I didn’t get technical on you - that’s kind of the point. But whatever; I was just trying to help with some context. Ignore if you like.

Look man, from a technical language point of view there is nothing whatsoever wrong with calling people ‘females’. However, by speaking to such people face-to-face you quickly learn that basically not one likes to be called that. The reasons are subtle, and frankly not very important. But the fact remains that calling people ‘females’ is now seen as a sign that you don’t understand or respect them - on the grounds that you are using a phrase that you’ve been asked not to use. Just say ‘women’ instead.

That’s true on face value. The issue is that accusations of misandry are almost always unfounded, and only made as a way to deflect and to attack women. So when people start talking about misandry, that’s generally a red flag.

It’s similar to how “all lives matter” is definitely a true and good value - but yet it is almost always said as a way to divert support away from vulnerable groups. So although the literal meaning is good, it is fair to assume that people saying it do not have good intentions.

It’s pretty harsh to just casually suggest that a person be a TERF without any specific evidence.

Sure. I agree that’s the problem; and none of these analogies really help make that any easier to understanding. Certainly they don’t have a “murder as much as you like” policy! (I find that analogies are rarely useful - except for manipulating how you want people to feel.)

Perhaps murder is a bit extreme. It’s more like “we’ve noticed you’re taking woodchips from the playground. That’s not allowed. We wouldn’t mind if you were just taking a few chips, but you’ve taken 2 tons.”

[edit] But putting analogies aside, the service really should make rules and restrictions like this clear in advance. That seems like the real failing here, rather than the rule itself.

I was expecting to see a hex-editor or something as one of the options.

One could argue that they have converted it, but it was done poorly.

In a similar sense, the screenshots and phone photos are not conversions. They are entirely new images.

split personality

Have you read A City On Mars? It has quite a detailed look at many of the challenges. You’ve pointed to some research relevant to the possible availability of water - which is great, but I think it would be better to say “a major constraint” rather than “the major constraint.”

I haven’t read the books, but I did watch the show… I enjoyed the first half, but the second half had so much implausible bullshit that I couldn’t really recommend it. I mean, the first half also had crazy impossible tech - but I feel that’s ok because its part of the setup premise. The stuff I didn’t like in the second half was more implausible decision making and strategising (and also implausible uses for impossible tech).

In any case, I really feel like they wasted a strong setup. I was disappointed at the end, and I’m not intending to watch the next session.

Heh. I just spent half a minute squinting the dark trees in the background, looking for the outline of a car. I didn’t realise the picture was swapped.

I don’t know what you mean by favouritism. The reasoning for the phone ban goes something like this:

1. Teachers and education researchers have agreed that children are less productive in school due to mobile phones.
2. But preventing children from using their phones in school creates significant additional workload, due to conflicts and arguments.
3. Various governments have recognised this, and have created a law which can remove the phones without the workload.

If you’re talking again about the fact that teachers are allowed phones but students are not, then I’m disappointed. I’ve put in quite a bit of good faith effort into talking about this stuff. At the start of our conversation I felt that I was answering genuine questions, and perhaps helping clarify why someone might want a law like this. But now I’m starting to feel like that was entirely wasted, because you never wanted to think about it anyway - you only wanted to fight it. That’s how I’m starting to feel. Maybe I’m wrong, but this ‘how does the law prevent favoritism’ seems like a totally bullshit line to reasoning to me.

Different laws and rules target different groups of people for different reasons. There’s a huge list of rules and responsibilities that apply exclusively to teachers and not other professions. And there’s a heap of rules that apply to children and not adults. There can be different rules for different reasons. As for phone usage, I’d personally be totally fine if all smart phones were phased out for everyone for all purposes across the entire world. But I do think it’s a false equivalence to say that if phones are banned for students they should also be banned for everyone else. It a totally separate argument. And note: I’m not introducing this law. I didn’t ask for it. I didn’t design it. I don’t even live in the country that the article is from. I’m only try to outline what I understand to be the motivation. If you think something negative is going to result from this law, you should try to outline what that is. What-aboutisms are not helpful.

The primary purpose of making it a government policy is to defuse the endless arguments and pushback that schools were fighting to stop students using phones.

If the rule is a case-by-case thing implemented by individual classroom teachers, it doesn’t work at all - because students will quickly see and exploit differences in how the rule is enforced by different teachers. It means the phones still get used, and any attempt to remove that distraction becomes a massive battle of “why are you targeting me. That other student is allowed to use theirs. The other teachers don’t mind.” etc etc.

Having a clear school-wide policy mostly fixes that; but it still gets a very similar effect from the parents. “I give my child permission, because they need it for such-and-such reason”. It can be dealt with, but it is genuinely a large burden on the school. But having a clear government policy removes that battle for the school. The answer is always clear “it’s a government policy, it is not our decision to make”. (By the way, there are still some exemptions for medial reasons; but again, there are no case-by-case arguments, because the policy is the same for all schools.)

So in short its about consistency; to reduce conflict between teachers and students, and between schools and parents.

There are at least a couple of distros that are based on Ubuntu. Mint is a popular example. I’d say that based on Ubuntu means it is also a Debian derivative.

To avoid any risk of legal liability the school rule becomes “do not bring a mobile phone to school”, similar to the advice that schools give about valuables in general - especially on sport days. Bring at your own risk. This is especially true when it is a government policy - i.e. not the school’s decision.

Note, this article is talking about France. But as has been pointed out, France is not the first country to do this. I live in Australia, and my comments are based on the phone bans here which have been in place here for a few years (I think the state of Victoria was first, and all states have seen one-by-one followed that example because they see it as a good idea.)

The discussion about whether or not teachers should have smart phones is a separate issue. It has a totally different pros and cons, benefits and challenges.

Perhaps this is what Musk means when it says that empathy is bad.

If your goal is to maximise your own personal wealth, then empathy really is a hindrance. But I put to you that maximising money is not a goal worth devoting a lifetime to. And perhaps not scamming dumb people is a valuable way to act regardless.

(This is essentially what motivated the Quakers to push for set prices for goods rather than constant bartering. They believed that dump people should still be able to go to a shop and buy stuff without getting ripped off. I’d say that moral position has made the world a slightly better place.)

day-dreaming isn’t intrinsically bad. People do need time to think about stuff, and have their mind drift from topic to topic. Some modern teaching practices advocate deliberate “brain breaks” for students.

The issue with phones isn’t so much that students are sometimes off task, but rather that the phone consumes their attention entirely. It uses up the students’ useful concentration as well as their ‘rest’ time.

About ‘better at hiding them’; maybe so; but that will largely be down to how the rule is enforced. Some schools basically just say “please don’t carry your phone. Put it in your locker.” In those schools, basically every student has their phone in their pocket. Whereas other schools are more strict about it. The phone can be confiscated on site, and in some cases require the parent to collect it. In those cases, compliance goes way up.

As for ‘no phones for teachers and admin’; unfortunately, some of the jobs and responsibilities of teachers are done using a phone. Teachers are required to carry a phone during yard-duty, for emergency purposes. And teachers often use their phone to mark class attendance rolls. … But its definitely a bad look when a teacher is walking down a school corridor staring at their phone while student phones are banned.

As for the reasons for the ban… well, they are many and varied - including all of the things you mentioned. (liability, mental health vs bullying in particular, and distraction from class activities.)

But that will never happen, because electromagnetic forces haven’t learned the power of friendship and co-operation. Gravity always works together, but the other fickle fundamental forces just can’t decide if they are pushing or pulling or whatever.