The Higgs results were reproduced because there are two independent detectors at CERN (Atlas and CMS). Both collaborations are run almost entirely independently, and the press are only called in to announce a scientific discovery if both find the same result.
Obviously the 'best' result would be to have a separate collider as well, but no one is going to fund a new collider just to reaffirm the result for a third time.
The point I was trying to make was the fact that nobody (meaning govt bodies) was willing to make another collider capable of repeating the results. At least not yet ;).
There are many things wrong with the TV license system, but I think saying it is 'mandatory' is a little misleading. As the Wikipedia article states, you need a TV license if you want to watch or record live broadcasted material (and iplayer). You can own a TV and not pay for a TV license and use it for Netflix, YouTube, gaming etc legally.
For my entire adult life I've never paid for a TV license, and I have never broken the law and watched live content. Many in my generation have no interest in TV anymore.
It's worth appreciating that 'live broadcast' also includes media off the main networks, so if you watch a SpaceX livestream on YouTube (etc), technically you should have a TV License to do so.
That's not my understanding, unless that spacex livestream is by one of the TV networks.
"A licence is not required to view user generated content, clips and videos on YouTube. This includes live streamed content that is not part of a television broadcast. Or being broadcast at the same time by other means."
You see I totally agree with you, but I am not sure if grindr is solely to blame for this. It is a fair generalisation to say that men struggle far more with emotions and open communication. This is clearly demonstrable by looking at the male suicide rates: in my country (UK) they are roughly 3 times that of women. I have no doubt that is common across western countries.
So really to me the problem is that men, on average, struggle with expressing their emotions more. Asking those men to form healthy, loving relationships with other men is then a challenge. Not impossible, but certainly more difficult.
To me, Grindr is a symptom not the cause. If you are taught from a young age that men don't cry, toughen up and be a man etc, then sex is reduced to the physical act. Add in some emotional truama, which is again very common in the gay community, and the problem is exacerbated. Of course Grindr doesn't help and makes it all worse, but really they're just making money off the damage which is already done.
With suicides, it is kinda. Gender rates of suicides wary between countries.
But what is also happening is that men tend to pick more violent ways of killing themselves - shooting themselves and alike. Women tend to go for poisons and such. So, the suicide attempts are much more closer between genders - but men more successful at it.
> To me, Grindr is a symptom not the cause. If you are taught from a young age that men don't cry, toughen up and be a man etc, then sex is reduced to the physical act.
I agree Grindr is a symptom not the cause. There were rough gay clubs for decades before apps ever appeared.
I don't think this toughening up thing is really the issue though. Many gay friends like this kind of sex and are plenty emotional. And for young people this toughening up bullshit isn't really a thing anymore anyway. When I grew up in the 80s the traditionalists were still like that and there was this (in my opinion) fascist thing in Holland with pretty much all men still being forced into the military and be primed into obedience, following orders and stuff. But since the 90s it's a different world for young people. These things aren't expected and part of their lives anymore. Unless they actually decide they want to be told what to do and join the army voluntarily.
If by ahistorical you mean we do not conform to Greek and Roman era of homosexual activity, you have to keep in mind there were societal pressures at the time as well. I don't think you can take those eras as a gold standard of laissez-faire approach to sexuality.
For the record, I am gay guy and whilst I can identify an attractive woman, it is such a fleeting attraction I can't ever imagine mustering the activation energy to even try.
Exactly, I got into quite a heated discussion with a company that offered me a job with "unlimited PTO". They wanted me to sign in the contract with a clause along the lines of "you have unlimited PTO within reason". The whole point of contracts is that you have to explicitly define what is deemed "reasonable". I insisted they put a number to it and they refused.
Needless to say, I didn't accept the job in the end.
Eh I also wouldn't take that job. But why, really? If you're used to 35 days of PTO, and you take the same 35 days off at your new job, who are they to claim that whatever you're used to is unreasonable?
I'm a hiring manager for UK based FTSE 100 company, hiring software engineers and data scientists. I wanted to give a perspective from 'the other side'.
I've been involved in hiring for a few companies since 2018 ish, and I've noticed a really sharp decline in the quality of candidates this year. Recently I have interviewed no end of candidates who have 5+ years experience, made redundant and seem to think they can walk into a job with zero effort.
Some recent examples that I am slightly changing for anonymity:-
- a candidate could not remember how to do a for loop in python
- a candidate told me they forgot what the job they applied for was and who we are
- the only question a candidate asked me at the end of the interview was 'can I work on my personal laptop?' We are a multi billion pound company, not a startup.
If these were graduates I can forgive some of the poor interviewing skills, but these were for mid/senior positions, sometimes leads!
I would like to stress, there are some fantastic candidates coming through too, and I am deeply sorry for anyone who has lost their job. The challenge though as a hiring manager right now is wading through the vast numbers of candidates who really put in zero effort, and there are a lot of them.
I am not hiring but I have discussed with hiring managers and interviewers and they said there are a lot of candidates who really cannot code almost anything or are completely lost even with most basic things
I was in this boat a few months ago, doing a lot of exercises on leetcode legitimately helps, because you can quickly type an ~80-90% solution immediately from memory, and you have a lot of time left over to finish the remaining portion. It also looks super impressive from the hiring side.
> a candidate told me they forgot what the job they applied for was and who we are
How long from the application to the interview? I’ve damn well forget what some random company or job I applied to was when they reach out months after the application. Look at these threads. Experienced people are having to put in hundreds of applications just get a single callback. I can’t remember the specifics of every company/job with that sort of volume when you wait that long
I don't know the lead time from when they apply, but the time it takes to go from CVs hitting my inbox to first interview is about a week.
I'm not sure that is really a valid excuse though. I understand if you're making a lot of applications it's hard to keep track, but all it takes is a 10 minutes refresher just before the interview. I do exactly the same with candidate's CVs prior to the interview too and I've never mixed up candidates up to date. 24 hours afterwards I'll have forgotten everything without my notes.
Also a top tip, even if you're in a mad panic in the interview and your mind has gone blank, wording is key. "Can you give some more details about the role and the company?" comes across a hell of a lot better than "Sorry I've forgotten what I applied for".
The analogies here to dating are striking to me. Sure you might have gone on 3 dates in that week, but if expect one to work out you better not get their name wrong.
RE point 1: in the actual job these days, we're coding through so many layers of distributed madness that you end up doing YAML/JSON engineering and gluing systems together more than anything, for years on end. A lot of "software engineers" are not writing software, or engineering. Candidates will have to brush up on the basics, because it's been so long. An anecdote: explicit for loops were banned from a codebase I worked on, only interior iteration was allowed. I too, forgot how to use for loops. I spent quite some time writing in embedded YAML DSLs as well (complete with static analysis and compiler).
