Speaking from experience… Yes. Absolutely yes.

For better or worse, yes. (Probably worse, but this is the world we have to deal with…)

Yeah, they’ve done that at the malls near me as well. Surprise surprise, 3 of them have closed down and the fourth is a ghost town.

Basically every store in the place is some kind of crystals-and-juju or retirement-scam place, along with somehow a ton of phone case booths?

When I was a kid (might be dating myself here) there was music shops, arcades, bookstores, food, all kinds of shit.

A good point, but I’ll note that most socialization for kids these days doesn’t necessarily happen at a singular friend’s house- it’s typically in a private chat/channel/group/etc online.

I am, admittedly, basing some of this off other posts the guy has made in this… err, thread? Post? Not sure what the lemmy vocab is here, but I can quote it:

And another part of it is I want them to have a clean break from the outside world, from friendship drama or clinginess, from school stuff, etc.

I dunno about you man, but kids probably don’t need protected from friendships, even if they might have the occasional drama… and ‘the outside world’ comment just concerns me.

For getting to experience life instead of being locked in a house, only able to interact with family?

Parenting is about making the best choices you can for your children, not simply making choices for your children. And I never said to give them everything they want. To take the example to the extreme, you could certainly give your kids ‘nothing’ in regards to food, but that’s not parenting, that’s child abuse via starvation. Obviously giving your kid access to a phone is not ANYWHERE near equivalent to access to food, but it illustrates the point- parenting is not simply deciding things for your kids, including what they get. You need to do your best to support them into becoming the best them, and that includes giving them social opportunities. In a perfect world, yes, absolutely, phones would be something you give to a kid maybe in highschool, or even when they leave the house, but only when you decide they deserve the privilege, but this isn’t that world. Phones aren’t just privileged toys- they’re the expected (and in some cases only) methods of communication and connection for people. We can sit here and argue whether or not that’s a good thing or not- I personally think it isn’t, and as someone that’s forced to be on-call 24/7/365 I think I have a pretty good grasp on the matter- but it’s where we’re currently at, and unfortunately we have to work in that structure even if and as we’re potentially trying to change it. Give your kids the opportunities, even while explaining the problems and why they need changed, you know?

The fact is, the dude says in another comment that s/he is intentionally trying to socially isolate their kids to ‘protect them’ which is textbook helicopter/overcontrolling parent and deeply fucks kids up for life. S/He literally outright says they want their kids to cleanly break from ‘friendship drama’ and the literal outside world. That’s… words cannot describe how concerning that sounds.

What an odd, incorrect assumption. Kids need to be able to socialize. This isn’t the 1980s anymore, you can’t just go to a mall, there are very few physical third spaces anymore, literally none in some locations.

For a lot of kids, those third spaces are via phone/online. I can absolutely understand wanting to limit exposure to bad influences of phones, that IS good parenting, but you need to offer alternatives, or managed use, or something, or you’re socially isolating your kid. Worst case scenario, you’re getting them bullied- kids can be cruel (though from what I’ve seen, not as much as they used to be, thankfully).

The person literally said in another comment:

Yes, it’s part of set them up to succeed not fail. And another part of it is I want them to have a clean break from the outside world, from friendship drama or clinginess, from school stuff, etc.

Now, I’m assuming this is partially a situation of english not being the first language, from some of the grammar, but wanting to have their kids be ‘cleanly’ broken away from friendships, school stuff, and the very outside world sounds… look, I’m going to be frank here, their literal goal seems to be socially stunting their kid via helicoptering.

Kids need to learn who they are. You’re not trying to raise someone to be a child, you’re trying to raise someone to be a healthy, functioning adult, and part of that means going through friendships, even friendship drama, exploring the outside world, etc etc.

What a weird rule. You are intentionally destroying your kid’s social, developmental, and interpersonal opportunities because you’re unwilling to actually put in the time to parent.

The least you could do is give them a dumb phone, so they are ostracized less. Or better yet, actually teach and parent them how to use a phone, and then give them a phone with locked down permissions to block tiktok/etc that are actually problematic, while still allowing them access to things that allow them to relate to friends and their community. Trust but verify.

I know what he’s talking about- there was some javascript spec or something that google proposed, and nobody else bought in, so it never actually became part of javascript’s standard.

But google implemented it into chrome’s javascript engine anyway, and then used it for youtube. There was some fallback code if the new functions weren’t available, but, because of a ‘mistake’ they didn’t work and basically made playback ass for a while until the open source community basically debugged and fixed the issue FOR google, and then spent a few weeks cramming it down google’s throat that it needed fixed.

The article is a security company trying to hype their company ruining their reputation in an incredibly ill-thought out attack that companies will ABSOLUTELY remember.

Even worse, it just makes this security company look incompetent. Like a home security company that announces a huge vulnerability in Schlage locks- there’s a key that can unlock the lock included with every lock sold!!11!!!11!one!

So instead of blatant racism based on a lie, you’re just going to dogwhistle racism based on a lie.

Nintendo doesn’t “personally” do anything. They are a corporation.

lol. lmao, even.

Just off the top of my head they bought Monolith from Bandai-Namco and Bayonetta has been exclusive ever since the second one.

Monolithsoft was three separate offices- Nintendo bought two of them, which were both already working exclusively as a Nintendo second party, and the third was dissolved during the Bandai-Namco merger due to the fact that Namco was treating them like shit after Nakamura retired and the merger was the last straw. Monolithsoft is one, if not the only, exception to Nintendo staying out of buying companies, and Iwata has even commented on it only happening because Sigiuira basically asked them to, and it not being something they want or like to do.

As for Bayonettas since 2, Nintendo’s publishing it for PlatinumGames, who used to be a Nintendo second party. They started working with Sega in 2008 iirc because Nintendo literally pointed Sega their way (This is the same time period when Nintendo was giving Sega work to try to dig them out of their hole, e.g. Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games). My understanding is that internally Nintendo still considers PlatinumGames a second party dev, despite Sega publishing several games for them.

You can decide if those are exceptional cases or something as bad as Sony, but I know where my vote lies.

Microsoft has been way worse than sony.

Probably, yeah.

I don’t mean to overly defend Sony

Then don’t? Going to completely uninvolved third parties and snapping them up to hoard their IPs, or simply outright paying them to not publish elsewhere (coughepiccough) should always be indefensible. Xbox is worse, but Sony is still real bad about this shit, and Epic is worse than all of them.

The problem isn’t having exclusives, it’s buying exclusives to punish customers, which Sony (and Xbox) does.

… Nintendo literally personally develops their exclusives, let’s not pretend that’s an apples to apples comparison.

Xbox is absolutely terrible at buying exclusives though, yes. Worse than Sony, arguably.

A massive, massive astroturfing campaign Epic Games paid for in hopes of tarnishing Valve and Gabe Newell’s reputation to try and bolster their failure of a shop ecosystem.

Unfortunately, it worked, because there are people on the net who don’t remember the and days before steam, or even the initial versions of steam that people had Actual problems with, and not just made up ones.

CCGs hasn’t had a massive, massive Epic Games-paid astroturfing campaign against valve/steam like ‘lootboxes’ has. That’s the difference.

Why are you pushing this guy to replace the non-working spy unit with a WORKING spy unit?

uh… ok? So now it’ll be controlled by someone who DOES want to be the next Musk or Zuckerberg?

I mean, that’s kind of my point though. You either get worse than useless, over detailed to the point of useless, or you have to spend weeks pulling hacky crap with tags to try to jury-rig your own useful billing system out of their clusterfuck.