rrrurboatlibad

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I have no idea how I got here

[–] [email protected] 11 points 6 months ago
[–] [email protected] 194 points 7 months ago (8 children)

You should still set airplane mode when airborne for other reasons besides interference with the aircraft. For one, you'll save your battery. It takes a lot of "juice" for your device to search for cell towers that are likely out of reach. You may also want to avoid connecting to a tower outside where you have coverage. E.g. for a flight from Anchorage to Minneapolis, maybe you don't want to connect to Canadian cell towers and potentially receive charges in another country. Obviously this depends on your plan limits. But, yeah, it's not really about protecting the airplane, in most cases

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago (2 children)

This reply is meant to generate discussion. It is not sarcasm or meant to be taken negatively at all:

What is the purpose of any rules? Why have them? Is it possible to make a "perfect" rule or policy or public intervention whereby all affected persons are serviced fairly? Probably not. If you conclude we need rules, how do we balance their benefits with the disenfranchisement of some of the persons affected negatively?

In your specific case, how do you make the rules minimize negative outcomes without excessively sacrificing the potential positive outcomes?

I'm genuinely interested in your perspective from your age and place in time.

These are good and valid questions. If you're passionate about them, you may consider studying political science and/or law in the future. One day, if you're still passionate about this topic, you may be in a position to change the rules.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 9 months ago (7 children)

Seems like a softball question. Answer="Slavery". Boom, home run. More voters gained than lost

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

I had to "break up" with my best friend over this stuff. His could not let go of his "but both sides" crap. It sucks, but it had to be done. Maybe we'll get back together as friends one day, hopefully

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

Sorry, I missed the scummy part. I'll check it out

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Travel for work all over and don't have a car or other reasonable transportation in random cities. It costs less for delivery than 2 taxi/Uber rides and I dont have to risk getting lost in a weird place I don't know. Hotel room service is not good in most places

[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Grossly oversimplified. Dumb meme that adds nothing substantive

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Dont friggin touch it

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Also the demographic statistics in the journal article are information but not informative. They're not meant by the journal article's authors to support the gross conclusion Musa extrapolated from it.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

So, I read the CNN article and the CNN-linked journal paper it was based on and I don't understand how the CNN aithor, Amanda Musa, was able to read the journal article and jump to her conclusions except through overwhelming prejudice and bias. Holy cow, this is irresponsible reporting. From the journal article itself, here is a relevantbsummary:

Overall, these findings stress the critical public health message concerning the secure storage of firearms, especially in households with adolescents. Our study suggests that initiatives limiting adolescent access to firearms, such as child access prevention laws or efforts to decrease illegal gun trafficking, might effectively prevent school shooting incidents.23,24 Furthermore, hospital-based initiatives centered on screening for firearm accessibility and exposure for inpatients could be fruitful in preventing gun violence, both inside and outside schools.25

view more: ‹ prev next ›