Yeah, definitely not a statement on Aaron himself. More a statement on idolizing people. There will always be instances where they didn't live up to what people think of them as. I think Aaron was fine and a normal human being.
I really hope you re-evaluate this comment. You italicized “giving”, I assume to imply something. This man was clearly a monster, and I don’t need a court to tell me that.
The implication I assume is that his money including this donation was not earned via child prostitution and was not as such inherently dirty or tainted.
It'd be an even worse look if MIT was directly using money earned from child abuse.
Are there statistics that compare other countries? I have found in my personal experience that countries that actually have lower minimum drinking ages seem to have better relationships with alcohol.
Attempting to artificially force age 21 as the limit is foolish, creates de-facto criminals, especially in universities, and forces adults who want to try drinking to have to hide it. This isn’t a sane policy.
> I have found in my personal experience that countries that actually have lower minimum drinking ages seem to have better relationships with alcohol.
I believe that's a consequence of those countries having a better relationship with alcohol. That is to say, if a country's alcohol culture is healthier, it supports a lower drinking age. You can't synthesize a better alcohol culture by lowering the drinking age, however.
Lowering the drinking age has been tried in the US before. Michigan's drinking age after the repeal of the 18th Amendment was 21. The state lowered it's drinking age in 1972 from 21 to 18, and then raised it back to 19 in 1978 and then 3 weeks later took it back to 21. The reason for the change was sharp rise in drunk driving and traffic accidents involving teenagers.
It's kind of funny, but I wrote a paper on this in college years ago and I still remember some of the studies I used (I have a good memory). U of M did a study [1] in 1979 on the effects in Michigan, and there was another study in 1990 [2] that studied the effects across the country prior to the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. It's been a long time since I read that study, but I seem to recall that they showed that the people who began drinking at age 18 had a worse relationship with alcohol by age 25, and that that worse relationship continued throughout their entire lives. I fully admit I haven't re-read these studies, though, so what I'm saying here is my memory from about 13 years ago.
Bottom line: Other countries might have a culture that supports a drinking age of 18 or lower, but the United States does not appear to be one of them.
I'm old enough to remember when New Jersey had a drinking age of 18. They lowered it from 21 to 18 in the early 70s (almost certainly a result of "old enough to fight in Vietnam but not old enough to drink" movements). They raised it to 19 in 1980, and to 21 in 1983. I was only 10 then.
It’s an interesting reply but your conclusion feels like a stretch to me. Mostly because that’s a very long time ago. Access to information has massively changed since then. I feel like saying America can’t have a good relationship with alcohol is a cop out.
21 seems absolutely crazy to me. Three years into adulthood! Three years into dating and relationships where you can’t have a glass of wine with dinner on a date? Maybe it’s unhealthy but I can’t imagine the first three years of university without going out for a drink in a pub or bar at all. Are people graduating from high school and not able to celebrate with a glass of Champagne? If you don’t go to university are you going to work socials as a full adult having to explain that you can’t drink yet?
I don't have any issues with 18 as drinking age (that was the legal age where I grew up), but if you can't even imagine a world where alcohol isn't linked to dating and school, and where its possible to celebrate without requiring what is a pretty dangerous drug (lets get real here), there are bigger issues than the age where it's allowed.
It’s not that they can’t imagine it, it’s that they can’t imagine the illegality.
Like I can imagine romance without candlelit dinners, but if you told be that couples dining together was now illegal without a chaperone, then I would act shocked.
> 21 seems absolutely crazy to me. Three years into adulthood! Three years into dating and relationships
Perhaps occasionally the second, but legal adulthood and the beginning of dating aren't things that are all that normally linked.
> Maybe it’s unhealthy but I can’t imagine the first three years of university without going out for a drink in a pub or bar at all.
Neurotoxins are not exactly an essential companion piece to education. Also, there's a pretty big gap between not being able to do something in practice and not being legally allowed to do it. Fake IDs that are sufficient to pass casual review in a drinking establishment are not uncommon for American youth.
> Are people graduating from high school and not able to celebrate with a glass of Champagne?
People are graduating that would t be allowed to do that with a drinking age of 18, too.
> If you don’t go to university are you going to work socials as a full adult having to explain that you can’t drink yet?
No, because everyone understands, and “work socials” with alcohol are a far from universal thing in the US, anyhow.
It’s not, but Google/A came in with great fanfare and seemed to get more leeway than other constructions do due to their name and their sci fi promises.
But it’s important for people outside of Toronto to understand that this isn’t what most people would call “downtown” either. It’s in one of the least accessible parts of the city, that for that reason has historically only been used by industry. Transit is improving there, but it’s not somewhere I’d want to live. So maybe low rise is all that can be sold there? I don’t know but there are other high rises going up now in that area. How are their sales?
The lack of transit is bit of a misdirection. It's very easy to run bus routes once there is an residential population. Setting up transit in advance doesn't make much sense.
Also it's been primarily used by industry because it was zoned as industry, because industry needed access to the docs for shipping.
Look, It's a 15 minute bike ride to union station. You can walk to the financial district. People will buy whatever units they build there.
A spam filter can't whitelist government email. My personal SpamAssassin filters out spam from government servers all the time. The latest was from somewhere in Quebec.
You'd think the various governments would put more effort into computer security. They appear not to care, though.
He was lovely. And a genius. Maybe he changed, but he was a truly nice person.