RE point 2: after sending out a lot of applications, you tend to forget the specifics of where you applied, sometimes companies reach out after weeks or months, and everyone wants 3-5 rounds of multi-hour interviews, so it all becomes a blur. Maybe spreadsheets or a CRM would help candidates here. There is no excuse on the candidate's part for not brushing up before the interview though.
RE point 3: very fair, candidates should jot down a few good questions to ask beforehand.
It's crazy on both sides, not sure how to fix tech hiring. Somehow the industry soldiers on.
I can't help but feel there is a selection bias here. We could pretend that Netflix's recommendation algorithm is totally random with some reinforcement factor (e.g. positive reactions to LGBTQ content leads to more of the same) and it would lead to this outcome for some people. With a large viewership even very dumb algorithms would successfully 'predict' someone is LGBTQ for someone.
Since we are taking sample sizes of one, I'm gay and it is extremely rare I get recommended LGBTQ content on Netflix.
I have always said that these sort of laws designed to protect children will do precisely the opposite. An LGBTQ child is effectively forcibly outed by this law, potentially before they've come to terms with their sexuality / gender themselves.
Whilst I don't doubt social media causes a lot of harm on children growing up, giving parents full access to your messages is not the solution. In my opinion, based off a scale of a child's age and maturity, children are entitled to some privacy. Clearly a 4 year old shouldn't be left alone with unfettered access to the Internet, but equally a 16 year old shouldn't have to feel like their parents are watching everything they do or say. Both can cause long term psychological harm to a child.
Social media is not the same as it was 10 years ago.
The level of which kids compare themselves to other kids took an exponential leap to a near hive mind level.
Constantly comparing themselves to the instagram people with fake lives, rich kids, or extremely beautiful people is mentally damaging them.
My daughter asked me for plastic surgery, and I was dumbfounded.
So I went check her internet logs, and she's been watching rich kids of instagram/tiktok/etc. So now I'm trying to figure out how to talk with her about this.
There is balance, but as her mother I don't think I'll be letting her have internet privacy until she's grown up and moved out.
The mental health of teens and pre-teens has gotten really bad. This isn't just another "think of the children scare." Since the early 2010s the rate of self harm among girls 10-14 has ~tripled, and the rate of suicide among 10-14 year olds has doubled [1].
And there is now lots of evidence that this is because of social media and smartphones. The social lives of kids have changed drastically, in a way that does not meet their basic psychological needs [2].
I think that people's perceptions of social media are lagging behind the reality on the ground. There have always been moral panics and silly scares about whether the kids are alright, most of which were unfounded. So I think we are now reacting too slowly to the genuine health crisis caused by technology.
I don't necessarily buy the premise that the economy isn't having poor effects on teenagers' mental health just because the GFC is "over". Maybe to financial markets it is, but for people who need to work for a living, things changed since 2008 for the worse.
Teens are more likely to see their parents struggle to pay bills despite working full-time and with two incomes, they're more likely to see their parents face real threats like being unable to afford housing and the consequences that brings, they're going to see how the march of increasing costs of living affects their family in the face of stagnant wages. They also see countless examples of older people who do "everything right", yet are still laid off and can't re-enter the workforce in the same capacity as they had in the past, and are pushed out of their careers entirely.
On top of that, they're being told that they'll be relegated to a life of even worse poverty if they don't get into a good college, but even then, they aren't guaranteed a sustainable job and will have to take out a mortgage-sized loan just to attend. That loan will hang around their necks until they die even if they're only able to find a job that pays $30k a year. And if they want a job that even pays that much, they'll need a degree anyway, because those jobs have degree requirements, too.
I can understand why that would be overwhelming and depressing to teenagers.
Is that the economy, or is it the way people are socialized to think about the economy, and life in general? The suicide rate in America is four times higher than in the poor developing country I’m from.
After decades of prosperity, the USA has lost the majority of the generational knowledge and skills that poor people pass on to their children. I've spoken with people who spend almost an entire day's wage on a visit to the local laundromat.
Moreover, the poor here have very little access to mutual aid networks due to the loss of "third places" like churches. It's not uncommon to hear of poor people here having their children taken away by the state because they were just making ends meet and can't afford to pay for child care and have nobody to rely on to watch their kids after school; not even a neighbor.
Being poor is depressing, but I suspect watching your standard of living decline, your hopes and dreams destroyed, and your children forced to struggle in ways you or your parents never had to before hits harder.
If you have socialized people into a culture where higher housing and educational costs more than offsetting the fact you make more money than your parents did at the same age causes four times as many people to kill the selves than folks in a Bangladeshi village, then I’m sorry the problem is your culture. You have created a culture where people have no resilience to a bump in the road.
And the economy isn't even that bad in general. I don't understand this tendency on the internet just so overly exaggerate how bad the economy is. Unemployment is near record lows right now. We have a bit of wage growth lag in the last few years thanks to everything going on, but up until then we had pretty strong wage growth.
I don't know if I'm just in a bubble because I don't live in one of the big cities with crazy housing prices? Right now it seems to be better time to be out and getting a job than any.
> And the economy isn't even that bad in general. I don't understand this tendency on the internet just so overly exaggerate how bad the economy is. Unemployment is near record lows right now.
Unemployment doesn't tell us a whole lot. There's more people out of work today than before. Unemployment numbers don't tell you about the people whose only employment is part time or pays a fraction of what it used to pay either.
In the US evictions are on the rise, homelessness is on the rise, child poverty is on the rise, household debt is on the rise, utility service disconnections are rising, 80% of people in the US think their children will grow to be worse off than they are. None of this signals a healthy economy. The economy is making many already rich people even more money than ever before while the middle class increasingly struggles and the poor face ever rising expenses.
Outside of the tech world, this is a great time to find a job, but that doesn't mean you'll make enough money to support yourself. Programmers have it a bit rough right now, and it always hurts like hell to see your standard of living decline, but it's not that bad really. For so much of the country their standard of living starts a lot lower and it's still getting worse.
I really think it’s important to stress that it’s not all technology generally. It’s a specific thing: addictive content on mobile phones, especially when it also delivers toxic messaging (whether intentionally or not).
The really toxic thing here is the portable omnipresent virtual Skinner box.
Highlighting that specific thing will help make sure any regulation we do enact will be properly targeted. Kids learning to code or doing homework on a computer or even playing a few games is not the problem. “Social” media and hyper-addictive content is the problem. Tech that is designed to be addictive is the problem.
Addictive trash on PCs can be harmful too, but the form factor limits just how extreme and pervasive it can be.
I also think the mobile ecosystem is just culturally more oriented toward making things addictive. Mobile games, media, everything on the platform seems designed to suck people in and keep them staring. The PC ecosystem still seems to have some sense that computers should exist to help people or make them smarter, not addict them. It’s like mobile is run by the people who design slot machines.
