u/Civil_Cantaloupe2402

By rights of children I mean codified rights that parents are stewards not owners, no corporal punishment, requirements of care etc.

For women, full autonomy, full access to society and opportunity. Harm is more rare but is not swept under the rug when it does happen.

Edit to add: If we can find data to show these successes I'd be grateful.

*This isn't my only political priority but it's near the top.

Picture source: https://koeppen-geiger.vu-wien.ac.at/shifts.htm

Hi. I'm wondering if anyone can overlay the climate projections with the diabolical plans and current behaviors of the tech oligarchs, and just oligarchs in general?

Many are wondering what's the rush to build AI data centers? Why next to US cities? Why in hot, drought prone places? They seem like they're trying to beat the clock. What's the clock?

Here are my best guesses but I don't know enough to understand how these issues interact. Midterms, global class consciousness continually rising, climate change, shock doctrine opportunists, and the general AI race. Also they're freaked out about birth rates, though this doesn't seem as urgent. Also, China doesn't seem as urgent either.

Anyways, I'm now wondering if giant data centers are how tech bros are marking their territory for the future land carve up?

**That's the end of my question. Below is some information I've been turning over as I watch what's going on.

-----------------------------------

Up till recently it's felt like they ignored climate change for profit. More recently it's appeared they may be trying to speed it up to open the N pole to trade routes. Rus sia has seemed like they want it because of trade routes, defrost Siberia for use, and would hold the the biggest piece of livable land as people migrate north. Rus has 6.3 m sq miles, 25% is currently livable. Canada, 3.5m sqmi, 20% is currently livable. Greenland 836k sqmi, 20% is currently livable.

I'm sure most folks here know about the reactionary movement, techno feudalism, dark enlightenment plans. I think they're all the same thing, correct me if I'm mistaken. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment?wprov=sfla1

We know they want to carve up a lot of places and let billionaires run their own small countries like companies. Call them freedom cities and rule over their people. There's word that plans are in progress to destabilize and overthrow multiple latin American governments so they can develop more freedom cities in S America. There's at least one there already Prospera in Honduras. Remember he pardoned the ex president from Honduras for narco charges.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pr%C3%B3spera?wprov=sfla1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hondurasgate?wprov=sfla1

Something I don't get is development in places like Gaza, isn't that region going to be uninhabitable if climate change persists?

Honorable mention to carrying capacity and the green revolution living rent free in my mind. It's obvious they are intentionally doing things that cause massive loss of life. Gutting USAID, gutting public health, fertilizer shortage.l, fuel blockaids. What's their goal here? Just give it to me straight, is it half? Is it more? What's their vision?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution?wprov=sfla1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_arable_land_density?wprov=sfla1

Yes, the idea is outlandish. No, I am not qualified to have such ideas. Moving on.

**************************

In grades 4 and 5 I'd have a morning share session where kids tell the class what they've been learning about for fun on Wikipedia or similar resource. Building the value of personal research and knowledge sharing.

Then gradually shift towards editing in grades 6-12. Starting with understanding the process and looking for typos. Each year it's revisited to increase complexity of the contributions, and discuss how Wikipedia works.

I think students would learn heaps about research and media literacy. They would also now be contributing members of a global collective project. It would have positive psychological effects, and would help them understand first hand how big things are accomplished via collective effort.

Here's a link to the Wikimedia foundation FAQ. I was going to share just a small portion of this page but it's so exceptional I'm posting most of it below. (Sorry it's long.) There are many critical lessons right here in the Wikipedia bylaws. Lessons that we are trying to teach our kids right now, both at home and school. I think engaging with it in action could be revolutionary.

**Edit to add: No need to read the excerpts below unless you're curious. I just wanted to show what I mean about their governing and editing policies.**

[Wikimedia Foundation](https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2025/10/10/wikimedia-foundation-responds-to-questions-about-how-wikipedia-works/)

"How does Wikipedia work?

Wikipedia is the world’s largest online encyclopedia. All of the information on Wikipedia is governed by a set of editorial policies and guidelines developed and enforced by volunteer editors who add content to the site. These policies require information to be well-sourced and delivered from a neutral point of view. In addition, original research is not permitted on Wikipedia.  Wikipedia works because volunteers from around the world follow these policies to compile and share information on notable topics, citing reliable sources such as newspaper articles, books, and peer-reviewed research. All sources used to build a Wikipedia article are available to see in every article. In addition, Wikipedia’s processes allow anyone to review the content decisions made by editors. Editors publicly discuss, debate, and often disagree until a shared consensus can be reached on what content to include on Wikipedia. Over time, this consensus can change and evolve with new sources and new information. In addition to the many editorial policies that govern content on Wikipedia, a Universal Code of Conduct provides a baseline standard for how volunteers interact with each other. The Wikimedia Foundation provides technology and legal support but does not write or control the content on Wikipedia—volunteer editors do.

What does neutrality mean on Wikipedia? 

Neutrality is one of Wikipedia’s most fundamental and bedrock policies. Information must be written as far as possible without editorial bias. This means Wikipedia presents positions as they are described in reliable sources; personal opinion or commentary is not allowed.  Wikipedia articles should not try to convince readers of a certain viewpoint, use promotional language, or state opinions as facts. When news stories, experts, or books disagree, the goal is to explain each viewpoint with proper credit and space according to the prominence it is given in reliable sources. The process of writing neutrally is ongoing and depends on editors working together, discussing differences, and using sources to update evolving information. In this way, editors capture what reliable sources say and ensure articles are balanced through collaboration and careful checking.

