Desktop computer: Installing a keylogger, for example, is cheap and require skills like “can purchase a cheap and simple technical part” and “can plug in a USB”, which are skills you can assume a CS student will possess.

Laptop: Same, but have to open the laptop and install a less standard straightforward loggrr on the internal cable. This require more effort and patience.

Phone: I have no idea, and I am a computer scientist who spends time thinking about this. I mean, all phones can be opened with corresponding equipment, and the touch screen is connected to the internal computer with a cable, but they differ in details per model and the space to work with is tiny. The research investment is significant and model dependent. Meaning, the effort cost is quite high and they’d need extremely strong motivation.

Fencing: Allow shields.

…!

COME. Out. Of. The. Spaceship.

Jawohl, Herr Kaleun!

Pants. Conformist cowards.

Yeah but bottom man is, like, 27.

That’s impressive!

Have you considered pushing some publicity for this to reinforce and spread it?

E.g. tell a local news outlet that your school has taken big and brave steps to improved security, control, inclusion, money saving, and environmental impact.

Let them make a sunshine story on this and interview the school headmaster/administrator. This builds pride and ownership in the school around the changes, and it is a good tool to encourage other schools, or more of it in this school.

According to my novel and very intelligent horseshoe theory, this argument makes you as bad as the zombies.

They want to eat you. You want to live. Give and take here, find a compromise. Do you really need both of those arms?

Imagine you have a chess club.

Every five minutes, someone drops by to sit down at your match, but their drink on the chessboard and starts a friendly and helpful conversation about how you should play lacrosse instead because it is healthier.

You have some patience to inform them that of course exercise is healthy but you also enjoy chess games and it is hard to play while conversing with a stranger no offense okay? When you tell the 16th person to let you play chess in peace that day you are tiny bit harsh so they complain loudly that you all are extremely rude and excluding.

At some point you lock the door.

You are the 7452nd person to come in their door here, okay?

A family member with no inherent moral compass or empathy, whose eyes, ears, thoughts and agency belong to teams of trained profit-seekers in a different country.

I disapprove of this humanization of software.

It got more legal a few years ago, I think. Not explicitly “made legal”, but the legal foundations have been eroded. I.e. if you can expect to get away with something it is legal in a very real sense.

It’s always been practically legal for empires like the US, Russia, China to commit any atrocities in weak countries, More and more countries are seeing how much they can get away with.

Netanyahu tested the limits over and over and saw there were really quite few legal limits. With Gaza, he saw the limits didn’t actually exist at all.

During the invasion of Berlin in 1945, the overwhelmed German command trying to map out the Russian advance had to resort to just calling businesses or homes of people living in areas they were uncertain about.

If most people in a district did not pick up the phone, or someone did pick up and swore in Russian, they marked it on the map as invaded.

Different worlds of course, but the point is that civilian phones have intelligence value.

It could make sense as a super creepy tactical choice by Iran to deny intelligence gathering from abroad.

I feel that this article is based on beliefs that are optimism rather than empiricism or rational extrapolation, and trains of thought driven way into highly simplified territory.

Basically like the Lesswrong, self-proclaimed “longtermists” and Zizians crowds.

Illustrative example: Categorizing nannies under “human touch strongly preferred - perhaps as a luxury”. This assumes automation is not only possible to a degree way beyond what we see signs of, but that the service itself isn’t inherently human.

The “color” of a thing is pure perception and often just a genuine personal choice.

It is annoying to think about it like that, but consider:

A movie projected onto a white canvas. Before the movie starts, there is no light projecting onto it and it’s just the white canvas.

The movie opening credit comes on. “ALIEN” it says in thin white letters on black background. The projector does not darken the canvas, just add some lines of light forming letters in the middle. Yet we see black.

Is the canvas black or white now? If do when did it change? Is it both? How would you describe that?

People give many answers to this. Most of them based on choice of definition more than objective observation, which I find super interesting.

I have not enjoyed passing through your comments in this thread

Removed by mod

https://www.db.yugioh-card.com/yugiohdb/card_search.action?ope=2&cid=4027

A bookie is needed. Betting requires odds and bookeeping, plus a prize pool guarantor.

The movies either leave the bookie out of shot for dramatic brevity, or, equally likely, have no idea how betting works but just copy other movies.

Their bullshit causes a risk that someone else hesitate or pass on vaccination. You did an attempt at convincing. The responsible alternative is to make them feel uncomfortable bringing up the subject.