A few things:

• Several of your devices have the feature you want, but you ignore or defeat them because you want another feature as well (play next episode, etc)
• You could look into Google Home Automations, on your Android phone, where you set a specific time, 00:30, to automatically turn off the CCwGTV.
• Last, this is one area where home audio / video (AV) receivers help; just connect everything to the AV receiver and when it goes off, due to its sleep timer, everything else goes with it. Likewise, when you turn on the AV receiver, everything else plugged in turns on.

Please, I hope you didn’t take my hypothetical as an attack, I think based on the emoji you understood my position.

As to your hypothetical, I do understand. I had a cousin that was autistic, probably mid-slightly high functioning, and he did not understand how to adjust his “strength” when putting hands on people while joking vs angry and it resulted in many situations where we had to separate him from the younger children that didn’t know how to guard themselves appropriately.

My point is that even in a controlled environment, its difficult to handle these situations and ultimately my experiences have informed me enough that despite how much I loved my cousin, I needed to think about the people around him first in certain circumstances.

My cousin is no longer living, he had a heart attack; however, despite his inability to control his strength, I did allow him to be around my kids, but never alone and never without me being on pins and needles the entire time. Its sad to say that, but ultimately I am just glad he and them got to interact. It brought joy to both of them equally, I’m sure.

But to answer my own hypothetical, I wouldn’t hesitate to call the cops if I knew my cousin had done something wrong even if he didn’t believe he had. At a certain point, I believe you have to put aside your concern for the unstable person and think more about the ones that could be potentially hurt.

First of all, I’m not advocating for the police.

I clearly stated in my first post that the police did not handle the situation correctly because they did use lethal force and they did not wait for the ambulance when they said multiple times they would.

What I’m stating is that everyone involved had a part in passing the buck of responsibility to the next party until ultimately the end result was almost assuredly going to be bodily harm to Yong Yang.

I have a severely autistic son. There is literally no circumstance where I would call the police for any event involving him. Unless there is a dead body on the floor, they are not getting a call.

Here’s a hypothetical for you, if your son had an episode and took someone hostage with a knife, you wouldn’t call the police?

I will always advocate that a big area where police could improve their standing with the communities they serve is to always strive toward better, non-lethal handling of situations where the circumstances are appropriate; however, handling individuals with behavioral / mental disabilities isn’t simple…

Getting back to the hypothetical, you don’t you think you have a duty to protect that hostage’s life at all costs? You wouldn’t call the police until that hostage was dead on the floor?

Hypothetically, for your sake, your son’s, and that hostage… I hope you aren’t serious or would reconsider…

Honestly, everyone sucks in this situation…

• The parents pretty much ignored the warning signs of his illness, schizophrenia and bi-polarism, for far too long. It was revealed in the body cam footage that this incident actually started the night prior when their son showed up and forced his parents out of the apartment, probably being violent to them as well, and they had to sleep in their car.

I’ve seen this numerous times where the parents or family members know at heart the person needs to be committed, but for various reasons mostly due to finances or not wanting to stifle their freedom, they prolong the decision until its practically too late… and here’s how you know:

• The parents slept in their car over night hoping his “episode” would end and when it didn’t they were forced to escalate and called an out-patient mental health facility to get him to a hospital; if they were handling his care properly, he wouldn’t have been out. This reeks of them doing this “wait it out…” before and it worked, but not this time…

Out-patient mental health or rehabilitation nurses, etc are not equipped to handle a violent patient. In fact, their training is as was shown in the bodycam footage. The second a patient becomes violent or too much to handle, they are trained to call the police.

From a morbid perspective, Police at least have a union and pension clauses that help take care of their families if they die in the line of duty, but home nurses, hospice care workers, rehab nurses, mental rehab nurses, etc do not (besides the possible work life insurance)

• The only area where I think the father and out-patient made things worse was they weren’t able to properly communicate the level of violence to prepare the cops. They were asked multiple times if he had a weapon, if the apartment had weapons, if he had threatened anyone, etc and the answers were all “no, but sorta” vague like.

