Live data from Hacker News

NY school phone ban has made lunch loud again

gothamist.com

341–350 of 352 posts

Re: NY school phone ban has made lunch loud again

#341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you are defined by those members Hence, all drivers are defined by those who roll coal on cyclists and pedestrians for the lulz. Got it.

Yes, In some people minds that is the case. Do you think that is a big own on me? I agree, those guys shouldn't be doing that because they look like idiots. However at the same time I understand the attitude. The fact that I understand an attitude doesn't mean I condone it.

Whether it is true or not doesn't matter. If motorists don't police the most extreme members then motorists are defined by those members.

You don't condone it but you think calling it nasty behavior is preachy. Sounds like you are so afraid of being vocal and preachy that the most you can do is say “tisk, tisk” - hardly effective policing.

Re: NY school phone ban has made lunch loud again

#342
post #91

It's so insane that they let things go this far. It could have been immediately obvious to those involved that cell phones in class would have immensely negative effects. I mean they talk about a lunch room "quiet enough to hear a pin drop"?? I think I learned half my basic social skills from lunch rooms in school. That time period is probably more important than any of the classes themselves.

I feel like we have had a long history of overreacting to new things. "D&D is the devil", "Rock music is evil", etc. But we have just encountered one of the rare times where something new actually was harmful. But it rolled in so rapidly that it was universal before we had the chance to push back. I think chatbots and AR glasses are going to supercharge these social problems at a rate much faster than phones and face…

I think both yours and the GP's points can be simply explained as: it's obvious in hindsight, but not in foresight.

Quite frankly, we (in a collective, general sense) suck at predicting the future. Half will think A, half will think B, and the half that ends up being correct by chance will think they are actually smart rather than lucky.

Re: NY school phone ban has made lunch loud again

#343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sports gambling is astoundingly popular for teen boys. Already the prevalence of zero sum games like crypto and day trading was getting to be too trendy for teenagers, and this shit just supercharges it.

> prevalence of zero sum games like crypto and day trading Calling day trading “zero sum” seems like a huge stretch. To get the sum to be zero you need to include everyone involved in the market: institutional investors, hedge funds, etc. Somewhere between 87 and 95 percent of day traders lose money.

[deleted]

Re: NY school phone ban has made lunch loud again

#344
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This does nothing to ban cameras. The fact that a smartphone has a camera doesn't mean cameras are banned. You can still bring a standalone camera to school.

Which would cause a lot of questions if you pull it out in the classroom.

Maybe in a private school, but a public school should be considered public, making it perfectly legal to film in a classroom thanks to the first amendment.

Re: NY school phone ban has made lunch loud again

#345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which would cause a lot of questions if you pull it out in the classroom.

Maybe in a private school, but a public school should be considered public, making it perfectly legal to film in a classroom thanks to the first amendment.

What? Public means publicly funded, not that the students need to live like they are in public on the streets. A school should still be a safe space, how can children be allowed to develop and be educated?

At least were I am coming from, you can also not just film random adults on the street.

Re: NY school phone ban has made lunch loud again

#346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe in a private school, but a public school should be considered public, making it perfectly legal to film in a classroom thanks to the first amendment.

What? Public means publicly funded, not that the students need to live like they are in public on the streets. A school should still be a safe space, how can children be allowed to develop and be educated? At least were I am coming from, you can also not just film random adults on the street.

>At least were I am coming from, you can also not just film random adults on the street.

If you live in the United States, the first amendment absolutely allows you to film anyone in public. It's a constitutional right.

This also applies to publicly funded facilities, like courthouses, libraries, post offices, the DMV, and also public schools - any publicly accessible area, in any facility that is publicly funded.

I'm not making this up, it's actually part of the constitution.

Re: NY school phone ban has made lunch loud again

#347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? Public means publicly funded, not that the students need to live like they are in public on the streets. A school should still be a safe space, how can children be allowed to develop and be educated? At least were I am coming from, you can also not just film random adults on the street.

>At least were I am coming from, you can also not just film random adults on the street. If you live in the United States, the first amendment absolutely allows you to film anyone in public. It's a constitutional right. This also applies to publicly funded facilities, like courthouses, libraries, post offices, the DMV, and also public schools - any publicly accessible area, in any facility that is publicly funded. I'…

> If you live in the United States

I do not.

> also public schools - any publicly accessible area

A public school in your country is something were any random dude, can just walk in, without anyone being able to object? How does this work with the duty of supervision, the duty to provide and the protected status of children as ward to the educators?

A prison, a nuclear power plant, the hospital and the military are all facilities, that are publicly funded, yet you certainly can't walk in and take random photos or do other things.

I expect public schools to be publicly funded, not to be the same as any public space. Maybe that indeed doesn't apply in your country, but that sounds bullocks to me.

Re: NY school phone ban has made lunch loud again

#348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because there is a perception that cyclists are like this. Whether it is true or not doesn't matter. I reiterate my earlier comment about it being childish. "You look like someone I should hate, so I am going to fuck with you in particular." Oh the irony in these same people being quite fond of claiming it's everyone else that's the emotional snowflake. > Other than it not being deliberate it was "rolling coal". To…

> I reiterate my earlier comment about it being childish. "You look like someone I should hate, so I am going to fuck with you in particular." I agree. However if the most vocal members of the group come off preachy, self entitled etc. at best people are going to be ambivalent towards you and at worst straight off hostile. > Oh the irony in these same people being quite fond of claiming it's everyone else that's the…

Earlier you wrote it was "because I was in totally the wrong gear going up a steep hill".

