kwozyman

Can someone please provide context for us noobs?

Both of them?

They don't care at all. What they do care is sowing polarization and distrust between western citizens. Russia benefits most when we (the West) are divided on various social issues, which leads to distrust of authorities, election of extremists in office and eventually weak and corrupt states and governments that are easily controlled or countered by Russia.

It's people who know they will be irrelevant because they spent decades producing shit software

So the Linux kernel is shit software now? Just because it's not written in the newest programming language? Kind of a hot take.

Please please please don't take my question the wrong way: how does this relate to Star Trek except by having Picard and Riker doing funny faces in the background?

This article reads like a press release from SUSE.

Banning phones is an extreme measure. No restrictions whatsoever is an extreme measure. Articles like these simply start the conversation for the society at large to find a solution and, as I was saying in my initial comment some parents are simply unaware of how addictive video games can be. For many older generation (and even some of the younger parents out there that had no contact with video games) video games are often attributed to children's toys. The truth however is not that simple - some games are for children and some are engineered from the ground up to be as addictive as possible. Even if the final responsibility lies with the parents, we need to have those parents informed and articles like this do that.

Often times, things are not black or white but multiple shades of grey. Should we demonize video games? Absolutely not, they're not only fun but they can be a great tool to develop social skills, critical thinking and other adult skill. Should we inherently trust all video games and all parents to "do what's right"? No again. There is a balance in everything and dismissing unbiased articles like this one isn't helping anyone.

So many comments on this thread are very dismissive and just wave it off as "bad parenting" or "escapism". While both of those arguments are valid and probably a very big part of the problem, should we leave everything on the parents?

We don't allow businesses to sell alcohol towards children because we know it's extremely harmful and addictive. Should we simply let it free for all and then blame parents for not teaching their children that alcohol is bad and for allowing them to go out to the local shop and buy alcohol? Same goes for multiple other restrictions. Not all parents are responsible and educated enough to know how to parent. Articles like this at least show unaware parents this is a real threat and they could at least keep an eye out or educate themselves on the parental control available.

But how will the other people know I have money if my car isn't huge?

The protection argument has some merit, though. I remember seeing several studies that show survival rates are bigger for the SUV inhabitants in crashes. What SUV drivers don't know (or simply don't care about) is that it's survival in the detriment of smaller cars inhabitants.