Don't you think our society has already pushed too far in the direction of mandated helicopter parenting? You can hardly let your kids play independently nowadays in the US without getting a CPS check-up due to someone believing kids should be on leashes; what your proposing is significantly more draconian
Maybe, but why normal people without children need to experience inconvenience, Internet restrictions and verifications just because there are a minority of negligent parents? Children are parents responsibility. Instead of banning adult sites, is not it better to ban families with children from Internet? Make some family-friendly Internet and let them all go there and not bother normal people.
Probably not in places like Germany where over half the population is over 45. As US becomes more like child-devoid europe, it will become even more hostile to children. And parents will be more and more slaves to the state, to raise children however society says they ought to be raised. The purpose of the parent is to pay and be punished, the purpose of the outsider is to rest on the smug shoulders of the state and proclaim how morally superior they are at no cost to themselves.
As it becomes increasingly apparent having children is a suckers game where everyone piles on the penalties to you while eagerly awaiting the social security payments of your children (you make ~all the investment, then they take the profits), they will have even fewer.
If you feel that parents are treated unfairly, the solution is to impose a tax on people without children and use it to pay the salary for raising kids. I think everybody agrees that monetary support is much better than verbal and moral support.
It's less blame/resentment (though I admit I'm still working on it) and more that pretending my childhood was just fine and my parents were absolved of everything just because they tried their hardest was exactly what kept me trapped in a vicious cycle for far too long. Some things go beyond "just" bad parenting and into the level of abuse and potentially lifelong physical/mental conditions. Only by admitting to myself that yes, I was not at fault for all my own misfortunes and maybe someone else did share the blame, was I finally able to start healing.
One of my goals is to isolate the healthy parts of blame from the all-consuming and unproductive ones, which I'm still working on.
For my case (and I speak for nobody else), I don't want to have children until I'm 100% certain I will not make the same mistake as my forbearers and pass down their trauma to my offspring. Some of that decision-making is out of my hands until I've had enough therapy and healing. That's just what abusive parenting does to a person's psyche.
And for what it's worth, I can't predict how my perspectives on parenting will change if I become a parent myself, but even in that case I will never stop believing my own parents were abusive. No model of how the world works makes sense to me without that understanding anymore.
"Panic-free" labels are so difficult to ascribe without being misleading because temporal memory effects can cause panics. Pusher too much onto your stack because the function happened to be preceded by a ton of other stack allocations? Crash. Heap too full and malloc failed? Crash. These things can happen from user input, so labelling a function no_panic just because it doesn't do any unchecked indexing can dangerously mislead readers into thinking code can't crash when it can.
There's plenty of independent interest in properly bounding stack usage because this would open up new use cases in deep embedded and Rust-on-the-GPU. Basically, if you statically exclude unbounded stack use, you don't even need memory protection to implement guard pages (or similar) for your call stack usage, which Rust now requires. But this probably requires work on the LLVM side, not just on Rust itself.
Failable memory allocations are already needed for Rust-on-Linux, so that also has independent interest.
> According to PH, Utah is one of their biggest states
This is actually one of those "turns out!" facts people like to bring up that isn't actually rooted in any solid data. It was widely circulates based on a misinterpreted 2009 Harvard study, and Utah generally ranked in middle or lower middle of the pack when it came to site traffic per capita by state (in years prior to SB287, that is--obviously now traffic is next to none because of the IP ban).
??? Not sure what a Harvard study has to do with this.
This is one of those "turns out" facts that is part of PH's annual PR release. Until 2023, PH and its competitors reported that red states led by Utah have been the largest consumers of adult material and wasn't even close.
PH reported an extremely large rise in VPN usage after the Utah adult content bill passed, and assuming that those new VPN users are mostly Utahans, Utah still leads the nation in terms of adult material consumed.
reply