They were almost too afraid to admit how violent or a threat the individual was because they didn’t want him to be injured… but at this point its too late.

Yes, and finally… it was too late without someone getting hurt. The individual was barricaded in an apartment, had a knife, and was mentally unstable. The cops asked peacefully several times for him to come out, but he wouldn’t; there’s no world where this ended in someone not getting hurt.

• I think the police actually screwed up the most when they attempted to enter without the Ambulance being on-site. They had a ‘contained’ situation, the individual wasn’t going anywhere and didn’t want to leave, so let him be until the ambulance shows up. They said multiple times they would wait for RA, but in the end… they didn’t.

Everyone sucked… except Yong Yang

Doesn’t surprise me; here in Arizona, charter schools greatly out-number state public schools, usually have a majority of white students enrolled, and have access to the same government funding that state public schools have access to.

What started out as a way to offer private education on a state subsidized budget for disabled children like deaf, blind, or autistic, has been over-run by the elite as a way to have a private school without bearing 100% of the cost.

Interesting study and others: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17765230/

Not saying you are wrong, but a few things to note / discuss:

• The study indicates that CYP17 is a “candidate gene”? It isn’t fully proven…
• The study indicates the CYP17 gene is valid for FtM but not MtF transitions… which means at best it can only explain half the population of trans right now
• The study I linked was done with under 2000 people in 2007, and a later study in 2015 was done with under 700 people. When you compare that to the estimated 30-70 million transgender potential people, the study is lacking in my statistical opinion…

Further, have you considered that maybe trans-racialism simply is too new and hasn’t been studied enough?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transracial_(identity)

Except that there are biological components that are also part of transgenderism that explain why someone with male physiology expresses female thoughts and feelings or vice versa, or other types of internal gender identity.

What biological components are those? Please explain what you mean

I think people need to take a step back from the vitriol and realize the irony in @deadgirlwalking@lemmy.world’s statement about wanting to claim being white when they are black.

At the core, trans men / women identify differently from their gene or cellular biologics; this is fundamentally no different than someone black / white claiming to identify differently from their gene or cellular biologics. If you are OK with one, you must and should be OK with the other…

I think the reason why @deadgirlwalking@lemmy.world is having such difficulty with this ‘showerthought’ is because it hits home for them in a different way.

Don’t think about the centuries of slavery and racism @deadgirlwalking@lemmy.world 's ancestors endured, no… think about the racism that PoCs endure today, yet its relatively less socially divisive for men / women to be something else.

I think delivery was wrong, but there is a powerful message in the discussion of this ‘showerthought’ …

I think there needs to be more government involvement and protection in how data is collected, shared, and consumed; however, I also think people don’t realize that their perception of ‘privacy’ has always had the major benefit of being from the perspective of an individual that largely is unprofitable.

Many celebrities would very likely tell the public that ‘privacy’ is largely a myth and the reason their perspective is that way is because their lives, activities, and actions are viewed as profitable to someone. A lucrative paycheck from acquiring that salacious photo in a vulnerable position, etc is a big motivator, and if the celebrity gets mad at the paparazzi, there’s even more news about how the celebrity lost their shit for all the world to see; however, if the celebrity embraces the media and tries to work with them to conserve what little ‘privacy’ they have, there is negative news about how the celebrity is fake or too controlling about their image. At the end of the day, these celebrities simply want to have dinner out with family or friends and they can’t.

The general public isn’t used to the idea that someone cares enough about every nuanced detail of their decisions that it would matter… but it does. Sadly, a celebrity must spend thousands of dollars to secure their privacy, and even then it isn’t a guarantee… what hope do we have? In today’s society we use debit or credit cards, but all of the transactions are data mined by the banks and privacy is non-existent; however, with cash you have some built-in ‘privacy’ because at its core it is not easily profitable to track.

And that is the point; Data collection is slowly bridging the gap between a celebrity’s reality and normal everyday human perception of ‘privacy’.

