181–190 of 369 posts
I hope people realize that most of these bills are being introduced in blue states by Democrats. Republicans may not like porn, but they put the onus where it belongs, on the operator, not on the OS.
Politicians will do any draconian measure to help kids except try and improve the lives of their parents so that they can actually dedicate time to parenting. Making it slightly harder to access the internet fixes nothing. What if instead of having the largest prison population in the world our government supported communities that make raising good children possible? Our society needs to lose this urge to diagnose e…
Because in their eyes your children are not your children. You are simply a custodian of their future work force asset. If you educate your children too much into individualism, they (today’s politicians) may see a diminished return of whatever they want to achieve.
And if you don’t agree with me on an emotional level, well, just remember the words of Elon Musk (paraphrasing): we need people to have children because we need to have workforce in the future. Translation: we need people to have children because who will work for us and makes tons of money.
If you have it too good, you aren’t dependent on them, you have all the carrots. They have no stick. They want to have the stick.
The only remaining issue I see here is that I think the law may be a bit too heavy handed in how it tries to legislate this system into existence. Trying to tell Bob Hacker writing an OS in his basement what features his code has to include feels a little too authoritarian for my tastes. Probably there are some economic or regulatory levers that could be pulled instead to ensure this system gains mainstream adoption without criminalizing ordinary software development.
Again though, I didn't read the whole bill, just the article, so I could be wrong here on some of the details.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I got a house with a 25-year roof, an indestructible Japanese shitbox car I can repair myself from scrap if I have to, and enough in the bank at three to five percent to pay my taxes, all of my hobbies, eating steak every day if I wanted and my share of the universal multi-payer health care system in my country. That puts me for the rest of my life at a level of fuck you. And if the system breaks down, I’m just going…
Cannibalism threats on HN - is this a recession indicator?
Oh, AGI can turn everyone into matchsticks, but when I talk about turning humans into tasty sausage the internet goes wild.
It’s obviously sarcasm, just for the neurodivergent talent in here panic buying cannibalism safe bunkers now.
/s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, perhaps your mental model of the actual objections to it are incomplete. There are a few problems and I'm curious what you have to say about them. First, "The benefit of this is that it can short-circuit support for more onerous age verification". Do you think that it "can" or that it "will"? Big difference. It could also go the other way, right? Opening the door to a more onerous version? Why do you think that…
>It could also go the other way, right? Opening the door to a more onerous version? I don't see a plausible scenario where the implementation of this mandate makes further mandates more easy to get passed. An age field and an API to access it is as trivial as it gets. More onerous age checking is not something that is an extension to or somehow made more easy given the pre-existence of the age field. No argument agai…
From your point of view.
What I can tell you is that there are definitely people who will argue that this is, by the fact of being written into law, now the spirit of the law.
Then these people will argue that the spirit of the law is being broken, and the implementation needs to be better and tighter. Not that it needs to be repealed! Because clearly this is something that was wanted. And to many, many people, this will be sufficient argument not to complain about further measures.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kids having $20-30 means you're fine with them being unsupervised? Computers and smartphones are incredibly cheap. In person, we expect stores won't sell cigarettes to kids. We should simply expect companies won't provide age restricted services to kids. The liability and requirements should be on those companies.
You are gliding past the crucial difference: detecting that someone is a minor in person is magnitudes easier than doing so online.
I hope people realize that most of these bills are being introduced in blue states by Democrats. Republicans may not like porn, but they put the onus where it belongs, on the operator, not on the OS.
The difference isn't really in the politicians, it's in the base, and how they will react to acts like this. Democrat voters will shame them, endlessly. They may not have alternatives to vote for, but they won't change their opinion to match whatever dweeb they were forced to vote for. Republican voters will always be on board with whatever they're told to be on board with.
Based on the few snippets quoted in the article, I think as written this bill gets closer to a good, privacy-preserving, non-authoritarian version of "age verification" than any of the attempts so far. What it seems to be aiming for is essentially mandatory parental controls at the OS level. No ID checking or government/third party involvement, it just uses whatever age the parents enter when they set up the device/u…
This is the one thing that risks getting the law struck down by a court.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cannibalism threats on HN - is this a recession indicator?
It’s conditional cannibalism Sir. That’s a difference. Oh, AGI can turn everyone into matchsticks, but when I talk about turning humans into tasty sausage the internet goes wild. It’s obviously sarcasm, just for the neurodivergent talent in here panic buying cannibalism safe bunkers now. /s
I'm adapted to the American diet, so I'm sure that they'll cover my nutritional needs.
Let's stay on opposite sides of the pond like Godzilla and King Kong.
I hope people realize that most of these bills are being introduced in blue states by Democrats. Republicans may not like porn, but they put the onus where it belongs, on the operator, not on the OS.
While that might be true, I can't agree with the implication that this is better in any way. Having the onus on the operator forces you to have to send some form of verification out to all such operators you want to visit and they have repeatedly shown they are NOT capable of securely and privately handling that information.