LitFan

I would say that in at least some cases over eating and anxiety are both symptoms of underlying problems. Stress, emotional issues, and trauma can all lead someone to either of the two.

As someone that uses food as a coping mechanism for stress, I agree with the GP - if the underlying problem isn't resolved, the weight will come back.

Seeing a parallel to another field with more blatant examples of the types of discrimination keeping women out of tech-related jobs is helpful.

And more discussion around these issues is more likely to lead to positive outcomes than ignoring them.

Harass: to disturb or irritate by persistent acts

While one person saying this once is not necessarily harassment, the frame of reference has to be from the context of the recipient. Consider how often the author has to hear this or similar comments from customers as a result of being a woman working in a trade.

It sounds like from your perspective, being better looking than their co-workers is a good thing. By and large, men are going to find women better looking than other men. That means the "better looking" comment is directly pointing out that the recipient of the comment is a woman.

This article is talking specifically about the ways in which it is detrimental to be a tradeswoman. So in this context, being a woman makes it more difficult for this person to their job.

Looking at another example of something that would make being a tradesperson difficult: Would you call it harassment if customers were consistently making flippant remarks about a co-worker that was missing a hand?

Someone could make a website about this single concept. domainwashing.com?

Do you boycott any other companies based in, or products made in China?

Agreed. I don't think it'd be unreasonable to do blood testing as part of a kid's regular checkup cycle. Doctors use metrics to determine whether kids are growing properly (height + weight, as well as a general visual check), but are those the best metrics? It's likely they're just "good enough".

It helps the other 29 kids in the class until there are altercations involving 5-7 of those.

Then it helps the other 22 kids in the class. What's the endgame? Do you suspend half the kids in the classroom because they're causing a disturbance for the other half?

Something this whole argument misses is that school is a great mechanism to teach kids to interact with each other and learn to solve problems.

It's a bad idea to teach kids that everything is always black and white.

This is a good argument for government funded R&D, and government owned drugs.

They cost a ton of money and take forever to create, so the product becomes very expensive, and rights to it are owned by the creating company. The government empowers a body to regulate the flow of new drugs on the market, and once the drug meets regulatory requirements, the government - in many cases - pays on behalf of the patient.

A company is interested in making a profit on their time investment, whereas the government could be content to break even (for the good of their citizens).

If the government instead paid a company to do the R&D, maybe even providing access to approved facilities where the work is to be done, the government could then retain ownership of that product and then create agreements with drug manufacturers to produce those drugs.

This solves a couple of problems, like sole producers of a product arbitrarily increasing prices (it is expensive and time consuming to set up production for a new drug, even if it is off patent), as well as supply issues (I don't think right now the FDA has any rules saying a drug company must be able to supply a certain amount of a drug to get their license to distribute).

It wouldn't be as hard as you're implying.

The rate of suicide is much higher in prison than out, and is also higher after release for people who have served their prison sentence.

And that's without an impending death sentence - just a regular prison term.

I can't imagine it'd be that different because they were incarcerated incorrectly.

As I said - I intend to teach them to function on their own. I treat them like people rather than kids as much as possible.

That doesn't address the legal concerns.

> Teach your kids about dangerous things outside, introduce them to the community and teach them how to ask strangers for help.

I intend to do this.

I also plan on giving my kids cell phones when they're old enough (School age, is my current assumption), and will ask them to share their locations with me.

However, To say that parents have no right to infringe on the privacy or personal autonomy of their children is incorrect.

I'm legally responsible for the well being of my kids. I'm legally required to ensure my child is safe at all times. This can involve leaving my child with another guardian, but for various reasons I'm not about to trust the school.

I can be sent to prison for a maximum of 2 years and fined $50,000 if I break these laws. Being absent from my children's lives for 2 years would damage their development.

I can present all this information to my children and ask them to decide if they want me to know where they are at all times. You could make the argument that they're not mature enough to give me that permission.

It does not.

I can post but I can't figure out how to read. After posting I'm taken back to the home page.

I tried to go to sincere.chat/read but I got a silly 404. :)

>(As for "food on the table", lower income people "invest" in lottery tickets. They clearly do have discretionary income.)

Low income people are desperate to get out of their situation because in a lot of cases, it's barely livable.

The information in the article shows that they're largely correct; A disproportionate amount of compensation goes to a small number of people - and that amount is so skewed that it can't possibly be based on performance.

If the system they're in appears illogical, you can't fault them for acting illogically.

For my specific case: I can confidently answer "no" to this question.

Unfortunately I don't think I can share the details here.

Yes. I work for the software development department of an insurance company.

I'm in favor of allowing people to live without needing to work. I understand that there needn't be a job for every person in the world. I'm aware that nobody should have to work 40 hours a week anymore.

I'm open to a system that allows all of these things to happen.

