Yes, I observed that also. They are are faster physically and mentally (such as operating or discovering how things/software works) and a lot more logical (but not in depth). Simple recent example, doing trail making test (for fun) they were twice as fast while I was average.
This is why I wish system would allow for more young politicians and leaders, lower voting age of 16, and maximum voting age of average lifetime expectancy - 16.
My own political stances from back when I was 16 make me think that this may not be a great idea. I was logical, but also young and inexperienced, knew no other perspectives than my own and had yet to develop some more empathy. I was even completely unaware of some significant facts about myself, which also influenced my opinions. Also, I like to believe that I'm way less prone to manipulation and peer pressure now than I was back then. My mind may have been sharper, but that's not all that matters.
If started at 16 young people would be much better voters at 18 than current 18 year old voters are and so on. There are examples of uninformed voters at all age groups (voting across party lines is one example). Young people should have a chance to participate in our democracy and should be able to vote, if not in general, at least in municipal elections.
How so? How is being able to vote or not influencing people being informed or not? (which, by the way, is absolutely not what I was talking about in my previous comment)
Having voted before does not make you a better voter in the future. I don't think the fact that I had to wait with my first vote for almost full voting cycle longer because there were elections right before my 18th birthday that I couldn't take part in had influenced my political stances in any way.
I’m OK with this as long as we make 16 the age of adulthood. Otherwise it’s a bit hypocritical to say that a 16 year old is mature enough to vote but not mature enough to have a beer.
That is an interesting idea, but hard to implement in practice, to only allow mature enough people to vote. Being mature means different things to different people, but I suspect that even we we agreed on a definition we would find that a lot of adults would not qualify.
You could argue that an adult shouldn't be represented by someone they didn't have the ability to vote for or against. But in that case you would probably need to lower the voting age even more.
Jury is selected and approved by layers and judge. Judge and lawyers are in much better position to select someone competent than age, especially at low and high extremes. Just like there are few 18 yo juror's there would be likely very few 16 yo ones.
Speaking of age, there's an interesting research that found: "that conviction rates increase by about 1 percentage point for each year increase in the average age of the jury pool"
The role played by judges and lawyers in selecting jurors varies a lot by jurisdiction and type of proceeding.
If 16 year olds are allowed to vote, they will wind up on juries.
Assuming jurors are selected randomly from the electorate, with exclusions only in very unusual instances, would you support 16 year olds being part of juries?
I also could hear CRT when on (probably high voltage PSU) as a kid. Recently, I thought my tinnitus got worse until I found that one of my smart power supplies started making high pitch sound (ceramic capacitors in power supplies cause it).
Makes me wonder however, where Ukraine's (edit)Neptune missiles where all this time and why Ukraine is getting Harpoon missiles from UK if they have their own.
Harpoons also carry a warhead about 50% larger than the Neptune, increasing the range of targets they can effectively hit. The Neptune is only designed for targets of 5,000 tons, compared to the Moskva being over 10,000. Whether it was a lucky hit on a/the magazine compartment(s), poor damage control, or combinations there of, good job Ukraine and the Neptune.
It’s called Neptune. It only entered service last year, so they probably don’t have many, and it’s possible early Russian strikes may have suppressed the batteries that were operational at the start of the war.
The Economist [0] (paywalled) says the factories making the Nautilus missiles have been heavily bombarded and that the Ukrainian military doesn’t seem to have many of these missiles. I guess they were just very carefully choosing their target and the time to strike?
Native Russian speaker here: translation „military“ is correct, because this is how it is positioned in official Russian sources - an operation conducted by military forces (the term operation comes from FSB, meaning that according to Russian propaganda it is more like police or counter-terrorism operation).
Slavic speaker here, “Военная” looks like the adjective derived from the “war” noun. So not “war”, but kind of like, “war-ful operation”, or “combat operation”.
It is indeed derived from „war“, but here it has different meaning, so „military“ is correct translation.
You would use „war operation“ as translation if this operation was an episode of war, but according to Russian propaganda it is not.
Combat operation would be translated as «боевая операция».
The aluminum can or plastic bottle, too, though that's still not the most expensive part. Unless you're driving to the Arizona bottling plant to buy it, there are warehouses and trucking companies and retailers involved who also have to cover their costs of operation and turn a profit.
"I feel like I've hit my zenith already and it's just a slow decline from here on out. I’ve been dreading this day because it’s a sad reminder of that."
Yes, it's very likely that you have hit your local maxima. You've been preparing for this day and the day came. It maybe worth noting to oneself that it did not turn out the way you predicted and perhaps identify, if possible, causes that your prediction was so off. Considering that you subconsciously believed that your life will be short, perhaps there were things you did not like in your life that you have compromised upon or negative feelings suppressed that contribute to feeling unhappy?
Speech/information needs to be processed/filtered/analyzed. People may not be equipped to deal with certain information - hence we try to manage it externally and internally.
Suppressing from of information starts at early, at childhood. We try not bombard our children with all the information indiscriminately. We curate and provide age appropriate information to ensure optimal development and growth.
Once a person becomes adult they are supposed to gather and process information on their own. However, even as adults we are susceptible to deception. Our judgement can be fooled, feeling can override our logic.
In conclusion, I think there's a need for curation of the information/speech. Not forbidding it outright, but certainly to help humans discern facts from fiction, for example.
I think that's wrong. Speech is sending signals that are converted into information. The difference is, the information can be good or bad depending on what you already have. If we go with the usual Hitler example, Hitler's speech makes people take other people into concentration camps only if they are already inclined into doing it(i.e. if you air the Hitler speech in USA, Americans don't start putting the Jews on trains). Therefore, limiting Hitler's speech is like fighting infection with painkillers when you actually need antibiotics.
