sunbeam60

joined 1 year ago
[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

How about “it’s complicated”? It certainly doesn’t steal art and it certainly does lower the need for humans to create art.

[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The “they stop learning how to do it properly” is as old as time itself!

How many of today’s Illlustrator artists know how to blend oil colours and layer them on cloth? How many software developers could build what they do in pure assembler?

We stand on the shoulders of giants, have been since the Stone Age. Specialisation and advancement has meant we don’t need to start from first principle. You could argue that is what “progress” is; being able to get a little bit further because your parents got a little bit further because their parents got a little bit further.

[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 5 points 3 months ago

Is Servo independent of Mozilla now? It’s instructive how much they swayed when Mozilla cut them away, but seems they’ve found a new team to steward it.

Ladybird I hadn’t heard of so thank you for the suggestion. I’ll check them out.

[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 14 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I like LibreWolf! But while they may be the natural successor to a folded Firefox, they would need to beef up dramatically to actually be the stewards of the codebase. Right now they do a good job at removing stuff, but setting a direction for a browser that zings with users requires a fully fledged product org.

Firefox is caught between those two worlds.

[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 28 points 3 months ago (7 children)

This is what drives me mad about Mozilla. Let me donate to Firefox! I don’t want to donate to another hairbrained idea to “diversify your revenue streams” - I want to donate to Firefox.

As I’ve said many times before, Firefox would be better off as an opencollective-driven, smaller (50-ish) team, with code on Codeberg, than driven by a 600 strong org who needs to compete with SF salaries and fancy offices. They have become Google by another name and it ain’t healthy.

[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

True, but there is good and bad ways to use media (educational content done well vs cheap Chinese children’s TV) and we do have age ratings there.

You’re right that cigarettes are universally bad (smokers would argue not, of course, and probably highlight social moments, pauses to reflect etc) but much of my list has good and bad sides. I’m perfectly open to removing cigarettes from the list, but it doesn’t change the validity of the other areas where we regulate minors’ usage.

[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Ok, good to understand your viewpoint. It’s clear you seek an entirely different way of managing vices for children. I can appreciate the world you’re describing, where responsible adults help and guide their children to maturity.

I live in the U.K., not sure where you live, but it is my utmost conviction that many parents here do not guide and shape their children and that should your approach to vice management be instituted, you’d see an heap of children slip into dependency before 10.

But you may live in a different part of the world, one where your approach could work. What do I know?

[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (6 children)

We ban gambling, cigarettes, alcohol, media for children, because of harms we understand that they inflict on children. Should these be parental discretions too?

[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 13 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Sort of the same here. Our 17 and 14 year olds were the last in their classes to get one and I still felt it was too early.

And for those without kids, here’s my actual story about what smart phones do to children: I was recently visiting an enormous aquarium abroad; just tank after tank of impressive displays.

As we arrived we realised, ok wow, shark feeding is literally now, let’s go watch it. It had obviously drawn an enormous crowd of families but eventually we got ourselves into a position where we could see. And then my wife tapped my shoulder and pointed and I noticed what she had noticed: At prime viewing position, on these pedestal sort of things, were sitting a row of teenagers, all of them, to the very last boy and girl, hunched over and staring at their smartphones.

LITERAL SHARKS WERE BEING HAND FED RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM and they couldn’t give a shit because PHONES!!!

[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 25 points 3 months ago (14 children)

Got two teenagers. I’d outlaw smart phones for anyone under 18 if it was up to me. Bring the flame!

[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 23 points 3 months ago (14 children)

May I gently ask if you have children in the phone age range?

I have never seen anything with such a hold over teenagers.

view more: ‹ prev next ›