However - applying that system on a micro scale (one workplace at a time, through unions) introduces way too much friction between employers and their employees, employees and their peers, and employers and unions.

It also causes an internal conflict for the employee - where they have to mask their lack of contribution by busywork, ultimately feeling unfulfilled in their life.

Unionizing all workplaces is a sub-optimal means to distribute wealth.

Under performing was an understatement. I could have as easily said "employees that are asleep at their desks" and it would have been true for some cases.

Management doesn't pursue these people because of the effort involved with dealing with the union.

Some insight as to why someone may be anti union:

My union has done nothing perceptible during the course of my employment, outside of protecting employees who are under performing.

My union dues cost 1% of my salary, and my perception is that they're taking that money and spending it on protecting bad employees.

I have friends who are higher up in unions at other workplaces, as well as friends who are involved with labor law. The impression all around is that my union and its representatives are "not good".

Unions don't automatically make working conditions better. They need to have good people working in the union to achieve that.

> 2) Give them unstructured play time with friends consistently. After age 9 or so, they really can go off on their own without parents around.

http://cwrp.ca/sites/default/files/publications/en/144e.pdf

In Manitoba I can be fined up to $50,000 and given 24 months in prison if I allow my kids to play alone under the age of 12.

The PDF refers to child 'home' or 'in a vehicle' alone, but the details of the law are that the guardian of any child under the age without adequate supervision is liable.

I'm not even that old and I used to play in a park with my friends, in one of the rougher neighborhoods in my city, 2 kilometers from my parents house when I was 8.

Those were great experiences my kids can't legally have.

I don't think you need to worry too much. As has been said in this thread, electronic devices and the software running on them are designed to be addictive. Young children lack the self-control to limit or stay away from things they're addicted to.

You'll be doing just fine if you lay down some boundaries for them limiting the time they spend on any one activity. Bonus points if you take part in those activities with them. :)

From the tone of your comment it sounds like you think conflict is bad.

As a bit of a sidebar:

It's the parent's job to teach a child how to live a healthy lifestyle as an adult.

It's impossible to live a healthy lifestyle while doing only one activity, because there are many things that need doing around your house, or in your life, as an adult that most people won't have someone doing for them.

A parent's goals will conflict with a child's goals - the child lacks the wisdom the adult has gained over their lifetime, and as a result doesn't understand what they need to work on to become a functioning adult. At the same time, the child should challenge the adult's authority frequently - in order to discover the boundaries of their behavior. This has the additional benefit of giving the adult a lens through which to evaluate their own behavior.

I've learned more about myself and tempering my behavior from interacting with my daughter in the last 2 years than I had in the ten years before she was born. I hope that as a result, I'm a better parent now than I would have been ten or even two years ago.

On topic:

I agree with the GP - too much of any one activity is no good. Everyone needs to learn that there's a time and a place for each activity, and that there are many things important to keep us happy and healthy.

If you were regulated like a state lottery, people would be interested - they already are.

I don't think most people even consider the odds when playing the lottery.

A possible explanation for why one would participate in a lottery:

What if $5 per week for the rest of their life doesn't impact an individual's standard of living, but $10 million would drastically improve it?

Does it then make (more) sense to participate?

Is that confusing or damaging to the animal?

Do they perceive the "stops existing" as dying? Should the handler remove the sock puppet out of view of the animal?

I worry that my 2 year old daughter will develop these addictions. My hope is that in modeling good behavior (kids are always watching! They learn more watching our behavior than we can ever try to teach them!) she will not.

Now my fear is just that my behavior is not good enough.

> I imagine it's hard for busy parents to police the commercials the children sees

I hear things like this a lot. It's not hard, it just takes time. Is it hard to make that time? If it is too hard to make time to do something with your kids that you yourself think is important, you have to reconsider your priorities.

If you didn't plan appropriately, and decided to have kids before realizing the effort required, then you need to do some risk-reward analysis and determine which things you "have time" to pay attention to and which you don't.

> unwanted but hard to avoid space

Again, not hard, just time consuming. Time and interest will make sure your kids are well adjusted (well, at least as well adjusted as their parents).

If you squat with proper form, there is almost no pressure on your knees, because you're not pressing against them.

Heels flat on the floor, knees in line with your toes, but behind them. If you don't have the hip mobility you need to get your knees behind your toes, you'll feel a strain on your knee.

You should be able to lift your toes off the floor as you stand up - all the weight is on your heels.

Unfortunately, those groups, like many others who intend to control people with religion, cherry picked an example that fits their rhetoric.

The bible is often contradictory, and in it you can also find these:

> 'He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man' (Isaiah 66.3)

> 'For meat destroy not the work of God' (Romans 14.19-21)

> 'A righteous man regardeth the life of the beast' (Proverbs 12.10)

Christianity doesn't represent the majority of religions (~31.5%). Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism all advocate for animal rights (~45.3%).