I feel like "the upside of the privacy invasion glasses is that parents can have induced videographer anxiety where they once would have had to suffice with memories, how horrible" is not compelling.

I wouldn't malign you, but if you were a close friend I'd probably approach it in the same way I approach friends who are getting a little too deep into gacha or gambling or funko pop "collecting".

But they are not "privacy invasion glasses", data isn't uploaded unless I explicitly tell it to. "Oh But he's definitely lieing", yes yes, I know, and the moment there is evidence for that, I can switch to other glasses and the Meta glasses are dead, so I'd love for him to try (unlike FB or Insta, there is no network effect here to hold me).

Either way I'm not a glasshole, I'm just a dad.

There is no point arguing about the value of photographs.

Do American debit cards not have tap?

I'm in Australia, I have my credit card set up as the default to tap.

Means one payment from my savings account a month to cover all daily expenses.

Well, there's your problem. You've gone from "teach kids" to "economic value". Keep your eye on the ball, not on the stands.

To be clear, they're taking about an "edutainment mode" feature, and not the standard game with its narrative about templar-aliens.

This collection is missing my personal fave: https://javdle.com (very NSFW)

I don't understand this

AFAIU you're presented with the titles of two porn videos and have to guess the one with the most likes

this is my girlfriend's new favorite, thank you

Uff

Wikipedia doesn't "ban viewpoints". I'm guessing you're referring to their considering some sources as more reliable than others?

What source would you include that they don't allow referencing?

Try posting any URL from the Daily Mail. See what happens.

So you would source from Daily Mail?

Maybe.

I'm for viewing all sides of every argument and coming to my own conclusions.

Who are these Wikipedo censors?

Not one of them has the circular objects between their legs to stand behind their Orwellian editorship.

I'd love to have a conversation with you, but I'm uninterested in commentary attacking others. It's not appropriate here.

When you say maybe, what makes you think it's a valuable source?

You probably live in a community of some nature, though.

There are definitely regions where "engineer" is protected in such a way that "software engineer" isn't kosher (some provinces in Canada, for example)

I remember it was like that but it was kind of silly. You had "Software Engineers" working alongside "Software Developers" doing exactly the same job. The purpose of the P.Eng. was to protect the public, not people's egos.

>uncontroversial, quite reasonably

Buddy, patting yourself on the back this much gives away the game

it's gov's own data and stated policies. discourse or gtfo.

i think "source or gtfo" is a fair response to this claim stated in this way

exercise to the reader. the facts in this case are not the debate, but what their consequences are. its worth addressing forum spoiling though. if you have an actual opinion, state it. but spare us the banal nihilism of people with received tactics but no intellectual capacity for conviction. it's insane to me what the civility rules enable by leaving those behaviours unchallenged.

"the facts in this case are not the debate"

Yeah I disagree, buddy, the unsourced nonsense is very much debatable.

My opinion is that making things up is embarrassing, and doing this whole "woe is me for the spirit of debate betides you" schtick when pressed on it even moreso.

Another reason water and ICE cars don't mix is the wiring harness. Even if you don't flood the engine, you'll be having trouble with the electrical for the rest of the car's life. (Or, at least, that's the conventional wisdom)