I’m not a physicist, but I’ll try to answer your question:

Gravity, pressure (atmospheric), and a vacuum are not the same; nor are they mutually exclusive.

• The Earth’s mass and centrifugal forces are said to exert a total of 1 gravity (1g). While the influence of gravity is scientifically never-ending, there is a distance or limit, known as the Hill Sphere where the effects of a celestial body’s’ gravity dissipates enough that its influence is scientifically negligible. For the planet Earth, the Hill Sphere is about 1.5 billion km or 0.01 astronomical units (AU).

• Shortly after the Earth formed, there was no atmosphere and different types of gasses like Nitrogen, etc were being expelled by tons of volcanic activity; much like Venus. Due to the Earth’s gravitational force, these gasses didn’t just dissipate into space; over approximately 3 billion years, these gasses built up and interacted with other gasses / processes that an atmosphere formed. Earth’s atmosphere today is made up of 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen, 0.9% Argon, and 0.1% others. This mixture of gasses, compacted by the Earth’s gravitational force, exerts 360 degrees of 6.9 Kpa at sea-level. At 498.9 km above sea-level, the atmospheric pressure becomes zero

• A vacuum is technically space devoid of matter; therefore, there are varying levels of vacuum. Space is said to be 99.999% vacuum because the amount of matter in Space is infinitesimal compared to the size of the Universe.

A hard vacuum (99.999%) on Earth can be constructed by pumping / sucking out the matter from a container, but while the internal contents of the vacuum would now have zero atmospheric pressure, the vacuum and contents or lack of still exists on Earth and is still experiencing 1 gravity. If you puncture the vacuum at sea-level, the 360 degree atmospheric pressure of 6.9 Kpa would force air into the vacuum.

In other words, a hard vacuum doesn’t negate gravity; if it did, gravity in Space wouldn’t be possible and NASA wouldn’t need the vomit comet to simulate micro-gravity. Therefore, when they say they can produce enough thrust in a hard vacuum to overcome 1 gravity, they quite literally are saying that within the vacuum on Earth, they can make an object weightless / move.

Note: Someone else already posted essentially what I did in a much more concise manner… but I already typed all that… so… gonna leave it up for now

Not saying its true, because I am skeptical, but a few things I found interesting:

• The lead engineer is former NASA
• They claim to have been working on this for more than 25 years
• Already patented: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11511891B2/en
• Produces 1g thrust but requires hard-vacuum
• They claim the tech goes back to Asymmetrical Capacitors which is old tech, but this exploits it in a new or different way
• They claim the team members that have worked on this included others from NASA, Blue Origin, and the USAF; of course this doesn’t mean the USAF, NASA, or Blue Origin are invested officially, but some definite heavy hitting organizations…

Disclaimer: I know the article is for the UK, but I’m in the US, so my reply will be US focused

There’s always more than one side to every issue…

• Social media is the devil and Parents before 2000 didn’t have to worry much, or did they, about their kids being on the internet 24/7

First, you needed a computer, a pretty expensive, bulky item, and then you needed the internet, mostly tied to a fixed landline that interrupted the main form of personal communication up until around the mid 90s. Even in the late 90s, internet options that wouldn’t interrupt the landline service usually had big draw-backs (usually price or shared bandwidth, etc). The point is that while the internet and social media existed back then (newsgroups, BBS, IRC, etc), their availability was limited by external factors.

Before the age of 15, my parents wouldn’t allow us to have our own computers, we were limited to a few hours per day of screen time, and less than 1 hour per day on the internet. In addition, the 1 hour of internet had to be on our father’s computer which was in public view. These rules didn’t stop us from doing bad stuff, but it definitely limited things.

After the age of 16, we were able to have our own computers, but internet access was still limited to 1 hour per day. Fortunately for me, I had an older brother that was 18 and leaving home, so before he left, I asked him to create an account with the ISP and I’d pay the bill). At this point, I was 16 with unlimited internet, the only problem was it still interrupted the main house land line, but that changed a year or so later with DSL.

