"Hamas has denied its forces committed sexual violence against women or mistreated female hostages.

However, a UN mission concluded in March 2024 that there were “reasonable grounds” to believe that conflict-related sexual violence occurred during the 7 October attack in multiple locations, including rape and gang rape, and that there was “convincing information” that hostages had been subjected to sexual violence, including rape and sexualised torture." Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1mz8gxzg82o

As I already said in my other response, it’s really about the developing child. Jonathan Haidt’s books “The Coddling of the American Mind” and “The Anxious Generation” both talk about the idea of over protectionism. You cannot deny that buy expensive shoes they will inevitably grow out of to avoid some light teasing from the school boys is over protecting them. They should be tough enough to handle comments about the fact they don’t have expensive shoes. If they aren’t, that’s a great parenting moment to help them work through those feelings and how to better handle the social situations.

The goal of childhood is to prepare you for adulthood. It is better to be teased as a developing child, especially for something trivial, and be a well rounded adult. Children have to figure out how to navigate difficult social situations themselves, rather than simply avoiding them. It is becoming increasingly problematic when kids aren’t working things out amongst themselves, or at the very least putting up with it, and instead resort to having an adult fix it for them. If they learn they can always go to an adult to fix their problems, they are being prepared for an authoritarian government. The solution to their problems is a higher power that will fix things for them. This is not quite the same, but it is avoiding difficult confrontation over something as trivial as shoes.

I do think kids should also have the freedom to choose their own shoes. If you give them a budget, and they can find Nike shoes in that budget, good on them. Maybe they even keep an eye on them going on sale. But if they cannot find shoes within the budget, they will have to settle for what they like within their price range. Which is also a valuable lesson for a developing teen.

they feel those problems with the same intensity we do

We cannot protect kids from big feelings. It is vital they experience big feelings. It’s becoming increasingly problematic with over protectionism and treating children as fragile beings. It’s caused higher levels of anxiety and reduced social skills. While you may say them not having name brand shoes will lead to anxiety, if they are always given a way out of their easy to handle middle school problems, how are they going to be prepared for adulthood problems, or the countless other things out of their control. They need to experience the anxiety and learn how to handle it in healthy ways.

something that’s important to a child should also be important to their parents, in my opinion

I get where you’re coming from, but that cannot be universally true (and I think you would agree). A child wanting every toy they ever see, no matter how important to them, obviously is not going to be important to you as a parent. If a teen thinks it’s important everyone they meet loves them, you cannot encourage extreme people pleasing. No kid “needs” name brand shoes. That is very distinctly a want. Perhaps they do some extra chores to earn their more expensive shoes, so you are all happy. But simply giving them expensive shoes they will inevitably grow out of because of a few comments from some school bullies is not a big problem. It is a little problem. Kids can handle little problems without adult intervention.

Kid could toughen up a bit. Having your shoes made fun of is such a small insignificant thing. It’s probably one of the best options out there, given it’s not actually even about you. I can guarantee if the kid did not react to the teasing, they would find someone else to pick on. Who seriously cares about shoes?

Nike doesn’t sell proprietary shoe laces that only work with nike shoes. Or sell gloves that pair with the shoes, so if you wanted to switch shoes you’d also have to get new gloves. Apple is awful for very different reasons

American Public? Public American?

The one I worked at was a very large modern university hospital (in the US) that handled a large part of the states patients. We used pagers in the Emergency Room for code red patients. Many doctors also still use them

An easy answer is pagers in hospitals. I know it’s because they’re simple RF technology, and work reliably in cinderblock buildings. But given how advanced so much of our medical equipment is, you’d think there would be a different system. Granted, that system would almost definitely need updates and have potential downtime/crashes, which you cannot afford in that kind of environment

While not the same as phone bills, still today electricity changes in cost depending on the time of day. Electricity costs less in the middle of the night. It makes sense to have higher cost during peak demand when charging by usage and there is an impractical bandwidth limit.

Why? It’s been much easier for me

I use a local bank. They’re very helpful and personable, and I don’t ever feel like they’re trying to scam me. I did have to decline the overdraft paper (it was opt-in not opt-out) and I don’t get NFC cards, but it’s totally worth it

To make matters more complex, if I were to murder someone I would leave me phone at home, maybe leave it playing videos. It would be much less likely that my phone is randomly at the house of someone who was just murdered if I am truly innocent. That alone does not prove me guilty, of course, but it sure doesn’t look good.

Hey, infamous is better than being forgotten. At least according to the egomaniac

That’s what they did. And Reddit restored the original content of the comments, likely from an older backup.

Where did you access it from? Was it a university? As far as I’ve learned, ARPAnet wasn’t available in residential settings.

The reality for most people is they charge their phone at night, and that’s it. If the phone has a built in mechanism to stop charging at a certain percentage, you can use that, but otherwise it will just charge to 100%.

The only other option would be to have a smart outlet, and have your phone turn off the smart outlet when it hits 80%, which is an annoyance even if you know how to do it, and virtually impossible for tech illiterate people.

The next best thing is to make sure you aren’t using a fast charger, as the heat from fast charging is arguably worse than charging it to 100%. And if it’s charging over night, there is no reason for it to charge quickly.

But at that point, why get caught up in the semantics of the statement? Why not just simply address the concern they are raising? They aren’t being literal, they don’t mean “every single man” and getting defensive when they aren’t talking about you won’t help.

This seems to be a pretty narrow view point. They’re not asking you to police other actions, but rather voice your disapproval when you see it. Nobody can control the actions of others, but it is also undeniable that men are more likely to listen to other men. To see something, and sit idly by, is comparable to supporting the action. If you do not at minimum vocalize your discontent, then you are fine with it being done around you.

Your current suggestion is that a minority of men harass 50% of the population with no societal repercussions? When that 50% that’s being harassed is like “Hey, we need help from the other 49% to bring about a societal change” your first response is to call them a bigot? In order to substantially change the harassment being done, everyone needs to step up.