As teens my brother and I both refed youth soccer. The parents were the absolute worst part of the experience. One of them actually followed my brother back to his car after a game to yell at him more. It was so bad that the ref association took the guy to what I've always called "soccer court" (not sure what it actually was) to have him banned from coming back for the rest of the season. That was a U-12 girls rec game by the way.
That's the perfect age for shitty parents as that's the age where the "good" players have left rec and moved to club teams so that the ones that are left are the ones with bent out of shape parents for their kid not making a club team.
Not all parents are assholes, and as a solo coach, there's no way I could have survived without some of the parent's support with various aspects of managing a team. By the third or fourth season, the parents that had started with me would help wrangle some of the other parents.
> By the third or fourth season, the parents that had started with me would help wrangle some of the other parents
This is where we were with one of my kids' teams. Once they got older and split into the elite-national/regional club level (about U12), the parents were not healthy. Over time, the parents started to realize that their kid wasn't likely to play D1 college soccer, so there wasn't a point in being "those parents".
It also helped that a few of us that either coached, played, or ref'd would "help guide" the other parents. It is now to the point where I wouldn't want my kid to change teams because our parents are so awesome.
The seam doesn't really make a difference for clicking. It's really at the point of just being a large phone screen. It's certainly easier than interacting with elements on the edge of the screen.
Because most people feel uncomfortable being in the tiny vehicle that sits below the bumber of all the trucks and suvs that surround them. It's one of those things that doesn't work until a large percentage of other people are doing it. Very few want to put themselves in more danger for principled reasons.
And cars started getting bigger because, it was a way to legally classify them as trucks thus saving money for the manufacturer. And then everyone had to follow just to feel safe
And of course this mostly only happened and is far more noticeable in the us than elsewhere when measured in car size and people were convinced to buy the larger cars aka turned SUVs and pick up trucks by marketing. This started to happen in the 2000s
The two options dichotomy is false. There's at least a third option of the player with the deepest pockets outlasts and/or acquires the rest and then jacks up the price once they're firmly in control of a "large enough" share of the market. At that point they can go the route of all monopolies and acquire or destroy any upcoming competition to maintain their market share and begin rent-seeking behavior.
This keeps human labor devalued while not allowing artificial labor's value to fall to low enough that human labor is back to being cost effective.
If human labor is devalued, who will pay for the inference in the end? You might answer that some corporation will, but also that corporation must get their money from somewhere. And if "we the people" have no money to spend, at some point the corporation back scratching circle will break. Or am I wrong?
I've long felt that there needs to be a bill passed to charge companies $x additional tax each year where $x is the amount of government assistance their employees required in order to meet food/housing minimum standards. One way or the other, the companies that are making the rest of us pay for their employees to survive need to be funding these programs.
