🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@Cosmo Ahh philly, I miss home... the chemical spill probably added some well needed flavor to the skukyll punch

@hasmis The average of of models accepted by scientists at the time 30 years ago have performed remarkably accurately.

@shuttersparks Agreed!

@georgetakei I admire the fact that you encourage others to make fun of you! As always you rock!

@skobkin fair, there is a noticable lag on gitlab, but reasonable id say.

@skobkin I wanted a git solution that includes CI as an integrated element, not an after thought. There are many reasons for this but mainly because the CI and GIT need to integrate tightly so third-party solutions tend to be convoluted or insufficient. For example we want to ensure merge requests dont show up and are auto-blocked if they dont pass CI, and that we have all the linting, anakysis and security warnings all in one place.

The issue of it being slow is legitimate, and im currently dealing with that issue.. ill see how fast it is after im done hacking it to fix that. Obviously if it will be slow on good hardware we may need to abandon it. but gitlab.com seems to run fast with a huge user base so should be possible.

@skobkin It is, admitidly, fairly heavy and slow. But we have more than enough money to afford the hardware to compensate for that, and we know it can scale linearly if done right.

The reason it was picked is mainly for its CI toolset which is the best i have ever come across. It also helps that we have a free ultimate license that extends to all our users (normally 100$ per user per month)

@Lunatech I also want to point out that while a test doesnt measure mature, neither does age, nor is it even a good approximation.

Jsut na FYI.. Most #QOTO services are up again.. our gitlab is **very** slow due to some problem in gitaly with the latest version... you can still use it but loading the mainpage will timeout, other pages will work as will git pushing (though slow).

I will continue to work on it this evening.

@Lunatech I dont think we should set ages at all... Test a persons abilities, if there is an ability they wont have till they are older, they wont pass... if you cant test for it then its just speculation anyway

@Pat just as there are some young children who are exceptionally capable there are also many elderly. Its wrong to assume someones ability based on age but its fine to recognize trends of the group.

The sad fact is anyone who lives past 90 has a greater chance of being in a nursing home than not.

@2ck

Sure, but you can click the three dots and opt out of conversations too btw

@Pat

@Pat @2ck

> Perhaps in certain environments some 12-year-olds would be able to fend for themselves, find food, cook, build shelter; but most wouldn’t. And very few would be able to operate in the modern world, enter into contracts, etc. I don’t think very many children under 13 have been granted emancipation by a court.

Agreed, very few old people would be able to fend for themselves in a modern society. I'd imagine most 12 year olds would struggle as well, at first, due to how they are treated... but if given a chance they would outperform most adults... once they are away from their controlling nature long enough to bother to learn coping skills at all.

> Thank you for confirming what I said, ”But if someone takes care of their health they most likely will have the capacity to exercise rights up until they are dying or dead.”

Vast majority of people I know who stayed healthy their whole lives have serious troubles performing in old age. My mom was a health nut her whole life, healthiest food, tons of exercize, never a bit overweight. She has no mental diseases of not.. Yes she is now incapable of learning any advanced skills and struggles with even common ones (like how to use her computer)... something ive seen in countless old people. In fact of all the elderly I know not a single one of them can go tow to tow intellectually with a 14 year old. I remember it was popular for a while to give people real tests from middle school and nearly none of the elderly handled it very well.

@Pat @2ck

> Yes, there is a fundamental difference.

Nope

> That’s flat out wrong. Most people are mentally competent until they are on their death bed.

If that were true all it proves is that people tend to die before reaching the point they are incompetent. But it isnt true, attached is an example, mental decline is nearly universal with the **average** person having a significant decline in cognitive abilities.

> For young people, 100% of them are not competent when they are first born and during the first couple of years of life. A tiny fraction will become competent when they are children.

Usually when you treat an individual as a non-human it slows their development. African slaves were considered stupid, no one realized it was how they are treated.

Go back just a few hundred years and children fairly young were treated as adults, and were quite capable.

Most kids would be more than capable by 12 if they were actually given the freedom and responsibility.

> Also, for young people the age is set. It starts at zero. For old people they may be competent when they are over 100 years old and remain so until they die, or they may get Alzheimer disease at 50. There is no set age and there is no certainty that they will ever become mentally incompetent. With young people it is certain – 100% of young people are incompetent during their first few years.

