I still don't understand why they were ever allowed in the first place. I went to public school in the 00s and if you got caught with your phone out in class, it would be confiscated until the end of the day. Repeat offenders would need their parents to come up to the school to get the phone back.
Because phones have become the command center for our lives.
Your FreeStyle Libre pings your phone when you have low blood sugar. When your watch detects a serious fall or a heart abnormality your phone calls emergency services. You use your phone to let the dog walker in, check the camera to see if you turned off the garden hose or left it running, use it to find your lost wallet/keys/bag, etc.
Childhood is where you teach positive behaviors and responsibility. Just chucking phones out the window to avoid the problem teaches nothing.
> Childhood is where you teach positive behaviors and responsibility. Just chucking phones out the window to avoid the problem teaches nothing.
I think that's the strongest argument against this. The ideal case would be a room full of kids who are taught to have the discipline to not touch their phones when inappropriate. However, I think the real issue is that teachers aren't able to effectively police this... probably partially due to class sizes, and our society's cultural lack of respect for rule-following and self-discipline.
> Childhood is where you teach positive behaviors and responsibility. Just chucking phones out the window to avoid the problem teaches nothing.
We specifically engineer acculturation processes to incrementally add responsibility for a reason.
Nobody gives a 2 year old a loaded pistol and then tells them they can't have candy.
IMHO, a smartphone with unregulated addictive apps is too much responsibility for grade-level children during school hours. (Hell, it's too much responsibility for many adults I know)
Tech focuses too much on scale and frictionless experiences. That's noise in an educational environment where children are more-or-less mandated to be in. Get rid of smartphones in school. School offices still have voice phones if students and parents need to communicate.
> Your FreeStyle Libre pings your phone when you have low blood sugar.
Surely this could just be an exemption? If you have a medical device (not just low blood sugar devices) that uses a phone then you can keep your phone.
> When your watch detects a serious fall or a heart abnormality your phone calls emergency services.
I'm curious how far your phone can be away from your watch for this to still work?
Regardless, most kids aren't far away from others so a serious fall probably isn't a big risk since the kids nearby can get a teacher or some other adult.
> You use your phone to let the dog walker in, check the camera to see if you turned off the garden hose or left it running
Are these things that kids need to do?
> use it to find your lost wallet/keys/bag, etc
Seems like a kid could go to the office and the school can provide the phone to them for a while.
Also, kids were able to get by without using a phone to find their wallets for centuries. It might do a kid some good to walk around the school and get exercise.
Indeed. There are plenty of things that I will teach my kids are not worth the downsides.
As for your medical examples - those devices work fine without a smartphone. Certifying a medical device that includes the user's smartphone as a key part of the therapy is very challenging, and avoided if possible.
I guess I just don't share the sentiment that giving every child in a classroom unfettered access to content designed to distract them while a teacher is trying to teach the class is a good thing. I'm having difficulty understanding why you'd need to be convinced that it isn't.
I have two teenagers and it doesn't sound like it's a huge problem. And attempts to stifle phone usage (yondr pouches) are just creating friction. Maybe having a phone out is very obvious but kids have been doodling, daydreaming, talking and passing paper notes forever. If the downside of phones was so overwhelmingly obvious we wouldn't have such a dearth of measurable evidence.
This was my experience. My guess some combination of teachers losing control and being under pressure from helicopter parents led to either policy change or their looking the other way.
On Sept 11, 2001, I remember parents freaking out and pulling kids out of school. After that, parents were giving kids phones earlier for safety reasons.
I try. But seriously, it's a very weird reaction. For example, a lot of content on here is about people nerding out on something deep - how would you feel if everyone started responding "I guess people have a lot of free time..."
Yes it's implied that people will spend time and money differently than how you would. So what?
Can HN get rid of the light gray text on light background please? It is annoying and user-hostile. I shouldn't have to squint to read a comment just because I arrived here later than those who think they deserve a better reading experience than I do.
Seconded, it's incredibly user hostile. The mid-gray text in the comment header is sufficient to distinguish a flagged comment while maintaining readability.
for a short time, he was monitoring the referral header and made his website display an offensive message if you clicked the link from HN.
HN's mods then edited links to his domain so they would emit the referral header, and he responded by implementing a browser exploit to detect if certain HN URLs were in your browser history.
In any case, I apologize for using the wrong wording.
> STIR/SHAKEN is already required for VOIP providers
I'm not convinced that STIR/SHAKEN even works properly. Recently, I migrated a DID from one VOIP provider to another. I set the outbound caller ID on the new provider, and it was showing up Verified with a checkmark to mobile devices before I had even submitted the port request to the old provider.
Depending on your new provider, they might just see that they have a contract with you and sign the call on your behalf with B level attestation - indicating that they "know" the end user, but not that they have the right to use the number.
As long as they managed to attach the identity header to the sip invite correctly, and are not considered to be a shady actor - downstream providers such as carriers probably have no reason to label it as spam. Spam labeling is typically done via analytics, outsourced to third parties like First Orion.
Attest levels are not in themselves proper tools for spam detection. The real meat of stir shaken is the origid in the identity JWT claim which is an opaque identifier that can be traced back to a particular user/customer/network equipment.
STIR/SHAKEN being sold as the one and only solution for spam calls was a mistake as it is only one iteration in the right direction. You have a handful of RFCs and ATIS specs that the FCC told operators to implement in a phased approach, and ultimately some gaps were uncovered in practice that reduced its effectiveness.
Plenty of 486 era machines had the AMI ”WinBIOS” whose setup utility kinda-sorta emulated a Win 3.x look and ran in (EGA 640x350 4bpp?) graphics mode, with mouse support:
It is weird to anyone who didn't grow up being told to not cite Wikipedia as a source of information in any authoritative capacity, being told to instead dig for and cite the original source instead which a tool like Internet Archive is useful for.
Culture shock stemming from a generation gap, I guess.
(Obviously this distinction is not important for most comments here on Hacker News which are just written in passing, but if this was an academical setting you would, presumably and hopefully, get laughed out of the room.)
I disagree with the sentiment, the IA is a very useful source, but, as shown here, it provided the wrong answer. In general, you can't trust it to tell "how old is something", only to show that it is "older than".
"Since at least 2005" is not a wrong answer. It's imprecise, but perfectly accurate. And since there is no oracle of absolute truth to consult, it's not like it's wrong to seek out empirical answers like this, it's just one fairly general approach to find a new upper bound. Of course, in this case there is a better answer, but still, there's nothing weird or wrong about the approach.
More effort has been made to argue that it's a bad approach than the actual effort it takes to go to archive.org, enter a URL, and see the first capture date. That all to say, it's not any appreciable amount of effort. It's really at worst a similar amount of effort to searching Wikipedia for an answer.
I am not commenting on the accuracy or value of the information provided by Internet Archive, I am speaking concerning the phenomenon that not citing Wikipedia is "weird".
Major life hack. You may not be allowed to cite Wikipedia, but there's nothing stopping you from using wikipedias citations.
Also the whole "don't use Wikipedia" thing is idiotic. There's a bunch of tech illiterate teachers who think Wikipedia is full of misinformation, and impress that view on students. So lots of people think Wikipedia is useless, while in reality it's a fantastic source of information and you can easily find the sources of that information.
That's what FT is for, if the primary VM instance dies or becomes unresponsive, you failover to the mirror instance.