Who decides what is a reliable source on Wikipedia? 

No one person or organization makes a decision about what sources can be cited on Wikipedia. Reliable sources on Wikipedia are evaluated and selected through an open, transparent process involving thousands of editors worldwide. When evaluating a source, editors assess how the source is used by other publications, examining their track record for fact-checking, accuracy, scholarly standards, and editorial oversight. For example, volunteers may consider how often a source is referenced by other information outlets, whether it describes itself as co-mingling opinion with fact, whether it meets standards like peer-review, and how that source is used or critiqued elsewhere. Reliable sources are those that meet Wikipedia’s criteria for encyclopedic content, not a judgment about the overall reliability of a source in the broader media ecosystem. The use of a source on Wikipedia is considered on a case-by-case basis, and relies on the context of the topic being written about—for example, a publication specializing in one field may not necessarily be considered reliable for claims made about another field. These evaluations of sources are public, documented, and open to discussion, meaning users can participate in their review. The status of a source can change over time as new information becomes available.  When a particular source is discussed multiple times by the volunteer community, it may be added to a list of perennial sources. This is not a comprehensive list of Wikipedia’s sources, nor is it a comparison or evaluation of reliability between sources. It exists so that Wikipedia editors can reference prior discussions about how a specific source should be used on Wikipedia at a point in time. 

How does Wikipedia protect against bias?

Wikipedia articles are a perpetual work in progress, and so Wikipedia has many layers of oversight that prevent bias or personal opinions from influencing content.  As noted above, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, its policies require that all content be written neutrally, in line with information from reliable sources. Volunteer editors from all backgrounds are invited to work collaboratively to ensure balanced coverage. Violations of Wikipedia policies are addressed openly, through public and well-documented processes. Wikipedia informs; it does not persuade. Every reader on Wikipedia can evaluate the information being presented and look directly at its citations and sources to draw their own conclusions. Readers who would like to see other sources and information on Wikipedia are encouraged to participate in editorial discussions, propose improvements, and use Wikipedia’s reporting tools when they believe its policies are not being followed. Collaboration, engagement, and publicly transparent debates on Wikipedia are the most effective way to maintain its integrity and improve it. Wikipedia’s strength comes from inviting people of all backgrounds, political beliefs, and regions to participate in building and maintaining content. By including a wider range of contributors, Wikipedia becomes a more accurate, balanced, and trustworthy resource for all. For example, studies have shown that when a larger number of volunteer editors contribute to a Wikipedia article from diverse political viewpoints, it produces higher quality articles. Through these efforts, volunteers from all walks of life and hundreds of languages come together to share in Wikipedia’s mission of creating the sum of all knowledge.

"Why is user privacy important? 

Privacy protections on Wikipedia help protect both readers and the volunteers who contribute to the project. Editors are not required to use real names or disclose personal information. They may instead contribute under user names, which is designed to limit the risk of harassment, doxing, or retaliation—particularly for those addressing controversial topics or living in places where free speech has restrictions.

These privacy features extend to readers as well: Wikipedia does not require an account to view its content and it does not collect unnecessary personal data, ensuring that information remains accessible and safe for everyone reading Wikipedia around the world. "

Why can information on Wikipedia be trusted?

Every edit on Wikipedia is publicly recorded and available for all to see. Discussions about the reliability of a source, decisions on content, and updating editorial policy all happen publicly to create clear accountability. Wikipedia editors engage with feedback openly, and strive to constantly improve this living encyclopedia.

Transparency—combined with community oversight mechanisms and clear rules for sources—has made Wikipedia a trusted reference for audiences across ideological divides. Wikipedia demonstrates how hundreds of thousands of people from all walks of life can effectively reach consensus.

In a time of declining trust in the media and the rising politicization of knowledge, Wikipedia provides a foundation for reliable, balanced information—and invites everyone to help keep it that way."

** For anyone who made it to the end. Thank you for your patience and curiosity. I didn't have the bandwidth to make this terribly formal. I hope the idea has potential.

** stock image, wanted to use a picture where someone consented to highlighting their eyebrow situation. This is roughly what it looks like his will grow into, could be a bit more.

Hi, mom over 30, my son is in middle school. I'm here for the adult advice on him starting to sprout a uni brow. As a fem I pluck, which I hate. Mine isn't terrible maybe 10-20 unruly hairs, I otherwise have gorgeous eyebrows that he inherited. He's looking like it's going to be more full and going to require more than the occasional tweeze. I'm thinking about purchasing an at home electrolysis zapper and just doing him a solid. I imagine in his young adult years he's going to sometimes forget and it'll grow in, other times he'll reach for the razor to be efficient. I have a brother who's eye brows were way too far apart for several years.

He's not hit puberty, he has roughly a third of the hair in the pic so far. Both parents have dark hair and light features.

I'd love to hear from men and women on this. Thanks so much.

*** Also, I'm trying to not baby him in this realm. I'm expecting him to take pride in his appearance and hygiene. We talk a lot about the experiences and expectations put on girls and how we hope to find a balance in the future where norms and expectations are largely universal for all humans and then everyone can simply be as they choose.