charonn0

Maybe the OS could ship with preconfigured age-range based usergroups. When you add a new user you could simply add them to the appropriate usergroup.

>> useradd -G under13usergroup username

Skimming the actual text of the law[1], I don't see anything particularly objectionable. Basically it requires a toggle when creating/editing a local user account that signals "this user is/is not a child". Applications could then tailor their content for child/not child audiences.

Which isn't to suggest that it's a good law, just not really "age verification".

[1]: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

> I can't think of any other differentiating features in Gmail. Ads in my mail? Nostalgia?

Originally, the differentiating features were multi-gigabyte storage limits and the public's goodwill towards Google, Inc.

Gigabyte storage is now the norm, public goodwill for Alphabet, Inc. is minimal, and so there's nothing that really sets Gmail apart anymore.

No, I'm not proposing to change nothing, continue as is, nor do I use coded language to express my secret inner racism.

I'm saying that changing words like "blacklist" or "master" is purely performative and actually quite selfish. People do it to feel good about themselves for "helping" without actually having to do anything helpful. It's the moral equivalent of sending "thoughts and prayers".

Because changing blacklist to blocklist, master to main, etc. is a meaningless act of virtue signalling.

Pretty sure you can do it at the individual device level, in the OS's network settings.

Notably, the SFTP specification was never completed. We're working off of draft specs, and presumably these issues wouldn't have made it into a final version.

Because they bought Activision, who owned the rights since the 80's.

The topic is cybercrime and espionage, not nuclear brinksmanship or colonialism. Whatever parallels can be drawn don't seem to be very relevant, so the comment comes off as an attempt to deflect criticism.

> but this would be like ordering phone companies to record ALL calls just in case some might become evidence later

That's not a good analogy. They're ordered to preserve records they would otherwise delete, not create records they wouldn't otherwise have.

For HTTP/1.1 you could send a "chunked" response. Chunked responses are intended to allow the server to start sending dynamically generated content immediately instead of waiting for the generation process to finish before sending. You could just continue to send chunks until the client gives up or crashes.

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

> Amazon.com denied a report on Tuesday that it planned to disclose the cost that U.S. tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump were adding to its products, after the White House blasted the initial story.

https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/white-house...

Reminiscent of the University of Minnesota project to sneak bugs into the Linux kernel.

[0]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210421130105.1226686-1-gregkh...

Unless you live(d) in a time and place where Christian teachings were unavailable to you. Which accounts for a large majority of the humans who have ever lived.

I don't think the issue is the scarcity of copies, but rather the scarcity of artists. Not just anyone can write a book that people want to copy, and we should encourage and reward those that can and do.

Historically most artistic works, books, etc. were privately commissioned and one-of-a-kind. Publishing as we understand the idea came with the printing press and widespread literacy.

Exclusive rights over their published work encourages artists and inventors to publish their work, which is a clear benefit to society at large. The period of time it should remain exclusive and the specific rights that are made exclusive can be debated, but the utility of IP rights in general is obvious.

And generative AI is not a person in the first place, so I don't think the appeal to learning makes much sense here.

They don't need to be a literal monopoly to be guilty of anti-competitive practices.

Sure. It's a reasonable concern regardless of what country is doing it or having it done to them.

This argument suggests that the Chinese government is already using Tiktok to control the narrative on US foreign policy, doesn't it?

As the grandparent comment points out:

> I can get a lot of that kind of content through other channels- there are plenty of podcasts out there.

The law doesn't ban the discussion of any particular topics, it bans social media platforms that are subject to the laws and control of adversarial governments. Specifically, China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, who are already prohibited from participating in sensitive parts of the US economy.

If social media exists to collect vast amounts of information about its users--and it does--then it's reasonable for the government to be concerned about whether that information can fall into the hands of an adversary.

If social media exists to manipulate its users into believing and doing things that benefit the platform--and it does--then likewise the government has good reason to be concerned about how an adversary might use that.

Framing the law as a ban on particular viewpoints is misguided at best, misinformation at worst. And, as you and the GP comment both point out, it wouldn't work since other platforms and venues are still wide open.

The can of worms being left open is a feature not a bug. It's one reason why the law can survive a strict scrutiny review.

Phantom of the Paradise is a rock opera inspired by Faust.

Because the US and NZ have an extradition treaty.

Obviously a computer is like an an RV.

> Anyone can copy it, recreate with it, reproduce with it

He seems to be confusing "freeware", which is basically a license for copyrighted work, with "public domain", which is the absence of a copyright.

When was PGP banned in the US?

The law in the OP specifically includes websites, DNS, hosting, etc.

And this isn't some greyweb torrent site with a thousand heads. Without access to US advertisers there's no reason why Tiktok should even want to have US users.

No content has been banned, though.

The law applies to websites too.

For me, it's pretty obvious that social media is being used to destabize and weaken Western democracies like the US and Britain.

I don't believe that the lurch to the Right we've seen--Brexit, Trump, etc.--are happening naturally.