No. Age verification law is not a partisan or ideological thing. It's a global trend. This law is sponsored by both parties: https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202520260ab... , and Texas has a newer law (App Store Accountability Act) that requires app stores to verify user ages and obtain parental consent for minors.
There are already "App Store Accountability Act"s present in Texas and Utah. I believe South Dakota is the other state that has one in their House right now. So no, this isn't California being a nanny state. Actually, California's is a lot better than the ones found in other states since literally you're allowed self-attestation of your age bracket (i.e. you don't have to supply an ID or some other such mechanism for independent verification). It's literally the equivalent of what they used to do with porn sites back in the day when they would ask you if you were over 18 -- and if you said yes, well, we tried! (Gold stars for everybody!)
In all seriousness, though, this is the only way where politicians get to pretend they did something and the rest of us get to avoid getting royally screwed. If parents were given dumbed-down versions of the tools that already exist to manage corporate-owned cell phones and laptops then there'd be a lot less for people to complain about (not that it would stop perpetually incompetent parents from pointing the finger at everyone but themselves for their own failings, of course, but at least the vast majority who AREN'T those people would be satisfied).
How is this good at all for a free society? You are basically making a "what about the children?" argument. its the parent job to protect their children. why should anyone suffer this b.s.?
not to be flippant, i am answering your question with the seriousness it deserves:
it is because any government regulation over user identifiers in an operating system (and left to grow and fester according to political wont) will chill free speech (code, data) and assembly (the ability to share code and data with others unsupervised).
That's nice but doesn't actually answer the question that I asked, which is how this (i.e. requiring local user accounts to specify an age range on creation) is bad for a free society.
Simply stating something you apparently see as self-evidently true in the abstract doesn't really make much of a point. Especially when said something is unironically just "but the slippery slope!"
since you’re lost (now I’m being flippant to match your tone):
age is an identifier as part of a ‘digital fingerprint’. a fingerprint is used to track you. your fingerprints are attached to the things you criticize online. you must temper your criticisms. end of story.
your ‘o noes another slippery slope arg’ falls flat on its ass when you look outside at what your government is patently and evidently doing. you paying any attention to the anthropic ‘mass surveillance’ canary? how about the ice app? threats to legally prosecute protesters of ice? no? god, you really need to be led to water huh.
maybe look up how the persona company aggregates data for the government and get back to me as to whether you think that has a chilling effect on speech and assembly (when droves of people are leaving discord)
ah maybe too “abstract” for you. How about this:
a/s/l? :3 don’t worry, im just a dev, i won’t bite. unless of course, you disagree with me o3o
Openclaw is an open source project. that's the beauty of the Open source. the community can take over and people can fork it. there already many clone of openclaw.
If Apple cares about their Softbank investment, the best possible outcome is that Intel copies their IP wholesale. Arm's white whale is Intel buying an architectural license, which they have zero incentive to do unless someone gives them an off-the-shelf core design that doesn't suck.
The modern Cortex and Infiniverse designs are so pathetic that RISC-V might mature by the time ARM is the industry standard. And the smaller ARM IP hasn't been profitable since China mass-produced the clones. Courting Intel into buying an architectural license with a free IP bonus is a legitimately smart move for ARM's longevity, from Apple's POV.
They are always balls deep, if it takes them 2 years to get a TSMC yield, with as much as demand it exists for high-end fabs, they could already easily get financing to already build even more capacity.
Now they have literally the US government as an investor.
One would be naive to believe that they wouldn't get at least a few hundred billion dollars to scale it up given the so many risks involved in most of US tech sector being dependent on Taiwan.
>If tech sector is so anti-competitive, the government should just seize it and nationalize it.
Trump is using his DOJ to probe Jerome Powell with a bogus lawsuit because the Fed won't lower rates on demand.
An independent Fed is the most important body for the USA. Lowering rates should be based on facts, not dictated by some bankrupt casino CEO. And now you want our government to nationalize the tech sector?
I don't support nationalizing the tech sector, but I believe the reason we have Trump in the first place is because our government refused to nationalize health care.
