Or if you have an already incomplete set of scrabble tiles: attach magnets to the backs of the ones that spell "dirty" and "clean". Whichever isn't scrambled on the door is the state of the dishwasher.
Or simply don't rinse the dishes before you put them in[0]. I've never had trouble telling.
[0] Exceptions: uncooked eggs, yogurt, and for some reason, salsa? None of which ever come off for me if they sit for long before you run the dishwasher.
I might quickly rinse my dishes to remove large food particles.
If you are cleaning your dishes so much before loading that you literally can't tell the difference between dishes that have been through the dishwasher and dishes that haven't, then just skip the dishwasher step. You're already done.
- Chunks of fibrous vegetables (e.g.) from clogging the dishwasher filter
- Wet sauces (or egg) from drying and hardening over the hours/days before the next dishwasher cycle, and becoming more difficult to remove
A lot of people don't know that dishwashers have filters that need to be cleaned regularly!
And many of us grew up with older dishwashers that didn't work as well as newer ones.
All of that said, modern dishwashers actually monitor the water (clarity, turbidity?) to determine whether the dishes are sufficiently clean. If you rinse your dishes too well, the dishwasher will prematurely think it has accomplished its goal, and reduce time/temperature to end the cycle early. This is why manufacturers recommend against rinsing or pre-cleaning.
In my household, we have a pair of zealous canine precleaners, who do an excellent first-pass job. The dishwasher's only responsibility is to rinse and sterilize. :)
You will after you have to pull the dishwasher out, turn it upside down and partially disassemble it to clean the filter which is blocking the flow of water intended to rinse your dishes.
I think people don't want to clog their dishwasher with pieces of food. If I have a couple pieces of spaghetti, a part of a leaf and half a chickpea stuck on the plate, I would remove them with a paper towel. Not sure why anyone would rinse it afterwards, though.
That reminds me of people who clean before the maid comes. I've never had a maid, but I've read that people do the easiest things themselves so the maid, who is paid by the hour, has to do the harder things only.
> “However, we notice – based on the social comments and international media coverage – that for many guests this period is ‘the most wonderful time of the year’.”
How to make your corporate response sound even more AI than the actual AI...
> "And here’s the part people don’t see: the hours that went into this job far exceeded a traditional shoot. Ten people, five weeks, full-time.”
If it didn't even save time, then what was the point?
Looking at it I see familiar elements, which are used by an artist going by the name Gossip Goblin to draw apocalyptic visions of a humanity far in the future that, for the N-th time, almost wiped itself out via increasingly invasive body modifications.
The assertion is not that something will inevitably happen because of this other than the further normalization of government authority over individual autonomy. That is an inherent result of this, as well as the prohibition of sale of alcohol and drugs to kids. You can argue on and on whether or not these are good, righteous, moral laws, but you cannot deny the intrinsic fact that widespread acceptance and even support of widening the scope of government control normalizes government control
Government control is the only way to address corporate abuse, because they are the only body that have both enough power (to restrain corporations) and the possibility of being influenced by voters. Too much government control and you have a problem. Too little and you have no safeguard against bad actors.
Not sure who you have spoken to, but I don't know one single parent who wanted this. In fact most of them have said they will assist their kids to bypass it.
I'm curious to understand why your approach to TikTok is banning it. Why do you think this is the right solution? Are you concerned at all about your son's ability to cope independently from oversight and control?
No, it’s that he will spend hours doom scrolling whatever they feed to him.. I’ve tried to lead him down a path of watching more educational stuff on YouTube but he will just end up doom scrolling shorts.. I’m trying to figure out ways to enable him access but not have him waste hours with shorts.. I know there must be short form content that’s good but I’ve not seen any evidence watching over his shoulder.. I block shorts on YouTube for myself even.. at this point the best I can think of is allowing access in short windows of time with longer chunks of blocked access.. if anyone has ideas I’d love to hear them.
Short-form content (if you can call it that) is a weapon of mass attention span destruction. IMHO the doom-scrolling loop it creates should be illegal, regardless of the audience.
You assume that banning usage was the first step instead of the last step.
I'm not OP, but I'm guessing they started with talking to the kid, or more intermediate steps.
> Are you concerned at all about your son's ability to cope independently from oversight and control?
Kids aren't fully independent for good reason, and a very hard part of parenting is deciding how much independence to give them vs. sheltering them from the parts of the world that will hurt them. If a kid comes home with drugs or hardcore porn it is completely reasonable to confiscate them with no regard for independence and control. Is TikTok the same as heroin? No. But it is provably harmful in any number of ways that young brains do not have the tools to handle, and the benefits are arguably non-existent for most. With other things like sports, we know that there is the possibility of getting hurt, but that can be mitigated and the benefits far outweigh the risks.
