Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A new California law says all operating systems need to have age verification

pcgamer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 768 posts

Re: A new California law says all operating systems need to have age verification

#171

Post by roenxi »

almosthere wrote: post #123
AceJohnny2 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's an obvious theme with lawmakers in California You can remove the in California

Young people generalize everything and end up not solving problems. Older people have already seen all the patterns, and realize you have to focus on specifics, and that helps clean up the general issue.

The old people's tolerance for general problems is why the general problems persist.

A realistic dynamic is the old people are comfortable with the general problems and have positioned themselves to benefit from them. Indeed, they solved the general problems that troubled them in their youth with political activism in their middle age. The young people have different political needs that require general problems to be solved.

Also young people have a terrible track record of actually identifying problems, they are pretty clueless in the main.

Re: A new California law says all operating systems need to have age verification

#172

Post by Muromec »

croes wrote: post #92

> That's likely no big deal for Windows, which already requires you to enter your date of birth during the Microsoft Account setup procedure That isn’t age verification at all

The actual age verification is being able to install windows yourself and being allowed to do so by parents. So the next thing is TPM to make sure you can't get the silly idea to reisntall it and set a different date

Re: A new California law says all operating systems need to have age verification

#174

Post by leptons »

NewsaHackO wrote: post #103
leptons wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a startup owner, if there has to be age verification, then I'm all for doing that at the OS level. As a human with privacy concerns, I'll continue using Linux.

So basically, you have no morals? Weird thing to admit online, but whatever.

That's a really random take on my comment. I'm not sure where you got "you have no morals" from my comment, but maybe you are trolling me?

I'm not the one making laws about age verification, so I'm not sure how you get off blaming me for anything.

Re: A new California law says all operating systems need to have age verification

#175

Post by singron »

Animats wrote: post #119

It's not clear that this applies where the "operating system provider" does not have "accounts". Linux should be OK, but "Ubuntu One" might have problems. It's a good reason not to put cloud dependencies into things.

The bill doesn't define "accounts", so it's entirely possible local users that a human signs into would count.

The saving grace is that obviously they have no idea what a Linux distribution is, and only the Attorney General can bring action, so there isn't much risk of the AG suing Debian.

Re: A new California law says all operating systems need to have age verification

#177

Post by leptons »

NewsaHackO wrote: post #130
lovich wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re on hacker news, a double digit percentage of posters think that doing whatever you can get away with is moral. Look at the thread on Block’s layoffs while they are profitable.

I know, but it's just weird that there are people who have such strong conviction that they would risk their reputation, livelihood, or lives for it. Then there are people like above who, even though they know it is a huge privacy violation, they are willing to back it because it would make their business a little more profitable. Just boggles the mind.

Where the hell did I ever say I backed any of it? You are making up shit in your head that simply is not there. Maybe you need a reality check, or go back to reddit.

What I did say was:

>if there has to be age verification

That is far, far different than saying I want that shit. I do not make the laws, and I wouldn't vote for it either, so please, get your head out of your ass.

Re: A new California law says all operating systems need to have age verification

#178

Post by pwthornton »

zdragnar wrote: post #148
SllX wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The incentives are all wrong. You can serve up to 6 two-year terms in the Assembly or up to 3 four-year terms in the Senate, but regardless of which combination you do, nobody in the California legislature can serve more than 12 years combined across both Houses of the legislature. So we don’t have professional legislatures with long-term electability incentives or leadership goals, we have a resumé-building exercise…

And yet, term limits are something many people want in the hopes that it will solve some of the problems in Washington DC. There, the professional legislators can't get anything right either. Do you think there's a middle ground of increasing the term limits to, say, 18 or 20 years?

Term limits are anti-democratic, and it's just a way for voters to not take responsibility for their voting.

A much more real issue is actually age limits. If someone starts in the Senate at 40 and serves for 24 years, term limits hardly seem to be the big issue. They are retiring at a normal time, and they should still be functioning at a high level.

Conversely, someone who gets elected at 70 and then gets term-limited at 82 is still over a normal, reasonable retirement age. The typical 82 is not in the physical or mental condition to be taking on such an important, high-stakes role.

Both of my parents are in their mid-70s and are in very good mental health for their age. They are very lucid, and my Dad still works part-time as a lawyer. They are also clearly not at the same intellectual powers they were a decade or two ago. Some of it can even just come down to energy levels. I have to imagine being a good legislator requires high energy levels.

Many public companies have age limits for board members, and they even have traditional retirement ages for CEOs. In the corporate world where results matter, there is a recognition that a high-stress, high-workload, high-cognitiative ability job is not something that someone should be doing well past their prime.

Al Gore had to leave the Apple board because he turned 75. In the U.S. Senate, there are 16 people 75 and older.

Post reply on HN