akersten

Any good payload analysis been published yet? Really curious if this was just a one and done info stealer or if it potentially could have clawed its way deeper into affected systems.

> The brackets are a few years wide, so it could take a bit of waiting.

There are millions of people moving between the proposed age brackets every day. This is a DoB-gifting firehose to ad tech.

> 9-0 against the record labels.

Love to see it. I'm still mad about the Sony rootkit[0] and the people sued for absurd amounts over downloading a few MP3s back in the 00's.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk...

> 4Chan has blocked the entire UK IP range.

And honestly this is more than they really should even have to do. I think it does go above their obligation. They're doing Offcom a favor here, they don't even have to figure out how to block it themselves.

> there's a sense that blocking these imports is an affront to base philosophical freedom in a way that prohibiting physical imports isn't.

It would serve UK legislators well to explore that tingling sense some more before they consider any further efforts in this direction, but that's just my two pence.

Code is speech. Open source projects are an exercise in speaking publicly. This law mandates particular speech in your otherwise Free as in freedom code.

How are you not outraged? People are missing the above forest for the "oh but it's a tiny little easy API and I don't see any downsides" trees.

If we insist on stretching this absurd metaphor, the government would be issuing civil penalties to "water distributors" who provide water without the requisite floridation, where "water distributors" includes not just Aquafina for selling bottled water, but also the lemonade stand the kids set up in front of the house and you, in your home kitchen, serving your house guests water from your reverse-osmosis private reserve.

It seems metaphor is important to you, so hopefully this thoroughly illustrates the insanity of this law.

The point is there are no carve outs (for open source). Your toy operating system is just as liable as Microsoft to implement this. In the real world, the health department does not require your home cocktail hour beverages to meet industrial water supply mineralization standards.

Perhaps you believe that analogue is "a few people raising a stink" because you don't really believe the "health department" would go after my "little open source water faucet." But the way the law is written, there's nothing stopping them. And none of us want to be the test case. And that's not even getting into the whole "compelled speech" problem, but I'm going to have to leave that line of argument to someone else to analogize.

I think those boomer firms are asleep at the wheel and this kind of market engineering will completely blindside them. Vanguard can't even figure out how to show me my cost basis on the same screen as the one where I sell a security. What could they possibly be doing to prepare for this?

> But banning OpenAI/Anthropic/Gemini would fix a lot of this.

I doubt that anyone authoring these laws even thinks about the two concepts on the same day. I think these issues are totally separate.

People, generally, have no grasp of what they really want or what downstream effects of what they think they want look like. They don't know what it would take to effect that ban. In fact, I would speculate that if the same group were asked "should you, personally, have to scan your ID to visit Facebook," you'd see a meaningful shift in responses. (yes, I know that's not the way this particular CA proposal would be implemented, the point is that people are fickle and polls are not a good guide for lawmaking)

I also don't base my principles on the desires of the masses. It's our duty as people who understand the technology to prevent the controversy-de-jour from wagging our dog.

I share your feeling that if everyone did it this way and the world promised to stop making bad, privacy-invading ID laws I could grin and bear it. I don't see that happening, thus I am hostile to it in any flavor.

> it's basically the government said "no asbestos in food" and some contrarians

it's actually the government saying "you must include salt in your food" and a few people who cook dinner at home and don't care for salt set up a website teaching you how to desalinate your... (well, there's no direct continuation of the metaphor here, but the point is it's very important that this is not the government banning a developer from implementing something, it is them mandating a developer implement something. That's far more troubling than an "asbestos ban" as in "your open source project must not fry the computers it runs on," which is equally questionable in light of "no warranty expressed or implied" but a totally different ballgame from "this API is required")

> It's not even meaningfully de-anonymizing!

Until I poll the API every day until the bucket changes and now I know your exact birthdate. This law is not well-baked.

> Anti-cheat just has to keep the barrier high enough so regular players don't think the game is infested with cheaters.

And even that's the (relatively) straightforward part. The hard part is doing this without injuring the kernel enough that the only sensible solution for the security conscious is a separate PC for gaming.

Nice, but in this case the advocate is open and willing to take the heat himself, even encouraging it.

Sorry, was I too punk rock on hacker news?

Just because it's easy doesn't mean it's right. Give legislative busybodies the ability to force this little flag into the OS because it's no big deal, and next year they'll say "hey, make sure you only report 18+ if secure boot is enabled" and 5 years later it'll be "hey, you can only report 18+ if one of our Identity Partners has confirmed it."