Now it's "Someone has messed with the fuel pump (before I owned it) and/or the throttle cable isn't adjusted properly."

Here's NJ's law:

> No person shall retrofit any diesel-powered vehicle with any device, smoke stack (i.e., hood stack or bed stack), or other equipment which enhances the vehicle's capacity to emit soot, smoke, or other particulate emissions, or shall purposely release significant quantities of soot, smoke, or other particulate emissions into the air and onto roadways and other vehicles while operating the vehicle, colloquially referred to as "coal rolling."

Did you purposely release significant quantities of soot? According to your own words, that was not your intent.

Therefore under NJ law you were not rolling coal, even though the visible effect is the same. The law is based on your intent and purpose.

Re: NY school phone ban has made lunch loud again

#349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>At least were I am coming from, you can also not just film random adults on the street. If you live in the United States, the first amendment absolutely allows you to film anyone in public. It's a constitutional right. This also applies to publicly funded facilities, like courthouses, libraries, post offices, the DMV, and also public schools - any publicly accessible area, in any facility that is publicly funded. I'…

> If you live in the United States I do not. > also public schools - any publicly accessible area A public school in your country is something were any random dude, can just walk in, without anyone being able to object? How does this work with the duty of supervision, the duty to provide and the protected status of children as ward to the educators? A prison, a nuclear power plant, the hospital and the military are a…

>A public school in your country is something were any random dude, can just walk in, without anyone being able to object?

These days, generally no, "random dude" cannot just walk into any school as some have the front doors locked during school hours (mostly due to gun violence, not taking photos), but it's not impossible. But "random dude" is not the subject of the article, the subject is student's phones being banned, which does not include cameras specifically being banned, which students could still bring into a school, and it's still perfectly legal to use them. Don't hallucinate something I didn't say to try to make a pointless argument. "Random dude" was not part of this comment thread until you made it up.

>A prison, a nuclear power plant, the hospital and the military are all facilities, that are publicly funded, yet you certainly can't walk in and take random photos or do other things.

You can take photos in the public lobby of all those places, that is accessible to the public, or from outside the facility on public sidewalks or roads, etc. Hospitals over here aren't generally publicly funded, a small number are, but most are for-profit. The US has a lot of problems with healthcare that your country may not have. It's perfectly legal to film military bases from outside the base, anything you can see from a public space is legal to film. It's up to the public entity being filmed to create privacy (walls, etc). Publicly accessible areas are a thing in most public facilities, and restricted areas are a different thing, where filming is not allowed, nor access is given.

1st amendment rights are the same rights that allow security cameras to record people in public, and the public has the right to request police body cam recordings, as well as all camera footage from cameras in public facilities to be requested by the public. If I wanted to, I could get all the security footage from any public facility, just by requesting it. That's why it's also perfectly legal for me to bring my own camera and film inside any publicly accessible area of a public building. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public in the US.

>I expect public schools to be publicly funded, not to be the same as any public space. Maybe that indeed doesn't apply in your country, but that sounds bullocks to me.

Constitutional rights don't stop because someone's feelings might get hurt if their photo is taken, and a made-up policy that some institutions like to post on the front door banning photos doesn't supersede the rights given in the constitution. We can ignore those policies, because they are not more important than constitutional rights.

Most people in the US don't even understand 1st amendment rights, but there are a lot of "1st amendment auditors" that go around testing our rights, filming in publicly accessible areas of all the places you've mentioned, and educating people (including law enforcement) that don't have a clue what the 1st amendment guarantees.

You might find some of these videos kind of wild:

Postal Office: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uumedKeDqg0

Military Base: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipAN8pft7Fo7

Correctional Facility: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egIz6-Ikma4

Filming banks through the window from public: https://youtu.be/9KpUnID-OVc?si=P1OWYxqqPhWnMVVO&t=650

Re: NY school phone ban has made lunch loud again

#350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you live in the United States I do not. > also public schools - any publicly accessible area A public school in your country is something were any random dude, can just walk in, without anyone being able to object? How does this work with the duty of supervision, the duty to provide and the protected status of children as ward to the educators? A prison, a nuclear power plant, the hospital and the military are a…

>A public school in your country is something were any random dude, can just walk in, without anyone being able to object? These days, generally no, "random dude" cannot just walk into any school as some have the front doors locked during school hours (mostly due to gun violence, not taking photos), but it's not impossible. But "random dude" is not the subject of the article, the subject is student's phones being ban…

> Don't hallucinate something I didn't say to try to make a pointless argument. "Random dude" was not part of this comment thread until you made it up.

Sorry, that wasn't what I was trying. "Accessible by random dude" was something I took as a measure for being "public accessible space". In my mind that's a prerequisite to being allowed to take photos.

> If I wanted to, I could get all the security footage from any public facility, just by requesting it.

Wow. That's a thing? That explains some films, I always thought, they have just weirdly good connections to a security guy or bribe someone.

> Constitutional rights don't stop because someone's feelings might get hurt if their photo is taken, and a made-up policy that some institutions like to post

In my mind personal privacy should be a higher right than some random person today feeling like they need to record my faux pas. But your law is your law.

Don't you have a (legal) duty to protect children from having arbitrary behaviour publicly broadcasted?

The videos sound I bit like public place means any where you can just walk in. Does that mean you really need a fence, to say that something is not public? I mean we are here also not the Nordics, where you do not need a fence what's-o-ever, but we don't need a fence that physically prevents you from going in. A partial fence or markings on the ground are enough, and you are expected to just not walk onto private property, you don't need to be forced to do so here.

Post reply on HN