>Apple has used both Samsung and TSMC for its chips in the past. Until the A7 it was Samsung, A8 was TSMC, and the A9 was dual-sourced by both! Apple is used to switching between suppliers fairly often for a tech company; it's not that it's too hard for them to switch fab, it's that TSMC is the only competitive fab right now.
This is false. Samsung competes with Apple on smartphones. Apple even filed a lawsuit against Samsung over smartphones.
Apple moved to TSMC because how can you trust someone to make chips for you containing your phone's core IP?
>I could totally see Apple turning to Intel for the Mac chips
I could totally see Apple will be wary turning their core IPs to Intel
TSMC holds the real power. Apple’s stability and Nvidia’s cash both matter but AI demand is distorting the entire semiconductor ecosystem. There are no easy exits. Building fabs, switching suppliers or waiting out the cycle all carry massive risk.
In the long run, competition (where via Intel, Samsung or geopolitical diversification) is the only path that benefits anyone other than TSMC
Trust comes first. That's why TSMC is a pure play fab. Unless there's something that can 100% guarantee protection for fabless players like Apple, no one will trust Samsung or Intel.
Fabless players' IPs are their entire business.
It'll be hard to trust Intel given Intel's past behavior, especially against AMD.
Anyone making a claim that trust will be 0% based on a single thing is obviously oversimplifying the situation. Trust is built on behavior, reputation, time, repeatability, etc.
Trust is subjective and relative.
If Alice doesn’t trust Eve, that doesn’t automatically mean that Bob doesn’t trust Eve. That usually requires both Alice and Bob to similar experiences or Bob must have a trust relationship with Alice.
Trust also changes over time. One CEO change and a company can change overnight thus causing all trust to evaporate. Normally CEOs are aware of this and don't change things and so trust transfers, but one mistake and you lose trust. It takes a lot to build back trust, but a few years of proving worthy of trust and it starts to come back. If your competitors violates trust in the mean time customers are more likely to risk you, and if you prove trustworthy the customers are likely to stay.
There are other factors than trust as well - the US government really wants intel fabs to take off and they may be applying pressure that we are not aware of. It could well be that Apple is willing to risk Intel because the US government will buy a lot of macs/iphones but only if they CPU is made in the US. (this would be a smart thing for the US todo for geopolitical reasons)
Does Apple spend R&D on iPhone screens like they do Apple Silicon? What's that got to do with what we're talking about regarding iPhone's core IP (Apple's own chip, the most important IP from Apple)?
> Does Apple spend R&D on iPhone screens like they do Apple Silicon
yes
> What's that got to do with what we're talking about regarding iPhone's core IP
The iPhone's core IP is iOS.
Collaboration on display and camera development leak major future milestones. Far more consumers care about cameras and displays than the CPU. Just like the camera and display the CPU IP is also protected by patents.
Does Apple spend R&D on iPhone screens like they do Apple Silicon? What's that got to do with what we're talking about regarding iPhone's core IP (Apple's own chip, the most important IP from Apple)?
>Open Source was never the commercial product. It's the conduit to something else.
this is correct. If you open source your software, then why are you mad when companies like AWS, OpenAI, etc. make tons of money?
Open Source software is always a bridge that leads to something else to commercialize on. If you want to sell software, then pick Microsoft's model and sell your software as closed source. If you get mad and cry about making money to sustain your open source project, then pick the right license for your business.
That's one of the issues with AI, though; strongly copylefted software suddenly finds itself unable to enforce its license because "AI" gets a free pass on copyright for some reason.
Dual-licensing open source with business-unfriendly licensing used to be a pretty good way to sell software, but thanks to the absurd legal position AI models have managed to squeeze themselves into, that stopped in an instant.
Open source software helped to dramatically reduce the cost of paid software, because there is a now a minimum bar of functionality you have to produce in order to sell software.
And, in many cases, you had to produce that value yourself. GPL licensing lawsuits ensured this.
AI extracting value from software in such a way that the creators no longer can take the small scraps they were willing to live on seems likely to change this dynamic.
I expect no-source-available software (including shareware) to proliferate again, to the detriment of open source.
reply