I don't think this is about smartphones. This is about the online systems they interact with. We really should ban systematic user manipulation, advertising as a business and all unmoderated online spaces.
Most on-topic and/or small communities are fine. It's OK to create forum, but you need someone to step up and step in when necessary. Unmoderated FB-style exchanges and viral content with attached comment section need to go.
Well, that won't happen. Capitalists wouldn't allow it and regular people have this toxic environment internalized and normalized.
So I guess people will kill themselves. And a lot more will be permanently damaged.
It doesn't matter anyway. Soon there won't be any meaningful employment for kinds of people who fall prey to this due to ML replacing them, so this is just a drop in the ocean.
Root cause is the profit motive. Get rid of that and we can start having real discussions about what do we want.
>ban systematic user manipulation, advertising as a business and all unmoderated online spaces
One of these is not like the others.
Ban private communication because think of the children? Heard that one before. And "moderation" is "systematic user manipulation", so I guess just ban everything? "Moderation" is not some panacea, it just means some unspecified third party interfering. Moderated by whom, and by what critera? And those "FB-style exchanges" you hate are "moderated" by the FB algorithm.
This has to be one of the most boomer, gaslighting take i've ever seen. Yes, not the constant attack on LGBTQ rights, not the domestic abuses, not the shit education and academic culture, not blatant racism and neo-nazism but smartphones are what caused the mental health issues.
May I ask how old your daughter is? It's concerning regardless of age, but if she's ~17 than I can see how this came to be, vs. if she's ~12 then I need to update my mental model of the world.
Also, did she ask about plastic surgery, or did she express interest in getting plastic surgery?
I don't mean to pry, I'm just more surprised than I (apparently) should be and would like to fix my gap in understanding.
The problem with the internet is simple: it's easy to be constantly exposed to the top 0.001% of any aspect of life.
Consider this website. How many people feel diminished in the face of the achievements of others? How many seek out their advice on how to up their game? If you could get surgery to make you better at software development, how many would do so? If grown-ass adults are subject to this sort of stuff, how do we expect children to be able to cope?
Just to be clear, I am not a parent and I would not be so presumptuous to criticise someone's parenting skills when I have not gone through it. I wholeheartedly agree with you that the internet of 2023 is nothing like 2013 (or 2003 when I was growing up), and I don't think your reaction to the situation you described is wrong. Needless to say, parenting in this era is really, really hard and I don't envy you.
However, I want to exercise a hypothetical with you: what if you had discovered through access to her internet logs that she was a lesbian, or a trans man? How would you deal with that situation? Would you confront them, or would you pretend you didn't see it? Even if you have liberal views and are supportive*, that is a very deep and intimate piece of knowledge on your child that you hold now. Instead of them dictating the terms of their coming out, you effectively control that. That is quite a violation of trust.
Presumably your daughter knows you can see their internet logs, what if she does not feel like she isn't being her authentic self online because she knows you will find out? Even if you are supportive, discovering your sexual and/or gender identity takes time and takes having a safe space to feel comfortable to confide in someone.
This is all working under the assumption that you are comfortable with this, what about the many parents out there who are not? This becomes a weapon they can use to inflict psychological trauma on their child. Growing up as a LGBT kids is really hard for many of us, even today. Giving any more control or power to conservative parents is extremely dangerous.
You might think I'm exaggerating, or perhaps this is a niche point (it is far more likely your daughter is straight and cis-gendered) but the stakes are really high here. I came out to my parents when I was an adult, on my own terms when I moved out. I still got the 'it's just a phase' speech and all that sort of rubbish, but it was very clear to my parents that they had zero control over my life at that point. If they wanted to maintain a relationship with their son they had to change their viewpoints pretty quickly (and they did). Without hyperbole, if they had outed me when I was a child at best I would have been traumatised, at worst I would have killed myself.
I hope parents reading this really think about what I am saying here and take it seriously, because for some of you this will be something you'll have to deal with. How you do that will define everything about your relationship with your child.
* There is a whole separate discussion on what medical intervention for gender dysphoria is appropriate for children, but for the sake of this discussion I mean are you comfortable with the concept having a trans child more than specifics on medication.
You may be too deep in the community to appreciate, but younger teens have had family supervision for millennia and for good reason. Their brains are not fully formed yet.
That you can think up a problematic case doesn’t mean we throw out the concept for the other 90% of kids that benefit from involved parents. Some of the rest are suicide risks even when not being harassed. They’d benefit as well.
I personally grew up in a “lord of the flies” environment and wouldn’t recommend it. Would have been nice to have some guidance, even if not perfect.
> You may be too deep in the community to appreciate, but younger teens have had family supervision for millennia and for good reason. Their brains are not fully formed yet.
Of course, I'm not claiming otherwise. Hell, I'm not even saying that legally children should be entitled to privacy from their parents, clearly that isn't feasible or desireable in any way.
However, morally and ethically it is not black or white. It is not a case of "lord of the flies" or parental prison as a binary choice.
Honestly, I'm not even disagreeing with the original poster I replied to. I don't think they were wrong for snooping on their child's internet history. I just wanted to start an open discussion on a legitmate concern caused by snooping which many families go through. It is something that heterosexual parents often do not consider or appreciate because it was not part of their experiences when they grew up. To use your terms, they are "too deep in their community" to appreciate it.
Sure. The internet has become even more dangerous as time goes by however, so I don't feel like it should be the first or only solution to the real problem cases you mention.
That's great, feel free to supervise your kids. You don't get to use the government to do it. Are you saying that the 1st amendment can have exceptions if a child's safety is at stake?
Oh but we do. Kids have been prohibited from entering bars and buying tobacco, by law for a long time. We generally think that's a good thing, and why it continues to be law.
Yes, the Constitution limits state govts as well, a slight misstatement written in a hurry.
Your obtuse pedantry is not useful. Particularly when it appears you still have missed the main point of the previous statement—that the Constitution limits government, not citizens.
Also, these laws restrict children, not adults as you're suggesting. Basically this whole subthread is irrelevant. Good day.
Instead of hypothetical, let me be very very clear.
It's my child not yours, not the schools, not the governments.
It's my child, that I carried for 9 months.
I'll do what I think is best.
I don't care about your opinion here in the slightest because at the end of the day you have no connection to my family and aren't responsible for their well being.
> you have no connection to my family and aren't responsible for their well being.
Sure, but you are, and morbia's comment here was a thoughtful call for introspection on your part when considering what that well being entails, exactly. It was not out of place.
My point was that I am and he isn't. His comment was only thoughtful on his own terms.
His terms aren't universal or acceptable because it's my family not his.
He's projecting his personal experience onto my kids, which I've clearly discussed prior is not the same generationally or ever personally.
