Hard disagree. How can it be “walled off” from the internet if it’s not connected? Despite the jokes, cutting access on its own is not the same as air gapping or a firewall. As soon as it’s plugged in there are zero controls.
Maybe I just haven’t discovered the track changes feature in word processors enough, but I find it lacking: no explicit grouping of changes (the git commit), no clear timeline of changes, no tagging / naming of versions etc.
Not saying that a line-by-line diff is that much better. Neither is great imo.
> On the government endpoint, which returns X that the platform uses as "evidence" for you being an adult, yes, that's tied to your identity, as the certificate/whatever is tied to your identity.
In this scenario the government knows all the age-restricted sites I've visited. I'd argue that is worse than if all the age-restricted sites I've visited know who I am...
(FTR I don't know what I think about age restrictions in general, but I'm pretty sure there's no implementation that comes without negative side effects)
Not necessarily. The age verification proof doesn't need to be site-specific. But again, that reduces the incentive "for the citizen to make sure their authentication isn't shared" because there's nothing tying it to them.
I also kinda hate the whole idea of needing explicit permission from the government to access the open web, regardless of whether or not they know which specific sites they're giving me permission to access.
There's actually a much better idea that's been floating around. Require over-18 sites to set a certain header. Then anyone who wants to can install a browser on their kid's device that will block pages with the header. There's no privacy implications, no surveillance implications, no need to make VPNs illegal as long as they pass it through; it's just a plain old parental block with a regulation keeping it always up to date. Yes, you may have to stop your kid installing random software on the device to bypass whatever blocking you set up, but you had to do that anyway. If it's Apple or Google they could easily enough require everything in the app store to respect the flag when the device is set to kid mode.
(If the government does the incredibly overbearing thing and does not do the simple and effective and unintrusive thing, it proves their motivations are surveillance)
Already exists; the industry called it RTA (Restricted To Adults). Nobody used it... and it's 19 years old. Complete failure categorized under "we already tried that."
I don't think that it matters. The big porn sites have served RTA tags for many years. Android, Windows, macOS, and iOS can all be configured to block adult content tagged with this system. That still hasn't stopped a bunch of states from passing age verification laws ostensibly targeted at protecting children from these sites.
In order to accomplish that working, you'd have to legally mandate parents put the blockers on their kids devices.
Similar things exist that block based upon lists and content keywords and such.
Most parents do not want to block stuff from their kids or they would be.
If thousands of them demanded that devices came with blockers then the market would provide such devices.
Many moons ago you could argue parents did not know what the youngins would find on the internet. Today's parents definitely know, and most do nothing to restrict access.
It doesn't have to be mandated - parents could choose.
Even if it's mandated that kids can only use phones with a special "kid mode" turned on, even if you had to present ID to turn it on or off or buy a phone with it turned off, that would still be way less bad than what's being rammed through parliaments right now.
> they do not prevent them falling into that river in the first place
The article explains pretty well how the devices prevent cows from falling into the river:
> Solar-powered GPS devices emit a high-pitched sound as the animal moves through a boundary zone towards the water, with a mild electric pulse delivered if it fails to turn around.
So the cow learns there is a 'good zone' or a 'bad zone' to be in. And how does the cow - which now may be panicking - know it does not exit the 'bad zone' by, let's say, jumping into the river?
Applying human intelligence to bovines may be misguided.
They're not particularly dumb animals (similar to the average dog), generally they do get the idea pretty quickly. (There is a gradient of warning as they approach the edge of the zone, so it's not just suddenly a big shock)
I'd compare their intelligence to cats, in that a dog uses its intelligence to please its owner, and a cat uses its intelligence to do whatever it pleases. :-)
The carbon dioxide is captured and stored, the actual carbon isn't returned to whatever form it was before burning. So theoretically it _can_ work (but, as it turns out, it still doesn't make sense).
> As a more prolific blog writer at the time I also liked that their bot would include number of people who were subscribed to my blog in their User Agent.
Something I generally appreciate with Google: The level of craftsmanship and the amount of elegant designs like this they come up with. (There are also… other things, but their standards are high compared to many competitors.)
> yeah but we don't have time to analyse this for years and years while upping our power consumption
this is 100 % true. we also don’t have time to debate the morality and necessity of each specific activity for years. if AI energy use is indeed as small as some comments here suggest, ignoring it to focus on improving things like heating, cooling, and transportation could be a better course of action.
Yes, I think this post has established that whomever created the response to the original ToS violation (rather, just a plan to violate the ToS) wasn't being very thoughtful (assuming everything is being described correctly). I would assume that at this point, the discussion has been moved above the original employee who responded and is being dealt with at the dean level (with the goal to be avoiding UW appearing in a bad light in the press).
I've seen hundreds of "administration outrage" articles and I guess I've kind of learned that the backstory is usually more complicated, nuanced, and reasonable than the original poster implied. But the internet mobs proceed anyway.
rather at the expense of the business owners, which may well be the parent themselves? (ok fine the other employees could have equity in the business, but other than that)
reply