There are a bunch of online tools that are free and let you upload a PDF to have it go through OCR.

Just Google “Free PDF OCR” and click through all the ads to upload, then give them a temporary email address to get a download link to the finished product.

Hot tip: There are free temporary email address sites too, if you need one to avoid getting on their ad lists.

You can attack the system and while you do that, there are people under 18 years old who are just trying to provide for themselves or their dependents and need a job now.

They have adult responsibilities before the age of 18. A lot of the commenters outright refuse to believe that these legal minors could have possibly matured earlier than the law expects, but that really does happen and it really is socially irresponsible to ignore their struggle.

Most commenters are essentially holding this series of positions based on a photo that is out of context: Why does this kid have a job? The system is bad. Why is the system bad? Some kids have jobs. How can we stop kids from working? We should outlaw jobs for kids.

But that series of positions critically fails to account for exceptions where kids become competent before the age of 18, need jobs and want to work.

It ignores that, in reality, many minors have kids of their own or other dependents that they are struggling to support and it does not provide any plan for them, it makes their situation worse while you fight the system.

That is inhumane public policy. Like many areas of law, this is a complicated issue, and we are going to harm people in our communities if we jump to strict authoritarian control for an answer.

100%

This comment deserves an award. Mods should pin it to the top of the thread, because the majority of comments are totally divorced from their neighbors’ struggle to survive in our imperfect economy.

This is the first time I’ve encountered such extreme and immovable opinions on Lemmy. It’s wild to me that people who are (presumably) trying to support social justice for minors cannot even acknowledge that teenagers sometimes need and would prefer to work - that it’s a separate issue from child abuse and strict authoritarian prohibition over their labor is itself abusive.

Don’t people understand that a 17 year old can have a baby and need a job?

They won’t even entertain the possibility and defend an actual policy position. It’s devoid of social responsibility.

If they are genuinely socialist or communist, then how can they defend stripping 14-18 year olds of their natural right to profit from their own labor? It’s just as bad as a capitalist exploiting that labor with unlivable wages - they are essentially condemning these people to $0 in wages and total state dependence.

Perfectly reasonable!

Are all jobs bad because someone else skims part of the profit? Or is it just bad to you because it’s a person under 18?

Just trying to sort out whether you are for eliminating all work or just work for minors?

If it’s just work for minors, would you support any exceptions?

Like, for example, for an emancipated 17 year old with a baby of their own to support?

It sounds like you are using a legal framework from medical treatment of minors. If I have that right, then you should know that there is an exception for emancipated people under 18 years of age.

Would you support the same exception for work, now that you know this or perhaps you would also eliminate this exception for them to control their own bodies in a medical context?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4008301/#:~:text=A child under the age,(and refuse) medical treatment.

Court-ordered emancipation. A child under the age of 18 who lives independently without the support of parents and makes his or her own day-to-day decisions may petition the court for emancipation. If granted, the minor will have the same legal rights as an adult, including the right to consent to (and refuse) medical treatment.

It sounds like you are equating any job to getting sexually abused or raped.

That is “like… Yuck”.

It’s an irrelevant comparison because the work itself is not abuse. There are other laws that protect kids from being abused, if they are being abused to force them to work(or for any other purpose).

If you don’t care what people under 18 think, you should reflect on how selfish and closed-minded that sounds to me and especially to the real human people you are proposing to lose their ability to work.

Do you really think there is a major difference between the brain of a 17 year old the day before their 18th birthday and the day after? There is no significant difference at all.

So, my question is, where do you draw the line for a person under 18 whose quality of life might depend on working? Should they just have that freedom stripped because you don’t care what they think?

Even if they are on their own? Or supporting a dependent, like their own baby? Really? If you are that authoritarian about this, I hope you forget to vote on it.

As others have pointed out, those laws have important exceptions to account for kids who want to work, and that is the question I am asking all of the knee-jerk authoritarians:

What is the actual policy position they support? What are the exceptions they support or are they completely authoritarian about this issue? (I think a strict rule prohibiting all people under 18 from ever earning a living is a pretty embarrassing position to defend.)