I'm not alone in this. Parent's are tired of people who have no business in our families trying to push their own visions of family, culture, politics, etc.
What you think as "pushing" is simply making people aware of the existence of another culture, idea, or political view and that's why I don't agree with you. It's similar to how people misuse "indoctrination". This whole "I'm a parent" mantra to shut down opposing views is pathetic. Being a parent doesn't make you special, doesn't mean you get more power than others, and it certainly doesn't make you right.
I also consider people like to be a danger because you think your view is 100% correct, that exposure to different opinions is wrong, and finally is that you'll use the government to push YOUR agenda, and yes that is the correct usage this time. It's already happening in Florida.[1]
You don't like what it's in public schools feel free to home school your children. You don't like what it's in the library, don't go. Unless you lock your kids away they are going to see and hear about things you disagree with and maybe you pushing so hard is going to backfire.
ON THE OTHER HAND
Keep banning books, keep calling your enemies pedophiles, and keep pushing just because you've had local success when no one was watching (i.e. Mom's for Liberty). You'll turn the right of center and moderate voters towards the Democrats and, hopefully, just like Arizona, enough states will fall and this nonsense will stop.
> His terms aren't universal or acceptable because it's my family not his. He's projecting his personal experience onto my kids, which I've clearly discussed prior is not the same generationally or ever personally.
I am doing nothing of the sort. In fact, I haven't made any comment towards which I disagree with your actions with regards to your example. I haven't really formulated any opinions on this, and certainly not towards your family. I was wanting an open discourse using a hypothetical scenario and received a rather personal defensive retort in return.
All I believe is LGBT children have a right to be protected, sometimes that is from their own parents. Yes, that is formulated through the lens of my experiences in the same way yours are through being a mother of a child in 2023. I am not trying to push a vision of family, culture or politics, I'm trying to make parents think about this that is all. My hypothetical scenario is not so hypothetical for many families.
Parents, for their children’s best interests, have a prerogative to control what their children are exposed to. Social media is absolutely within that domain. I’m inclined to believe anyone who disagrees with that principle is a potential predator who seeks to undermine that authority. Sexual preferences are fundamentally sexual in nature, and parents absolutely have the prerogative to gatekeep the kinds of content their children are exposed to, especially sexual content. Children cannot (and should not be) expect(ed) to have any real form of privacy while under the care and supervision and oversight of their own parents. If parents see their children on internet chats they have a right to be involved and snoop on the logs and intervene to nip bad ideas in the bud. They have a prerogative in influencing the upbringing of their children in every aspect of their lives. Children simply cannot consent to life-changing decisions such as having sex, or sexual reassignment surgeries, or taking puberty-blocking hormones (aka sterilization drugs also given to convicted pedophiles). This includes intervening when strangers on the internet are grooming their sons / daughters to convince them they are gay or trans orcc by whatever.
I'd rather not share specific details due to privacy concerns, but I've personally needed to rescue a loved one who was groomed by a stranger on the internet, convinced their loved ones were manipulating them and oppressing them, then kidnapped (across state lines), then encouraged to start hormone replacement therapy.
To be clear: I support trans kids and I find opportunities to support them however I can. The loved one in the case I describe is not trans. They were a minor at the time, and according to them, didn't really have a sense for how they might identify. A stranger took advantage of that, inflicted severe emotional trauma and irreversible changes, and, thankfully, will remain in prison for at least another 3 years (for this one case).
Whether it's "the latest bullshit moral panic du jour" I can't speak to. According to the FBI and state police involved in my particular experience, they've seen a sharp uptick in cases like the one my loved one experienced. I've seen my young teen age nieces nearly fall into similar traps. I only know about those close calls because my nieces have the experiences of their older family member to lean on, and know to share sketchy communications with their parents and me.
I suspect the "gay or trans" angle is indeed "bullshit moral panic" motivated by politics/fear more than anything, but the idea that young people are being manipulated and sucked into dark places is very much real.
Note that libsoftiktok produces fake content alarmingly often. You ought to read the impact section of their wiki page where it describes how they like to accuse teachers who resign of being fired for grooming children without evidence, or how they manipulate footage from serious discussions between prison psychologists to produce such fantastic rage bait that even Russian propaganda networks use it.
If you follow accounts like these and take any of their content at face value you are choosing wilful ignorance via propaganda. There's nothing else to it, they show you nothing but a cruel facsimile of reality in an effort to make you into a bigot.
Here's a snippet from the end of the article, note that some of these targets did literally nothing other than criticize libsoftiktok
> After analyzing Libs of TikTok's online activity in April 2022 through November 2022, a counter-extremism research group called Task Force Butler Institute estimated Raichik singled out a specific event, location or person over 280 times, resulting in 66 incidents of harassment or threats against her targets.
If by "that account" (???) you mean the charity investigating right wing extremism in the USA then sure but I think that's a pretty sad response all in all.
> I’ll trust my eyes over what’s written in Wikipedia.
Wikipedia editors generally exhibit honest behaviour that your preferred propaganda outlet handler Chaya Raichik conspicuously lacks. The authors of the wiki page haven't sicced an online mob on anyone, I'd count them fairly trustworthy by comparison.
If you'd truly like to use your eyes I suggest the gigantic multi-paragraph list of abusive behaviour on behalf of Libsoftiktok, all replete with citations for proof so you can be certain it's the truth.
Righteous anger is a very dangerous human emotion, these accounts exist to exploit that part of you. I think anyone who makes it their business model to tell you who you should feel angry about should be treated with utmost suspicion.
> Wikipedia editors generally exhibit honest behaviour
Oh, shut up. Even the co-founder of wikipedia Larry Sanger no longer trusts wikipedia because its staff and biases are so far skewed to the left that he can no longer trust it. You are in a cult if you honestly think this kind of disingenuous editing is trustworthy.
It isn't totally shocking that someone who's made it their life's work to repeatedly try (and then fail) to replace Wikipedia would be sour about Wikipedia. I also don't as a matter of course trust the opinions of people who appear on Fox News, a network specifically for propaganda dissemination who admitted in court they do not aim to tell the truth.
That he's appearing on Timcast, hosted by yet another right wing propagandist agitator, does not shock me. It does mean I won't believe a word he says.
If you'd like to substantiate that feel free. I've provided plenty of evidence, GP has dismissed both replies without supplying any refutation.
Further, if you're unhappy about the points I'm making then explain why you think I'm wrong. Sniping at me from two different comment threads with out of hand accusations isn't doing you any favours.
In this case it's fake AND I dislike it :) Thankfully, both can be true.
Feel free to peruse the long cited list of occasions in which Chaya Raichik outright lied on libsoftiktok, it's in their wikipedia article which reads as one long controversy section.
