we can definitely keep it simple in forum communities constantly under human enforcement.

One thing I appreciate about the game is the natural enforcement of rules. Usually, in a game we see strict, coded enforcement: You’re not punished for attacking a teammate, you either physically can’t, or you’re removed from the game when it’s demonstrated to be intentional.

In Arc Raiders, if there’s no witnesses, you CAN get away with murdering another player. It comes with risks, for instance people could hear and deduce the situation. I think having that as a possibility actually makes the friendly interactions feel more positive. It’s more of an intentional choice.

There’s perhaps something interesting to say about game design mechanics there - where something exists in the game but is not actively rewarded or encouraged nor punished.