aasatru

I think solutions to this is of a very individual nature - it's hard to imagine a universal solution.

But it seems your addiction might be to beer more than to alcohol itself, for now at least. And (some) alcohol free beer has gotten really good.

So my suggestion is this: Next time beer is on sale, instead of buying a six pack match the value in buying alcohol free beer. When you're back home you can still pop a cold one, it still feels like a nice reward, and you don't feel bad after. And you don't run the risk of developing an addiction to alcohol.

I never had a drinking problem, but I try to always keep alcohol free beer in the fridge these days just because I think it's a nice treat after a day of work or whenever.

How old are they?

The minimum age for Snapchat is 13. The direct mesaaging part of it allows for fun and harmless messages between friends. I think allowing her to use it if she's 13+ is reasonable.

What you could do is to ask her not to allow friend requests or messages from anyone who are not her friends, not to use the AI assistant (which can't be disabled), and to not use it to consume content from influencers (which is in a separate tab to the right). You cannot really police this, but it's not the end of the world if she sees the feed of some dumb influencer. Maybe while she's home you can show interest and use it together with her.

Position data must of course also be disabled. Snapchat is a bit creepy.

The fediverse is always (somewhat) public, making it not inherently child friendly. Getting together with other parents to set up a Pixelfed instance to use in the friend group rather than to have them use Instagram is a cool idea, and allows parents to be admins and decide who can federate without taking control of the accounts of the kids. It might be a nice way for them to learn that whatever they do online is run by some person whom they decide to trust. And it could keep them off Instagram a little longer.

I don't really know the first thing about parenting though, just my thoughts. It's a tricky question.

Fair enough - it can be a good thing without being particularly good news.

After three decades in prison?

I guess you're a big fan of life sentences?

I'm not sure if America is capable of producing good news these days, and I'm not sure this fits either. To me it reads like just another story of "US justice system is fucked, every instance of justice boils down to the whims of some random judge"

The link doesn't seem to work for those who are not signed in as users.

Try this: https://sopuli.xyz/post/27371098

And then you're on your phone, and typing two spaces at the end of each line is a mess because your keyboard insists you really want punctuation and a space. Because why would you end a sentence with two spaces. Gah.

Og om det betyr at ikke alle kan ha egen hytte så er det fordi det strengt talt ikke er bærekraftig at alle kan ha sin egen hytte. Om man er avhengig av vei, innlagt vann, offentlig kloakk, og innlagt strøm, er man kanskje ikke helt så avhengig av å ha en egen hytte i fjellet likevel.

I get the pleasure of hanging out in well moderated communities where I feel like I am doing my part. Doesn't need to be more complicated than that.

Of course politics is about prioritization. But some things are not politicized as we all seemingly agree it should be prioritized, like military in America.

Climate is so highly politicized because one side is refuting basic facts. They are shouting loud about it and running their propaganda, making the issue politicized. This does not seem to have happened that much in this campaign, as they are focused on other things.

For better or for worse, depending on who wins. I'm just arguing that politicization of climate is not inherently a good thing; rather, in an ideal political situation, it shouldn't be politicized at all at this point.

I'm not passing blame, I'm just saying it might be good for it to be depoliticized a bit. Especially if it involves those more willing to act on climate actually winning.

Whichever policies work well should ideally be more of an academic/technical debate rather than a political one.

It requires political action, but this could happen without politicizing it.

If politicians recognize the need to do something, they might do it even if they do not center their campaign around it.

German support for Ukraine was in a similar situation. Though parties had different ideas and the election would very much be decisive for the future direction, support for Ukraine was not particularly politicized in the election - they focused more on other issues. In the end actors supportive of Ukraine won though, and now they are offering their support without having politicized the issue.

The conservatives had every chance of winning this election until Trump came along, and there is no way the Liberals would have hauled it in by focusing on climate policy.

Sometimes the best thing you could do for an issue is to not politicize it. Actually, I think this is the case more often than we tend to realize.

Would have been nice to see smaller, greener parties do better though.