That can only be done from a place of empathy, which is particularly difficult to have if you are starting now.
I think the best approach is to be clear about your intentions and motivations, and make it explicit that you are not looking for opportunity to pass judgement. Be clear about what you want to change, and ask for input.
Yes. This should be seen in the context of the huge set of anti-trans laws and the Florida book banning. There is going to be another attempt at making it illegal for kids to hear about non-straight people at all. And outing kids to their parents, even at risk of violence, is a part of that.
The "land of free speech" always has a big "not you" exemption that can be wielded against people who aren't WASPy enough.
Edit: see the absolutely huge number of people on HN downthread cheering this on because they hate Facebook. Strange world.
“WASP” has the specific connotation of northeastern white people of longstanding American lineage. (The term typically excludes southern and Appalachian whites that technically also are Anglo Saxon and Protestant.) Those people are the vanguard of social liberalism today, in states like Massachusetts and Connecticut.
In Florida, meanwhile, non-Hispanic whites are just 51% of the population (versus 65-70% in Massachusetts and Connecticut). And the white people who are there aren’t really “WASPs” in the typical sense of the word. DeSantis, of course, isn’t a WASP at all. He’s a Catholic. American social conservatism is primarily a coalition of southern whites, “ethnic whites” (German, Italian, and Irish), and Hispanics—none of whom were traditionally considered “WASPs.”
The graphic depiction of underage people engaged in sex acts is against federal law and most likely Texas law as well. It is baffling to me how the media depicts this as "anti trans" or "anti lgbt" book banning while managing to never mention the specifics of the books.
I'm about as liberal as they come on social issues. But I don't think these books are appropriate in an elementary or middle school library.
Probably no one thinks it shouldn't but you are manipulating the debate by finding an example like that and ignoring books that are banned for other reasons.
I'm going to do one because I'm pretty sure I don't need to check anymore to determine that you are cherry picking.
Love to Mama: A Tribute To Mothers, by Pat Mora, Paula S. Barragán M.
"Pat Mora edited and contributed to this beautiful and celebratory collection, in which thirteen poets write with joy, humor, and love about the powerful bond between mothers, grandmothers, and children. These poets represent a wide spectrum of Latino voices, from award-winning authors to a 15-year-old new talent. They write passionately about their Puerto Rican, Cuban, Venezuelan, and Mexican American backgrounds and the undeniable influence of their mothers and grandmothers. Illustrated with exuberance by Ecuadorian artist Paula S. Barragán M.,"
They banned a valid book so you can hold it up and say what you said. In fact without these new laws I'm sure the book in question (which you didn't mention) probably wouldn't be in libraries
Nobody is "manipulating the debate." The book linked above is the most challenged book in these efforts: https://www.npr.org/2022/04/04/1090067026/efforts-to-ban-boo.... The American Library Association gave that book its Alex Award in 2020, for books for children 12-18. It's not some random book cherry-picked out of nowhere.
None of the books are "being banned." States are deciding what taxpayer-funded school libraries are making available to children. No decision has been made regarding the specific book you linked. An entire set of books approved in 2021 are being reviewed for appropriateness. Of course valid books are going to be pulled in the meantime while the government does its review. It's like a product recall--you pull the batch while you figure out how bad stuff made it through the filter.
I can’t help but notice your attempt to imply that Florida educators were somehow trying to suppress “Venezuelan, Cuban, and Puerto Rican” authors with your example. DeSantis won 68% of Cubans, and the majority of Puerto Ricans and Venezuelans. Which circles back to my point above--the librarians pushing pornographic content in schools are overwhelmingly (80%) white. It's a cultural thing--on average, white people are the ones in this country okay with adolescents having sex, and the ones who put the heaviest emphasis on kids "finding themselves."
"I can’t help but notice your attempt to imply that Florida educators were somehow trying to suppress “Venezuelan, Cuban, and Puerto Rican” authors with your example"
I don't know how you are noticing anything when I seriously just picked a random book and said nothing about their ethnicity. No where in my argument did I use that as an argument.
"None of the books are "being banned." States are deciding what taxpayer-funded school libraries are making available to children."
That's still a form of a ban. You highlighted that it's taxpayer funded, which to me means it's a violation of the first amendment. If it was a private library then that would be fine.
"Of course valid books are going to be pulled in the meantime while the government does its review. It's like a product recall--you pull the batch while you figure out how bad stuff made it through the filter."
Was there some imminent danger that they need to be pulled before reviewed? How long is a review going to take and who gets to make the decision about what is appropriate? However you're right that my example was under review. I didn't notice that the list was of books was of those both under review or banned. So let's check out another book that was banned.
"And Tango Makes Three"[1] is banned in the Lake Country School District for K-3 [2]
The stated reason is: "Administrative removal as per HB 1557 due to sexual orientation/gender identification". The book is a children's book about gay penguins. There's no sex in it and therefore it's not pornographic. Why is this justified?
The parent comment also stated "it is baffling to me how the media depicts this as "anti trans" or "anti lgbt" book banning while managing to never mention the specifics of the books."
Well there's a specific book and it's Anti-LGBT. How does this protect kids.
-----------------------------------------
Finally what about the bible? It contains descriptions of sex acts, incest, prostitution. It also is a religious book that pushes its own moral values and agenda. Why is that allowed but not books about gays?
I believe the true purpose of this law is to enforce moral values on the community and attack gays/etc by hiding their existence. The goal being to appease conservative Republicans and/or evangelicals who consistently vote Republican.
Why doesn't the 1st amendment apply here? The safety of children? How is hearing that gay people exist unsafe for kids? If you are willing to make exceptions to the 1st amendment for the safety of children that is questionable then are willing to make exceptions for one amendment why not the 2nd amendment? Guns are the leading cause of death for children between 1 and 19 in the US [3]?
> That's still a form of a ban. You highlighted that it's taxpayer funded, which to me means it's a violation of the first amendment. If it was a private library then that would be fine.
It doesn't violate the first amendment for the same reason it would violate the first amendment for the government to tell Barnes and Noble that it can't stock those books. When the government buys books with taxpayer money and makes them available in a taxpayer-financed public library, the government is the speaker. The first amendment permits the government to have a particular viewpoint when it acts as a speaker and provider of services.
> "And Tango Makes Three"[1] is banned in the Lake Country School District for K-3 [2]
The stated reason is: "Administrative removal as per HB 1557 due to sexual orientation/gender identification". The book is a children's book about gay penguins. There's no sex in it and therefore it's not pornographic. Why is this justified?
As you admit, that is a book directed at children. Children don't think about penguins as having any sexual orientation. Sexual attraction is not a concept that's appropriate to introduce to young children.