I'd rather have my heroin addicted son do it at home, where I can be there to take him to the hospital, talk to him about it, etc., rather than make him go out into the streets alone. Banning it doesn't seem like a productive approach
We aren't concerned only about existing addicts, but potential future addicts. Especially for something like social media with strong network effects, where decreasing use is non-linear.
The question is always:
A. What do people use instead? (banning pot, for example, increases use of heroin and alcohol, which is good for alcohol companies but bad for public health. If banning social media sent kids to 24/7 news channels, it might not help, but I haven't seen evidence of that.)
B. How much is organized crime funded by the increased black market? (In this case, kids are a limited population that doesn't have a lot of money, so the answer is probably "not much".)
Banning substances naturally decreases use, that's obvious, but prohibition criminalizes use, which will always persist. You cannot stop drug use. Drug legalization so far has resulted in declining use of dangerous substances like tobacco and alcohol. Far more young people today choose smoking pot over smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol. Many people choose not to drink because they've observed the widespread dangerous effects of it since it's been legal. If heroin was made legal all over the world today, you'd 100% see increased use. But maybe humanity needs to see the consequences in order to respect them? Just like alcohol and cigarettes?
> I can be there to take him to the hospital, talk to him about it, etc.
Nanny state! Let him take himself to medical facilities, and deal with the consequences himself instead of interfering
HELL Let's ban hospitals, they're just interfering in the natural order of life.
Real talk: I know that those are strawmen and you most definitely think that where you draw the line is right for you and your family (assuming that you have one), but the reality is that the line gets moved a LOT as children grow - your line might be great if you have developed a good relationship with your son, and he's received a good social education from his friends/network and he's over a certain age.
It fails very quickly if he's, say, 5 years old and/or he's had no friends that model good/bad behaviour and/or you and he are human meaning that communication, interpretation, and any hint of resentment lies underneath (keep in mind that teenagers are geared to fight/be angry/dislike their parents, for the specific reason that it motivates them to leave home and begin their own lives)
I like your libertarian approach. You're right the line can move a lot. Of course, my support/interference would (hypothetically speaking) be different on a situation to situation basis, my reasoning is simply love. If I love someone, like my son, I want them to be free to make mistakes and hurt themselves, and certainly if they start hurting others I would seek to stop that. I think it's important, though, to be there for people, nut the line does change like you pointed out. So I'm really not sure- my decisions would be situationally dependent. I'm still inclined to say that prohibition is ineffective and potentially more dangerous for some people
Without wishing to completely sidetrack the discussion...
> I like your libertarian approach.
Their idea is to prohibit government...
What we are seeing in Australia is a community that has decided that the best course of action is to say that children under the age of 16 are generally too young to have the skills to deal with some social media.
You yourself are comfortable with the idea that a 5 year old is far too young for social media (and kids that age /can/ work devices to access social media if they want)
The question really is, at what age should we draw the line.
16 is arbitrary, but the ones most able to manage the interactions are the ones that will have the skills for circumventing the blanket ban, and the ones that aren't that savvy, won't.
It's clear that "privacy " in public spaces requires a fair bit of entitlement, why can't we all just love one another and let it go? What harm comes from being in someone's cool AirSoft video? Is it just a matter of principle that bothers you or something deeper?
For one thing, the video might have objectionable content edited into it.
For instance, one video could be filmed by a genocidal maga nutjob, and a second could be a documentary about how PLA doesn’t biodegrade, made by a woke LGBTQ+ immigrant with a working understanding of chemistry, physics and biology.
Almost 100% of the US would be upset to know they supported the production of at least one of those videos.
That they're upset does not mean that the world should bend to their feelings. I think you would agree that getting upset does not necessarily mean something is wrong externally, oftentimes things are wrong internally. Thank you for taking the time to reply
Their point is that the name and logo are clearly drawing from the Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect, with all the potential baggage that comes with it. It's an interesting choice.
The novel was the first popular codifier of the concepts of strongly superhuman ASI and hard-takeoff singularity, literally the work that introduced these ideas to the then quasi-New Atheist hangers-on among the kuro5hin crowd who became the initial core of what would develop into the follower base for singularitarianism. It was quite well written for that purpose, with enough sex and action to paper over the slow parts, and a real grasp of what it feels like when time contracts and dilates at once in those dolly-zoom moments where the universe is different forever and nothing outwardly changes. Combined with the seductive appeal and literally universal scope of the ideas that power its plot, it is no wonder the novel should have left so strong an impression on a few.
Someone intentionally invoking that history is interesting indeed. Someone doing it by accident might be more so. But I already gave that choice the name I judge it deserves.
