No, that’s the opposite of what I was saying.

Then what you said doesn’t make any sense. I agree nobody needs to make assumptions. The driver didn’t need to, the parents didn’t need to. But my argument is they all did.

His actions were not based on the decisions of other.

Of course they were. “You exist in the context of all in which you live and what came before you.”, said a famous person whom we all know thanks to the context we live in. The basis of whether we do anything is whether it would be good for ourselves, no matter if that means it would be better to someone you’re close with or that the backlash from incongruence with society’s expectations is too little to worry about. Here, according to your narrative which I agree with, the driver assumed that the views of others and superiors wouldn’t change except maybe someone’d bad an eye or avoid looking at them. Instead, parents were scared to have their children ride the bus.

Didn’t you say that the driver probably didn’t know the pedophilia connotations of “Lolita”? How is that “Lolita” is a normal word without such connotations not an assumption?

The story would be very different if parents were primarily concerned about the driver’s dress, in which case I would agree with you. But, instead, the story here is with the sign.

That was not a reasonable assumption. It was an ignorant assumption

How were they supposed to know “Lolita” referred to the fashion trend?

He no longer drives that route.

That’s all it says. You assumed it meant he was fired when in fact it could’ve been a suspension or a transfer to some other route, just as the parents assumed “Lolita” meant what they were taught it meant growing up. The article doesn’t even seem to know what gender the driver is.

This is called the “benefit of the doubt”.

To do that you need possibility for doubt. What is the reasonable doubt against the negative effects I mentioned occurring?

And this is all predicated on the assumption that the driver was in fact referring to Lolita fashion. If I need to prove there was harm, you also have to prove they was just making a fashion statement.

The parents expressed their care for their children in the avenues they preferred to do so.

He doesn’t need to make any assumptions of other people

Assuming you tried to avoid a double negative and instead meant “There’s nothing wrong with them making assumptions of other people”: Again, I’m not blaming him for making those assumptions. But he did believe it would not cause harm which most likely turned out to be wrong. And that was, in your narrative that I agree with, based on the reasonable assumption that there’s no ulterior connotation to “Lolita”.

You can argue that Japanese Lolita fashion has little do with the infamous book, but that doesn’t shake the fact that we are not in East Asia but in North America, where “Lolita” is intensely associated with the book and pedophilia. The parents made a reasonable assumption that this is what “Lolita” meant. There’s no difference here between the amount of assumptions made by the driver and the parents.

They can look away

From the reasonable conclusion that their driver is a predator?

unfairly forced this man out of his position

That’s an assumption. It’s still possible the driver is given a second chance at bus driving. And in the worst case I doubt the driver would not be able to find employment in public transportation.

The driver caused zero harm.

That’s also an assumption. I don’t see any reason why the driver would not cause parents to not trust the bus and harm the children forced either to wake early and walk to school or contribute to the emissions in their air.

or chose to drive their own kid to school.

Again, there’s the harm. The pollution doubling as half the bus goes to school in a car instead and being prevented from talking with friends on the bus, especially those with whom one does not share a lunch period. And your assuming that all the parents have the time to drive their children to school without conflict from their work commute.

They made assumptions, leaps of logic, out of ignorance and decided to act on them in haste

So did the driver. The driver made assumptions that there were no additional connotations for “Lolita” the fashion trend out of ignorance and hung a sign they assumed wasn’t disturbing but was for reasons they did not know. If you’re just judging people by their actions, the driver’s intentions you have detailed should hold as little weight as the parents’ intentions. And what the driver did was stupid and caused harm, intentions aside.

Just like how the driver probably didn’t know what “Lolita” meant, the parents probably didn’t know about the Lolita fashion trend. You’re also forcing your judgement onto the parents for making the logical decision based on only the information that was available to them here. If one doesn’t know it’s a fashion trend, I don’t see any other likely explanation for putting up a sign saying “Lolita’s Line” other than the driver being a predator or maybe the driver just repeating out loud whatever they hears others say, which isn’t good for children with ears either.

I’m inclined to agree with your presumption of idiocy instead of malice; that the driver just didn’t know the connotations of “Lolita”. Yet the word still makes parents think their kids are being preyed on all the same. I’m not judging that this is what the driver meant to do, but it is something that would make parents not trust the bus and harm the children forced either to wake early and walk to school or contribute to the emissions in their air.

It’s still possible the driver is given a second chance at bus driving. And in the worst case I doubt the driver would not be able to find employment in public transportation.

Would you be okay about the bus driver being nude too? The answer is probably yes but for most most most of us it’s a no.

they’re doing this to spread awareness of a big agency being the scum of the earth and cuz roleplay realism

Sorry that I couldn’t see where you included that. Could you do me a favor and quote what components exactly need to have work done for a solid base? (brownie points if they refer to postmarketOS’s Plasma Mobile as a starting point) Note that I’m already aware of the driver layer issues. I’m really curious about this solid base you mention.

Okay, what more needs to be in postmarketOS Plasma in order so that it has a “solid base”?

Do you think Android is “just” Linux?

No? It’s not even much Linux besides the kernel. By my second sentence I meant “Isn’t [Plasma Mobile’s solid] base just GNU/Linux?”

Isn’t that the UI layer they was referring to? I would think that the AOSP layer as summarized by balsoft is the solid base, which in Plasma mobile is GNU/Linux plus some basic stuff in the DE.

Yeah I could’ve phrased that better. I was thinking more process management, coreutils, networking, device interfaces, rendering, window manager, etc.

That would make sense, though I was asking about the “solid base”, not the “driver layer”.

could you explain?

Not sure what you mean. Isn’t the base just GNU/Linux?

I’m fairly sure they started being hyped at least in January, when the Labubu subreddit (created last September) first showed up in the internet archive, where it also had quite a bit of activity. Thus I also heavily doubt it’ll fade in a month.

You’re just describing fashion.

It’s just like beanie babies but that whole cycle took years to mature, now it takes weeks.

Labubu released 2015.

it’s a Chinese convert operations device packaged and disguised as a “Labubu”

Are you sure the SN is only on a piece of paper?

https://service.anker.com/article-description?ref=Home_Page&urlName=Locating-Serial-Numbers-on-Anker-Products says it’s etched.