> I believe the true purpose of this law is to enforce moral values on the community and attack gays/etc by hiding their existence. The goal being to appease conservative Republicans and/or evangelicals who consistently vote Republican.
Yes, but the moral value that's being enforced is sheltering children from being exposed to concepts of sex, sexuality, and sexual attraction. Conservative Republicans and evangelicals support that goal, but so do most people. I have literally never heard my Biden-voting Muslim-immigrant parents say the word "sex" or the Bangladeshi equivalent. And I'm married with three kids! The subject is nonetheless completely taboo. That's even though all of us support same-sex marriage in the abstract.
"Sexual attraction is not a concept that's appropriate to introduce to young children"
Valentine's day is celebrated in schools, countless movies and books talk about marriage, love, and attraction between a man and a woman. You're trying to make same sex attraction a "sex act" instead emotional.
Yes, but the moral value that's being enforced is sheltering children from being exposed to concepts of sex, sexuality, and sexual attraction. Conservative Republicans and evangelicals support that goal, but so do most people
I don't care how many people support it. The majority does not mean you can ignore the constitution.
I have literally never heard my Biden-voting Muslim-immigrant parents say the word "sex" or the Bangladeshi equivalent. And I'm married with three kids!
1.Your personal experience has no value in this conversation.
2. You having a repressed upbringng doesn't prove the opposite. I've never worn a seatbelt and have never been in a crash isn't proof that seat belts don't work.
Finally you come from a country with less rights, especially for woman and you come here and have no issue with taking the rights of another smaller group of people shows your ignorance. Not to mention the people you support along with this would remove muslims from this country if they could. You should be ashamed of yourself
You realize Bangladesh and West Bengal have extremely open prostitution and that BD is the only country in the region with legalized prostitution? Ever heard of Sonagachi in Calcutta or Kandapara near Dhaka?
> It is baffling to me how the media depicts this as "anti trans" or "anti lgbt" book banning while managing to never mention the specifics of the books.
It’s because a lot of people are using a small number of sexual minorities as a pretext for encouraging everyone’s kids to explore their sexuality.
Are all the books being banned pornographic? Is this a way for people to get some books that maybe should be banned but then go after books where gays and trans people are shown in a positive light?
It’s specifically a reaction to the American Library Association giving “Gender Queer” one of its top awards for the age 12-18 category. It revealed that the librarians teaching your kids are a lot more progressive about kids exploring their sexuality than even Obama-voting parents who support equal civil rights but still hold traditional beliefs about sex being shameful and something children should be protected from. That’s why republicans were able to leverage the issue in places like Florida and Virginia—places that often swing blue due to large Hispanic and Asian populations, who also happen to be pretty conservative on sexual issues.
Do you have a kid (or remember being one)? We had scheduled trips to the library and librarians were actively involved in recommending books, both to individuals and in terms of reading lists.
I don't but let me back up, I'm not doubting that happened. Can you provide a source for when a librarian taught sexed or something along those lines to kids?
How does banning books fix this? Was the person following the library's guidelines?
My third grader came home with a Pride sticker. To be clear, we have always told her that "sometimes kids have two mommies or two daddies and that's okay." But Pride also is wrapped up in a general positive and open attitude about sexuality that is inconsistent with my values. And frankly I don't trust my kids' liberal white teachers to talk about these subjects. There's clearly a huge disconnect between their values and my values.
"It revealed that the librarians teaching your kids are a lot more progressive about kids exploring their sexuality "
And your proof is that your kid came home once with a pride sticker, which is about gay rights, but you have redefined to mean being open sexually and sex positive which you then say you are against.
Hating gay people is the same as hating all black people and is objectively wrong
In a country where same sex marriage is already the law of the land, and has overwhelming public support, you think that there’s not a high degree of overlap between Pride and those who have liberal attitudes on sex for other reasons? As a racial minority I can tell you that the people organizing marches on that basis typically have views that are much more radical than protecting interracial marriage.
Half the country thinks it’s okay for teenagers to have sex and another half thinks it’s immoral: https://news.gallup.com/poll/393515/americans-say-birth-cont.... You think the teachers who send third graders home with a Pride sticker aren’t overwhelmingly in the pro-teenage sex camp? You think the folks at the American library association who gave a book with explicit depictions of underage kids having sex don’t support such conduct? How to socialize kids about sex and sexuality is a multi-faceted subject that involves sensitivities that have nothing to do with gay people. You can reduce it to that if you want but you’re left scratching your head why people who overwhelmingly support same sex marriage can also support laws to more carefully curate what books public libraries make available.
"You think the teachers who send third graders home with a Pride sticker aren’t overwhelmingly in the pro-teenage sex camp"
No and prove it or shut the fuck up with bullshit "every liberal/democrat is a pedophile". Do you want to count the number of church official vs drag queens who have been arrested for child rape?
"Most child victims are abused by a parent. In 2020, a reported 483,285 perpetrators abused or neglected a child. In substantiated child abuse cases, 77% of children were victimized by a parent." Oh my god better make sure teachers don't send their kids home with pride pins, they might use it to defend against family rape.
In theory I agree with you and the other posters on this. But as someone with preteen kids there’s the other side of me that wants to a) protect them from all the actual shit out there, and b) perhaps more importantly encourage them to do something more constructive than mindlessly scrolling through TikTok clips that have no value whatsoever. In fact I’m far more worried about b) than a) because I know they can learn to discern a) but b) can become a true addiction.
I want them to explore whatever their interests are - which may be very different than mine were at their age - what I don’t want is for them to become the equivalent of “zombie couch potatoes”. I’m also concerned about all the negative comparisons that come with “oh look how those peoples lives are so much better than mine” ; I suffered from that myself as an adult (even though I knew that what I saw on social media was not a true representation of peoples lives) and was happier after I deleted my FB account (not to mention wasting less time).
Anyway I wonder how many people responding here have teenagers, because when you do, you think of this issue from a different perspective.
(I’m not religious nor in Utah)
PS. Having said the above, I do not agree with a law parental consent being required until 18. I would want my kids to have acquired good habits and be able to make reasonable decisions in their own without our involvement by 14 or so.
As someone with a teen, it's tremendously difficult to navigate, and like all things related to child-rearing, it probably depends on the actual kids in question.
For our teen, the rule is that mom and dad have full access to all devices at any time. Technological limits and locks don't seem to be good options, since there are so many ways around them that I think they provide a false sense of security. Also, as teens, they're always around others that may not have locked-down access, so we simply operate under the assumption that they're seeing anything and everything. Instead, we apply some time-limiting to certain things, and make sure the phone is in it's charger in a public place at night, and generally try to make sure there are breaks from the media throughout the day.