It's the principle of the matter. The State should not be allowed to compel speech (what code you write) in your open source project. It may sound stubborn but if we don't fight it now it will only grow little by "easy feature" little.

Debian's interests, whether they know it or not, is for the government not to be able to mandate what features must be present in their open source software. They should be happy to have such a vocal advocate involved in this important fight.

Now this is what open source development should look like. I cannot believe a few days ago I was thumbing through an email thread on freedesktop.org about how they could implement the mandatory government API in dbus. Can they not read their own domain name?

I don't know. Is pointing out that someone holding a drill by the chuck won't get the results they expect that bad?

This is very frustrating as someone who has seen every iteration of this in practice. It's wild to me that we don't simply have a `display: accessibility-tree-only` CSS prop and be done with it. The standards body bringing up "oh well what if you wind up using this and it confuses my idyllic sighted screen reader user because there's simply too much information" is a pretty bad reason to not implement this into the standard. We're stuck with clip path instead and I guess they think that's somehow better? Just because they can think of one way someone could poorly implement functionality that a new feature enabled is not a great reason to sit on their hands and just ignore the problem.

In the context of the discussion a correspondingly negative event would have been along the lines of "we built a data center and then it exploded, we need to make sure that doesn't happen." Not "we're worried about the effects the data center might have," which is vis a vis to "we're worried about the effects banning ai might have." All I'm saying is neither of those last two are weird reasons to enact a law.

GP was insisting that "rights" named laws always come after some negative event and it is weird that we have this "rights" named law without someone being deprived of their computation or whatever. I'm disagreeing with the premise that that's weird by pointing out laws preempt real world events all the time, in either direction (restrictive or permissive).

I didn't say any of that in my comment nor express an opinion about this whole thing writ large. I'm only pointing out that it's not weird for legislature to preempt a real world use case by way of pointing out similar laws.

Eh, if states can pass restrictive laws on AI in absence of a correspondingly negative motivating event, I don't see any contradiction in doing the opposite.

I think you are still missing the point. No one in this thread is making an anthropological assertion. "Thinking" here is just shorthand for Chain of Thought[0], which some models have and some models don't. This model, being a "thinking" model, has it.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_engineering#Chain-of-th...

> What stymies IPv6 is human laziness more than anything else. It's not hard to set up.

I think the biggest barrier to IPv6 adoption is that this is just categorically untrue and people keep insisting that it isn't, reducing the chance that I'd make conscious efforts to try to grok it.

I've had dozens of weird network issues in the last few years that have all been solved by simply turning off IPv6. From hosts taking 20 seconds to respond, to things not connecting 40% of the time, DHCP leases not working, devices not able to find the printer on the network, everything simply works better on IPv4, and I don't think it's just me. I don't think these sort of issues should be happening for a protocol that has had 30 years to mature. At a certain point we have to look and wonder if the design itself is just too complicated and contributes to its own failure to thrive, instead of blaming lazy humans.

That definitionally is censorship, whether you think its effects are just or not.

I shouldn't need to - if it doesn't foundationally offend you that Spain has endorsed a private entity with the ability to routinely turn off part of the Internet for their own private convenience then fundamentally we have a different view about how this whole thing should work.

Oh, no, not that Europe. You were of course talking about the Europe with Spain (oh wait, La Liga has a cloudflare kill switch). You were of course talking about the Europe with Italy (oh wait, the Piracy Shield). You were of course talking about the Europe with Turkyie (oh wait, ...

It's probably a convenience feature. Tons of sites out there that start on www then bounce you to secure2.bank.com then to auth. and now you're on www2.bank.com and for some inexplicable reason need to type your login again.

Actually it's mostly financial institutions that I've seen this happen with. Have to wonder if they all share the same web auth library that runs on the Z mainframe, or there's some arcane page of the SOC2 guide that mandates a minimum of 3 redirects to confuse the man in the middle.

In the earnest interpretation of your question that presumes you're not trying to drag this into a quagmire of nitpicking over the metaphor, the analogous part of the California law to the casserole ingredient advertisement is announcing the user's age bucket to the world. The world being, any app or website that happens to ask for it. I don't know why you brought browser histoy into this, it's not in the law and I didn't mention it.

Anyway, the whole point of the metaphor, because I feel like I will have to explain it, is that we don't put these onerous "required labeling" rules in place for private individuals going about their own lives. So just like you don't have to tell anyone who asks what you put in your dinner last night, private individuals should not have to tell anyone who asks (websites, apps) what age demographic they fall into.

Note: this is one of many arguments I endorse against this type of law. This shouldn't be interpreted as "so that's all you're worried about?" just because we dissected it in detail here.