No your looking at it backwards.. there is no set age when a child becomes competent... there is also no set age an adult looses competency.

The cognitive decline is steady as shown in the chart I shared, **everyone** will regress to incompetance if you carry the curve out, its just that most people die long before hand.

> So to say that “all old people should be denied right X” or “everyone over age X should lose certain rights”, is a sweeping and inaccurate generalization, whereas one can say with certainty that “everyone under two years old is incompetent to take care of themselves.”

The percentages are a bit of a strawman. By 2 yes <1% of toddlers will be able to take card of themselves... By 100 years old 90% of old people will be incompetent too. In both cases the numbers are more than high enough to say "the vast majority will not be able to care for themselves well"

> If a parent recognizes a kid’s right to do something, then they have the right to do it. And if they mess up, the parent can take that right away. That doesn’t mean that they didn’t have that right at all.

So aslave had rights, as long as their owner gives it to them... thats no right at all

> Adults have rights, but if they commit a serious crime, some of those rights can be taken away. That doesn’t mean that they didn’t have those rights before they were taken away.

The difference here is the adult actually has the right, and no one can take it away, they have bodily autonomy,a child doesnt.

@Pat

Actually it sounds like we arent in agreemnt:

> We’re in general agreement about the rights of children. By the time they are old enough to do something without risking harm to themselves or others, then they should be allowed to do it, and making that determination should be the parent’s call (unless the parents are causing substantial harm themselves).

Lets rephrase this to apply the logic to the elderly:

"While they are stillyoung enough to do something without risking harm to themselves or others, then they should be allowed to do it, and making that determination should be their children's call (unless the children are causing substantial harm themselves)"...

You are still being ageist, you are judging a child by being "too young", much as I might judge the elderly for being "too old". You also deem that they dont have a right to autonomy and someone else of a more mentally "sharp" age (their parents) should dictate what rights they have.. you may not see it but you are treating children far far worse than what you are complaining about when it comes to agism.

> There’s a fundamental difference, though, between children and old people – everyone is born without the capacity to do much more than cry and poop, so no one can exercise most of those rights when they are very young. But if someone takes care of their health they most likely will have the capacity to exercise rights up until they are dying or dead. And the disease that causes most of the cases of incompetence is Alzheimer disease, which is usually diagnosed while people are still functional and can voluntarily submit to care.

This isnt a fundemental difference atall.. **everyone** without exception, assuming they live to be old enough, will eventually get to a point they cant do much more than cry and poop. Sure some people, many in fact, die before they get there. But if you live long enough **eventually** you will loose your mental capacity, it is inevitable.

Also you do point out that if you take care of yourself you can push that age at which your mentally incapable to much farther downt he line, the same is true of children in reverse. If children take care of themselves,study, learn, are exposed to an a good environment htey will be responsible and capable at a much younger age.

Almost everything about your argument is symetrical between the very young and very old, yet you insist the old deserve autonomy and rightws while children should be denied that privilage and instead their rights should be completely int he hands of other people.

> So there is quite a difference between the recognition of the rights of young people (children) and old people (adults).

No there really isnt,a s I jsut pointed out it is almost perfectly symetrical.

> I think it should be based of each individual’s behavior and capacity. When a person is starting out in life, then rights are recognized as they demonstrate that they are ready and capable to exercise them. After a right has been recognized for an individual, then no one should be able to take it away without demonstrating that they are incapable and that they could cause actual harm to themselves or others. And the bar for making these determinations should be a high bar, both to initially recognize rights for children, or to take them away from adults.

While i agree with this in principle in reallity this isnt what you think based on what you already said. You feel the parents should have the right to determine this and dictate it. Which means the child never really has the right at all, a parent permits them and has the full power over them.

No if you truly felt this way then a 10 year old could walk up to the DMV and get a license **without** their parents involved at all. They would need to prove they are capable by whatever tests and elderly person would have to prove they are capable to retain their license.. Neither the elderly nor the child would need anyones permission so long as they demonstrated that.

@2ck

@mk It was never about if a "scientist" was telling them to... More that people tend to follow authority figures.

@Romaq Absolutely, just a few cheat sheets to start out, the occasional read and your good to go.

Yup....

#Facts #ACAB

@Pat

And most importantly most children arent legally allowed to use the internet without their parents conscent if they are under 13.

Likewise people over 80 shouldnt be allowed to use the internet without their children's conscent.

@2ck