Instead, we really try to engage with the content that they are interested in, and actually try to discuss it in a constructive manner, such as how most of what you see is stage-managed to present the best side of things, or to simply get eyeballs to build a brand and/or get advertising dollars. We never apply judgement or talk down to them in these conversations. With our child (and for many, I suspect) that's just a great way to get them to tune you out.
There's also an upside. We moved to a different town before middle school, and it was via social media that our child was able to stay in touch with old friends and to stay in touch with new friends during Covid. They're also inspired to do creative things that they've seen on TikTok. They has zero interest in cooking or baking but, for whatever reason, seeing people make stuff on TikTok sparked their interest in a way mom and dad never could.
This isn't to say that we're not worried, but at some point we have to do what we can to try to prepare them as much as possible. We were also worried the first time they walked to school alone, walked with a friend to the theater in the city for a 9:30pm movie showing, and will absolutely worry when they first get into a car at 16 and drive away. We also understand that social media is a totally different animal. It's full time, all the time, and designed to suck you in. Anything you post, even in private, will be public at some point. (This was one of our earliest topics of conversation! Unfortunately, there is a not of actual evidence to support this)
All that said, it really depends on the child, their own self-image, friends, environment, etc. If we took TikTok away, our child would be upset but would be over it quickly. Getting rid of Discord, however, would be devastating as that's how they chat with their friends. Parents should 100% be knowledgable and involved, but I think legal efforts like Utah's are doomed to fail because they'll only be successful at making adults feel like they're doing something, and there are too many ways around it. I also worry that parents will have a false confidence that restricting access will somehow solve the problem and reduce parent-child dialogue about these topics, or that kids will suffer for being digital have-nots.
I disagree. I don't think full access to messages is always necessary, but it can be in some circumstances and it should be up to the parent to decide how responsible their child is online and grant privacy accordingly.
A 16 year old is still going through tons of life changing events. Everyone needs help charting a course through life, especially at that age. Who better than a loving parent to guide them?
Parents should be aware of what their kids are doing online. More and more of "life" is online. More and more harm is impacting kids online. A parent whos entirely unaware of what their child is doing online is simply failing to be a parent.
It's never about the kids protection/rights. Kids don't vote, parents do. Nearly every proposed law marketed as protecting kids is actually about increasing parent or state control over kids.
It's always important to remember that the tools that enable freedom, like voting, can be used against freedom, if enough of the population does not value it.
The science is that people’s brains aren’t fully developed until age 25. What they have access to before that time should be carefully curated by adults.
Presumably the "giving parents full access to online accounts" part. It isn't difficult to imagine scenarios in which a minor is "outed" because a parent exercises their power under the law.
How is it that difficult to imagine how someone could be outed as gay etc if another party has the right to read through all of their messages etc lol.
This is something that comes up time and time again with our recent string of conservative governments, going back to Cameron. At this point I'm pretty convinced that it is a dead cat strategy to avoid us talking about the lack of fruit and vegetables in the supermarkets.
Total agreement. As a longtime anglophile, I believe the UK governance literally conforms to Yes Minister.There exists a strong bijection between any ongoing UK crisis and a corresponding Yes Minister episode. I have discovered a wonderful proof for this theorem but the HN margins are too narrow.
Yes Minister is a documentary about pre-Thatcherite Britain.
1. The civil service has been hollowed out; it is now largely reliant on external consultancies and outsourcing firms for many important functions (e.g., Crapita).
2. It’s lost power at the same time. Simon Case is the weakest cabinet secretary in living memory. The last reasonably powerful cabinet secretary was Sir Jeremy. It’s not so much that parliamentary parties are in charge—though they’re not blocked; rather, nobody is in charge at all.
3. Political advisers now no longer find their path blocked to the same extent, but end up burnt out by political events: see the farce of Cummings’ plan to hire some mathematicians ending up cancelled because he couldn’t be bothered to filter out people unironically advocating the sterilisation of the Untermenschen. Since the SPAD system is so ad hoc, it of course manages even less than the Butskellite civil service did.
You really think that an issue as important as basic food supplies is going to be bumped out of the headlines by a tedious government consultation on internet governance?
A big chunk of the problem is competition law preventing prices increasing in events like this.
Supermarkets in France just increase the price for tomatoes for a few months and pay suppliers slightly more to get the stock they want.
In the UK, competition law prevents jacking up the price during a supply interruption, meaning suppliers prefer to direct scarce goods to France instead, where they earn more. That makes scarcity in England worse.
The UK: the place where it is never the fault of Brexit but there is always an obscure and self-contradictory justification for crazy things that started happening the day after Brexit and that never happened before.
Today is the turn of competition laws that, we are told, don’t allow supermarkets to increase prices - while food inflation is in the double digits.
UK competition law does not prevent supermarkets putting up prices, and the Competition and Markets' Authority to intervene in cases of abuses of market power does not extend to UK supermarkets being banned from paying more for imports than French supermarkets
[1] "According to the BBC report, the UK “imports around 95% of its tomatoes and 90% of its lettuces, most of them from Spain and north Africa, according to trade group the British Retail Consortium (BRC).”
Morocco has responded to the shortage claims by noting that the extreme weather that has been sweeping the country has had a huge impact on fresh produce."
>In the UK, competition law prevents jacking up the price during a supply interruption
UK Supermarkets have contracts with suppliers which are not brilliant, its how supermarkets have become the controlling middleman in the food supply chain in the UK, and as they also employ large numbers of people in the UK, some 2nd only to the NHS which is the largest employer in the world making the USSR seem febrile, they can hold the British Govt to ransom with employment figures, like one did in the 90's when Labour got into power.
Just about the only thing they have honoured in the past is the MOD orders for food get picked first at the expense of the store's orders, during the Balkans conflict.
If a law or regulation does not exist for some activity, it will be exploited if it can make the supermarket money and they are so slow paying, ignoring your supplier credit terms, typically taking 6 months to pay up. They offload admin costs onto you by making you submit your invoices into their systems, but you can pay for a more streamlined efficient way to submit your invoices as another example.
They are not alone though, all big businesses have their questionable tricks, and one of the major causes of these shortages is lack of investment in the supply chain for extreme weather, in this case cold weather that hit north Africa and Spain. The UK has been living too cheaply, through efficiency and lack of investment, something COVID also highlighted to the world with JIT supply chains.
Elements of the global supply chain had little to no redundancy built into it for "natural" events, which COVID highlighted and ionosphere heaters[2] continue to highlight under the guise of extreme weather events! [3] The science is out there if you want to be informed and not be fed your opinions.
Production costs varying over the seasons or supply availability I can understand.
I can't understand how /every/ UK supermarket chain made the same decision to decline the higher costs without asking myself if they spoke to each other about it. Emergent behaviour caused by racing to the bottom?
The law is against 'unfair business practices', but the Competition and Markets Authority took action when businesses raised the price of hand sanitizer when there was lots of demand in 2020.
