Random_BSD_Geek

The sensible thing is to abandon these bills.

AB1043 is short; you can read it for yourself: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1043/id/3273385

``` (b) (1) A developer shall request a signal with respect to a particular user from an operating system provider or a covered application store when the application is downloaded and launched. ```

You are arguing with something I did not say.

Yes, it would be nice to know with certainty who is behind these bills. It sucks how much opaque money influences American politics.

Josh Gottheimer's press release[1] on HR8250 mentions the "Meta Parents Network." I don't know what that is, but it does have "Meta" in the name.

Buffy Wick's noise about AB1043 claimed it was passed with the support of tech companies. I have spoken directly to one person close to AB1043 who told me Facebook argued against AB1043. I have doubts. But if true, I suspect they were not arguing in good faith and had ulterior motives.

In the end, no matter who is secretly lobbying for or against age verification bills all over the planet, the bills are terrible, and we should fight them.

[1] https://gottheimer.house.gov/posts/release-gottheimer-announ...

o_O

> Firstly, you keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.

I posted that word exactly once in this thread, and I was quoting someone else. But I like the Princess Bride too.

No idea what you're talking about with regard to the 90s. I can only tell you I was on the Internet then and it was not as you describe.

Regardless, there is a difference between "unmasked with a court order" and "everything you do online is tied to you for the benefit of ad brokers."

We can have reasonable privacy protections and still allow law enforcement to function.

I'm confused by how my point got so lost.

I think Facebook is behind these bills. I think that from personal experience working at Facebook.

That an LLM may have arrived at the same conclusion is unrelated. LLMs are garbage. Don't use them.

No. I think LLMs are garbage. Separately, and unrelated: I think Facebook is behind these bills. The LLM may be garbage and still sometimes produce a correct result.

Thank you for the laugh in these dreadful times. :D

> abolishing anonymity on the Internet.

This is what Facebook wants.

Is that an option? Tell me more.

Yes, I am looking to sue to stop this insanity. If you're a lawyer reading this, please reach out.

I share your wariness of the LLM garbage, but I believe the conclusions are correct. This has Facebook's stink all over it. I worked there and know of what I speak.

I can understand the "baby mode" desire, but as the other reply pointed out, this does not need to be legislated. The big OS companies can easily offer this feature for those that want it.

I'm curious though about all this porn that apparently hides behind a rock on the device and leaps out to corrupt tiny minds when they least suspect it.

Shock websites aside, pornography generally doesn't ambush you. Unless you're a republican giving a presentation and have no idea how that porn got in there.

And, AB1043 specifically exempts websites, so it doesn't protect anyone from the goatse's of the world anyway.

These bills will not do what they purport to do, but they will do a whole lot of bad stuff.

This.

If your child needs a helmet to use the internet, as the politicians announcing HR8250 seem to think[1], Apple or whomever is free to offer that as a feature. There is no need for this to be legislated, especially when the legislation does not work in open source environments.

[1] Not hyperbole. They said that. It was an analogy, but one that highlights how ignorant of the technology the authors of these bills are.

Like the authors of these bills, you appear not to understand the technology.

Consider AB1043. It mandates that applications check the age of the user each time the application is launched.

Think about what that means when you run `make` in a source directory. How many times is the compiler application launched?

Polar opposite of my experience. To achieve the technical equivalent of changing a lightbulb, spend the entire day wrangling a dozen tools which are broken in different ways, maintained by teams that no longer exist or have completely rolled over, only to arrive at the finish line and discover we don't use those lightbulbs anymore. Move things and break fast.

The point is that some arbitrary number of weeks of vacation isn't the business-destroying choice this founder makes it out to be. Use your PTO. You earned it.

This is unbelievable nonsense.

Your employees accrue PTO. If you can't handle them using their PTO, maybe you shouldn't have employees.

If three consecutive weeks is a lot to ask, what would you do when that same employee gets hit by a bus and is dead for even longer?

Oh right, you'd just replace them and the business would move on.

OP, this is the real answer to your question. The business doesn't care about you or your well being.

What convention?

Your manager is a bad manager.

Sincerely, A Former Manager

> We're giving billions to Ukraine with zero strategic interest to the United States.

This is a bewilderingly head-in-the-sand assertion.

> What other similar books would you recommend?

"Close to the Machine" by Ellen Ullman and "Microserfs" by Douglas Coupland occupy roughly the same space in my memory.

My pet theory is that Bitcoin was created by a Five Eyes intelligence service.

Sad this was downvoted; it was the first response I related to.

When you're strange, faces come out of the rain.

I forgot the question.

> Living on a Torus

I can't help but hear this in Bon Jovi's voice.

This was an uncannily accurate characterization of my time at one of these companies.

You absolutely can host your own email. I do and have since before Google existed. Antispam hurdles do exist but clearing them is just a process. For most people it isn't worth the effort. Sometimes I wonder why I still bother, but it is definitely not impossible.

Genuinely not sure if you're trolling or not, but....

> Ok, then I want to hear the reasoning behind those rulings/awards. ... > Edit: why disagree with this?

You're asking internet randos to explain something to you that is an easily researched matter of public record. I too used to think the McDonald's coffee case was a punchline for an overly litigious America. Then I read the horrifying details.

The Cuckoo's Egg by Clifford Stoll.

"Or not." --Hamlet

I misread "Minecraft" as "Minesweeper" and was briefly bewildered by the idea of Minesweeper VR. Kinda want to play that now.

It sounds like you're buying their DSL service. DSL is delivered over the telephone network's copper. A copper pair is necessary to deliver DSL.

In the 90s, legislation was passed that forced the ILECs to open up their copper networks to anyone. This allowed companies like Covad and Sonic to sell DSL over copper that was owned by the phone company, but the phone company got to charge for access. (I believe this legislation was recently reversed or modified in the phone companies' favor but don't know any details.)

So when you buy DSL you're buying both a few copper wires from the phone company and internet service from the guys on the other end of those wires.

As for who needs a landline... wires can be more reliable than radio waves under certain circumstances.

I don't particularly care what someone who murders a bunch of people "thinks they're doing." Perhaps that makes me intolerant.