Maybe in your country. Here in France AirBnB are both cheaper and the rooms are nicer than hotel. Some of them could be landlords and profit… but some others rent something that would not be fitting as a location (like a vacation flat or a subpart of a house) but is OK for staying just a couple of days.

So I disagree heavily with your generalisation

I disagree that you owe a face to face conversation. No one should forced to go meet someone if they don’t feel like it.

In the context of dating, if you get ghosted, consider that the person is not interested in you after all - and just move on. No big deal.

People will volunteer to do the job because it is something they (and everyone) needs done

I did volunteer work in several associations. From personal experience I can tell you that “someone will do it, a volunteer will rise” should not be relied upon. I have seen many instances of tasks that everyone was aware of, and yet no one wanted to do; even though they were important. At the end of the day, guess who completed them? The president of the association, because that’s their responsibility ultimately; until they got sick of always doing these tasks so they did not want to be president again the next year.

In the case of a society where no one is responsible for given tasks, I can only guess that vital tasks would be left undone and the whole society would be collapsing. Imagine getting your electricity cut each day of “insert your most favorite celebration here” because no one felt like working during celebration day. Imagine fire becoming widespread and burning every building because at that particular day, there were not enough people with fireman skills around to extinguish the initial fire

We need to have assigned roles and responsibilities based on our skills. How do we do that in a world where you can say “Na, I know I’m the only expert on this available right now, but I don’t feel like doing it today” and get away with it?

There is a gap between conceiving a system and maintaining it. Sure, there are architects who conceived sewers. But I doubt they went inside to maintain it on a regular basis.

Some people want to only recruit people that are less skilled by them so that they can remain in their position of power.

If you have a company with a few like that and several layers of recruitment I guess you can have a bunch of incompetent people spending their time in pointless meetings and not getting much done

I love how this contrasts with the CEO statement that many subreddits would go back to normal after the 2 days

I am comparing a drug to a drug that’s the whole point. Phones are drugs. For adults and children alike.

The problem is not in the phone itself. It’s in the lack of doing things that kids should normally be doing at that age. They will play with their phone instead of playing physically (less tonus), sleeping (constant tiredness), talking with their parents (learning) or other kids (socializing).

I know kids like that in my family. You can tell from the dark lines under their eyes that they spend most of their day staring at a screen. And if you ask them to play outside they just don’t know what to do, they need access to a screen even with other kids. It’s really a scary sight. And its a drug yes

I’m all in to get programming classes where children learn to code on PCs. That’s a high pass for me. But AFAIK children aren’t doing programming on their phones.

In general i doubt using a phone at school is going to help them program or teach them about technology. They have plenty of time to explore phones on their own when they get home, especially now that kids don’t go much outside anymore. It’s not like a school ban would be cutting that away from them.

We can all agree that alcohol isn’t bad by itself and that we can learn to use it safely (don’t drink too much, knowing when we had enough etc…). And yet we keep away alcohol from children. Why? Because it is a well-known fact that children may not have the capability to limit themselves; they might very well become addicted and fall into it.

Why should it be any different for mobile phones? We know it can become an addiction. And we also know that children do not have the means to limit themselves because of their young age.

Deliberately letting a kid having a phone for an indefinite amount of time is being irresponsible. What would be responsible is only allowing to use the phone for a limited time.

Schools banning phone could be one way towards that. It would be a good way too because the kid would not be suffering from any social pressure from their peers as everyone would be concerned with the ban.

I do not see why we should upvote everything we see. If barely anything gets upvoted, content will still be there and will likely be at the top (if all comments have just 1 vote they all have equal chance to be at the top).

The Reddit guidelines looked good to me. Upvote if you think it’s relevant. Downvote if you think it does not belong there. Don’t do anything if it doesn’t fall in these two cases.