Now businesses generally can't make big price shifts due to increased demand or constrained supply.
The CMA investigated whether firms were stockpiling hand sanitizer and making excessive profits on it by creating artificial shortages, at a time when hand sanitizer was being promoted as an essential good. As your link acknowledges, they then promptly closed all the cases without further action.
Paying more to suppliers to import a particular non-essential foodstuff in a year in which most food prices have risen is even less likely to invite action.
If fuel prices can legally double overnight and fuel vendors make larger markups as global prices stabilise without the CMA batting an eyelid, it's quite hard to pretend that the CMA is the obstacle to us having access to the same food supply chains as European supermarkets...
Except that isn't a law. Although if they were all shown to be acting in concert, not buying tomatoes in order to get a better price. That would be illegal.
Well, it's winter now - I'd expect off season fruits and vegetables to be more expensive? Or do you mean that tomatoes are more expensive now than last winter?
Where I live ( France), at the height of the season, and assuming you live in the south, good tomato will cost about 2-3$/kilo. In winter you can indeed buy tomatoes (for more money) which look like tomatoes but are tasteless and are therefore a different kind of product. It might be possible to get good tomatoes as well, but I assume this will incur a significant premium, at which point I no longer consider them affordable.
I sometimes use tomatoes for my winter dishes (pizza, Ukrainian borscht and Indian Dahl), it used to be terrible. I've since learned that most canned vegetables do not have anything added when canned (not even salt or similar, it's just hot water basically), changed to that, and now I cook almost as much in winter than I do during summer.
I understand what you mean, I may not have been very clear at all by adding product quality to the mix. So let me try again.
At least in France, there are price fluctuations : typically in season is 2 eur/kilo and off season is 4 eur/kilo (and these are current prices), which means twice as expensive.
My question to the poster living in Sweden was, given that we are in winter: are in-season tomatoes 10$/kilo as well, or is it only the case for off-season tomatoes, and in-season are still 5$/kilo, which, while expensive, is much more affordable ?
Grown in massive greenhouses require electric etc thus the cost has gone up because the cost of fuel has gone up, including transporting these things across the continent.
Yes can't easily use the colour to judge how tasty tomatoes are, some of the best ones I've ever had were a big green looking, but were grown in the Portuguese sun naturally.
The dutch greenhouse tomatoes were so sad and pale in the 90s our eastern neighbours called them 'holländische Wasserbombe' (dutch waterbombs).
They're better nowadays. As it turns out it's more profitable to plant tomatoes people actually want to eat...
> Brexit is a symptom of the underlying incompetence of the British political class, not a cause.
It's not incompetence. It is deliberate sabotage.
The economy is being smashed to pieces so the Conservatives can steal it and sell the bits off for a quick fix of cash. They're all junkies, who will steal whatever public property they can to sell, and now they've worked out they can do it to the whole country.
> They are both, but the incompetence means that the maliciousness, while intended ends up manifesting in some unintended way.
Oh yeah absolutely, the whole idea of Kwasi Kwarteng deliberately tanking the pound sterling by about 60 billion so that his wee pals at Odey Asset Management could clean up a few million quid was absolutely premeditated sabotage, but everything that followed on from that was like some fucked-up lovechild of The Sorceror's Apprentice and some malign bottle genie's implementation of the "Invisible Hand".
Who would dare to.. but then some have great ideas like one would need an ""economic NATO"" (if such thing would just exist... against China ofc) like Liz Truss recently... lol satire cannot make this better.
There is a shortage in some out of season fruit/veg, I really have not been impacted at all. Importing less food staples, and eating/growing food within our climate range is no bad thing.
Partly Brexit, but partly our model of capitalism is broken. Our energy prices going wild means that local growers who rely on LED lighting out of season simply turned the lights off as there was no conceivable way of them producing economically.
That, in turn, is because despite the "subsidy" we have allowed our energy market to be designed around investors rather than consumers. Most of the continent has shielded consumers from the brunt of price rises: we haven't.
Really, it is just the brokenness of a British ruling class that prefers the success of the financial sector to a decent quality of life for citizens. It isn't caused by Brexit, Brexit is just a symptom.
The standard model is far from a 'theory of everything'. To name but a few problems:
* gravity
* massive neutrinos
* dark matter
* dark energy
It is also a highly parameterised model tuned to fit the data.
The biggest concern is whether we can realistically probe the failings of the standard model using a collider at ~TeV scale? If that is the case, then the standard model may be the best model of particle physics we will ever achieve.
But yeah, I agree that the "highly parameterized" part is a statement from fashion, and the number of parameters is really not a good reason to try to replace the Standard Model. (There are many good reasons, but this one isn't one of them.)
Also, I am yet to see any alternative proposal with fewer parameters.
There is a philosophical discussion to be had about whether 19 physical parameters is "a lot", and another discussion about fine tuning. However, I was primarily referring to the artifical parameters that arise from doing real calculations (renormalisation scale, mass factorisation scale, PDFs etc). These plague pretty much all perturbative QCD calculations, and then particle physicists play games like varying them by a factor of 1/2 and 2 to get something that looks like error bars...
The number of SM parameters is not a lot, given the reach of the model, which is literally every physical phenomenon ever observed on Earth with enough detail, but gravity. Thousands of independent experiments, and observational data on a scale so absurdly large it's hard to state plainly. Any philosopher who wants to claim nineteen parameters is large is out of their minds!
Fine tuning, I agree, is a philosophical issue. I'm a physicist, and I don't buy it. Why does everything have to be perturbatively pleasant? Nobody promised us that.
The issue of artificial parameters is a red herring, I think. Properly computed, of course, well-defined observables are renormalization scale independent. You might have to pick a scheme/scale to do the calculation, but whatever scale dependence remains is an indication of some perturbative truncation. The continuum limit of LQCD, for example, produces real observables with no renormalization scale dependence. Hell, renormalization is not even mysterious in a computational approach.
> The standard model is far from a 'theory of everything'. To name but a few problems...
You missed a bit of detail: Reality, and The Hard Problem of Consciousness.
Granted, this is often not a popular topic of discussion (if not ~taboo), but it's actually rather important imho.
The best thing I've ever come across that illustrates the gap/difference between how materialists think about reality vs (some) "non-materialists" (in this case Tibetan Buddhist Alan Wallace) is this video....seeing the way two highly competent but very different thinkers approach the problem space is enlightening, although it might require some background in both domains to appreciate (so Alan's case doesn't appear as "woo woo").
The Nature of Reality: A Dialogue Between a Buddhist Scholar and a Theoretical Physicist (Sean Carroll)
Obviously the 'best' result would be to have a separate collider as well, but no one is going to fund a new collider just to reaffirm the result for a third time.