What are emancipated teenagers supposed to do? Should they live 100% at the mercy of state programs and not improve their living standards beyond the meager social welfare they are afforded until they turn exactly 18 years old? Really? Not even a day sooner, even if they are ready and qualified to work?

That would be completely inhumane. Certainly it’s depriving them of their bodily freedom and natural ability to extract capital value from their own labor.

So where is the line? 13? 14? I think somewhere in there is reasonable. Perhaps a test could determine their capacity to participate in their own economic fate? Or an evaluation by a social worker? I could go for something like that.

What if they are NOT emancipated and their parent is supervising them? Should the age minimum be higher then? 17? 18? I do not think so.

I think it’s only logical that the age minimum should actually be lower if a parent is directly supervising - their physical and economic risk is lower if the parent is looking out for their best interests. This of course presumes that the parent is not physically or mentally/emotionally abusing the kid(again, separate laws exist for the abuse component and most parents don’t abuse their kids).

If the business commits a crime like killing a kid, there are laws for that - just like there are laws for when businesses kill adults.

You are not providing a reason to bar the kid from working, you are providing a reason to outlaw murder(which is already illegal).

You doubt there are people under 18 who want to work? Should everyone just take your doubt for evidence of the absence of those people? I think not.

I do agree, if you stand by your beliefs on this issue, you are officially a self-proclaimed authoritarian on this issue.

I don’t presume to know why anyone else wants anything for themselves, why do you?

To make it clear that I am answering your question: I do not know.

Can you answer my question? Why do you presume to know what the kid wants?

Like I said, there are separate laws for child abuse. Physical abuse, mental/emotional abuse too. The bases are covered.

People offended just by looking at this picture out of context should really try explaining their preferred authoritarian social policy to a teenager who wants a part-time job but for whom some people would forbid them by penalty of the law.

Spoiler: They won’t understand why you should have any authority over their body and time.

I don’t understand why you should have that authority either. I mean, where does it end?

What are your criteria for exceptions? Shouldn’t it be between the kid and their parents, and not you?

Are you imagining there is a parental figure with a bull whip for this kid in the back office and you want to outlaw physical abuse? There are already separate laws for that!

Oh, that’s probably going to mitigate some of the risk. Hey, maybe it’ll be enough!

Haha, their take is pretty charged but it’s valid imo.

People’s Park was a major local landmark with a long history that is well known to students, faculty, residents, and alumni. It had become a home to otherwise homeless people whose existence was inconvenient for the university’s expansion plans and an eyesore to arrogant passersby.

The park’s history includes both civil and violent disobedience, including against the university itself.

It would not be surprising to hear that, whatever is built on this lot, it is subsequently destroyed by an act of arson or other vandalism.

I am surprised they are taking the risk and making the investment at all. IMO it would have been safer to just buy some of the private properties surrounding the park instead, even at a premium.

IBM did it first. It wasn’t a secret. There was a Watson Health group dedicated to training ML models on medical records from large insurers and hospital networks. Among other things, the game plan was to have the system provide oversight for the notes of physicians and other medical practitioners - to spot poor quality/repetitive notes and alert the practitioner and/or their boss to the risk of malpractice/inability to bill for the encounter.

Even if this post was made the day Facebook was founded, that pay is atrocious. And it’s for a collage student!

How are they supposed to finish their beautiful collage with a bunch of kids everywhere!?

Don’t glue it shut, paint it shut with an acrylic paint or nail polish. Try to stick to the surface with the paint - you could even paint it to cover it/obscure it’s location as well.

This way, if you ever need to remove it you can delicately dab acetone over it to dissolve the acrylic and it will open once again!

This is a great idea 👍

Nice work! I look forward to checking it out very soon.

I haven’t played in a long long time, so I can’t recommend something specific, but any plans to add one of those experience-based progression mods? It might help people identify more trustworthy players long term.

Nachos are just upgraded taco salad.

I went to a party where everyone was supposed to bring a salad and vote on the best one. I brought the nachos. The vote was unanimous.