Even when the technology and availability was semi-difficult to work around, I still got into a ton of online arguments with random, unknown people about stupid stuff, formed online friendships and “relationships”, sexted, even got into arguments with other jealous dudes trying to steal my online girl, etc.

All of this is to say though that while my social media experience during my teen years wasn’t nearly as bad as what kids are subjected to today, my parents were right that they had reasons to be worried, and I’m sure the rules they did enforce along with the hoops I had to jump through with the tech kept me from making some pretty unfathomable mistakes which is kind of ridiculous considering everything else I did that I’m not admitting to ;-)

Today parents shove a smart phone into their child’s hand to stop them from crying or to keep them busy, but many don’t realize the power of influence the phone, social media, or they have over their child.

I really hate to say this, but a parent should not be a friend. My parents didn’t do everything they could, but I’d give them a solid B rating (85 grade) on trying to minimize any bad influence from the internet given the tech that was reasonably priced and at their fingertips. However, today, parents just straight don’t have any excuse.

There are $50 routers that have pretty extensive, standard parental tech on-board. They can limit the access to the internet per day and for certain hours, log all websites visited, deny access to certain websites, etc. There are more tech savvy options too, logging all traffic, Remote viewing, etc.

Android and Apple phones can block all incoming / outgoing, calls / SMS except for those on an approved contact list, You can deny access to certain apps, even force the phone / app to go into a limp mode when a certain “on-screen-time” is met, etc

Parents today have so much available to them to prevent their children from being “mind-controlled” by social media; however, the most important aspect is awareness or resolve to do something about it. A parents’ job, until the child becomes mature enough or legally an adult, is to always present, support, and or sometimes enforce the overall best, healthiest decision.

While I won’t deny that some stuff on social media has gotten out of control, I mostly think parents today are to blame and the government needs to stay out of it except if they want to enforce a higher minimum age limit for social media or try and penalize the companies for obvious negligence on not properly making the efforts to keep younger children off the platforms.

I don’t have an account – I refuse to support Epic or their Game Store even if they do give away free games. Tim Sweeney is a douche for making it seem that Valve is crooked when he’s just a whiny, sore loser that waited 15 years too late to enter the PC digital store business and is pissed he has to settle as the real-deal King Kong’s bitch.

Regardless of the cable that came attached, check the monitor to see if it supports a Display port – It most likely does. Your monitor likely came with an HDMI cable for sake of cost reduction (I guess better than no cable at all). If the monitor doesn’t support Display port, it means that manufacturer didn’t build or manufacture that monitor to be a true computer monitor class product.

HDMI didn’t succeed over display port; they’re two different formats meant for two different audiences.

• HDMI is meant for consumer electronics like TVs / set-top boxes because it focuses on delivering a little bit of everything (audio, video, network, etc) in a single cable for the best, easiest singular TV / device experience.

• Display port is meant for computers because it focuses on delivering the best responsive multi-monitor experience.

In other words, if you are working or gaming on a computer, you should be using Display port; however, if you are using anything else, you should be using HDMI.

• Its pretty easy to remake a patch when a rough draft was previously created by someone else; so I’m not sure the point is valid in stating Leah didn’t steal any work. Can you prove that claim?

• As easy as it is for them to “let it go” it would be just as easy for Leah to add them as a contributor…

While having something in writing is always best, she doesn’t need anything in writing; verbal contracts do exist and its pretty reasonable to assume she wouldn’t have spent thousands out of pocket hiring extra temp staff, letting staff work over time, turning down other work, etc if she didn’t feel there was a verbal contract. Second, she likely has the text message which would be proof enough of there being reasonable suspicion there was a verbal contract.

I don’t think it would be a slam dunk small claims case, but she should definitely take it to small claims if they don’t compensate something.

Again? Isn’t this the 4th or 5th rodeo?

Good luck; let me know if you have any other questions :-)