I can’t abide by that last claim. AI has been able to fetch some dead Microsoft documentation for me that I was not able to otherwise find through the regular channels. The code would have had to have looked very differently if not for AI.
Mixed bag for me. I spent a day running in circles working on a github action based on lots of very bad info from chatGPT. I also just reviewed a PR that allowed for remote function execution. The dev that wrote the code has been very open about their use of AI. He thought it was good because he wasnt thinking.
Internet archive is pretty good for old documentation. It's very interesting what API features that are removed from new versions and all documentation scrubbed but actually still work.
Why not simply pass a law to limit company liability in the case that a minor sees something undesirable? Why shouldn’t the onus be on the parents to parent?
The general trend is not toward _more_ parental autonomy; it’s towards kids being property of the government and parents serving as keepers at the government’s pleasure.
Because it's not about minors or pornography at all. It's about ending online anonymity, democracy enabled by the Internet, and ultimately to pick out dissidents to eventually disappear them.
All of these laws (the US has some now) are designed to set up a censorship regime that can control speech or oppress undesirable groups (Project 2025 calls out LGBTQ+, for example).
The age verification also will inevitably let the authorities create a list of adults to persecute.
Exactly. Why would a kid looking at wrong-think sign in, only to have their request rejected?
I usually don’t comment on downvotes, but geez. They even admit/brag that this is what they’re up to in the US!
Also, I don’t get the comments elsewhere on this article that hope Trump will block the policy in Australia, even though he’s pushing for identical stuff here.
> If your government has slid that far down the dystopian shithole scale
The problem with laws such as this which rely on benevolent enforcement is that they're volatile. Any country could become fascist, at any time. We're all just sort of hoping that the data and privacy we've all given up isn't used for evil - but certainly the frameworks to use it for evil are there, and are being expanded constantly.
Game addiction isn’t the same anymore. Games used to be primarily about telling stories, establishing atmosphere, and fulfilling fantastic roles. The writers and designers of yesteryear had centuries of unexploited sci-fi to draw from. Designers today don’t have that mountain of material to pull from, not just because no one reads anymore.
It’s occurred to me that scrum masters are not long for this world at all. It would only take one engineer to suck up their entire organization’s meetings and then train an AI scrum master on them. Surprised we haven’t seen a Y-combinator company do it yet.
The article heavily implies that it was a “yeah…nah” thing but does very little investigative work that could corroborate their anonymous witnesses. For all we know, there was a school shooting or a spate of suicides in which case I think everyone here would agree with closing it.
Also I’m not from the area but how are disadvantaged youth coming from Palo Alto at all? Isn’t it one of the highest CoL areas in the nation? Also isn’t it pretty crime-free and well-maintained? How disadvantaged can you be if that’s where you live?
On your first part I'd do exactly the opposite so please don't speak for me...
Given the fact that the number 1 cause in the USA for "unnatural" deaths of school age individuals is now shootings (not cars like in other developed countries) I feel like the expression "when the game gets tough the tough get going should apply. Personally I feel like it's the bil(mil)lionaires new "game" of getting the credit but not doing the commitment.
On the second part {speculation} Because maybe not so rich people lived there before the area became so expensive or moved there for job opportunity + safe place to raise kids ?
If you do a quick Google / chatgpt you'll see that the cost of living compared to median income is extremely bad...
So not the worst place but certainly not the best...
C++ doesn’t force you to pay for anything you don’t use so you can just use the C++ compiler at that point and change the few incompatibilities between C and C++.
That said…I agree that there is a lot of syntactic sugar that could be added for free to C.
The movie theater doesn't keep a database of who's been watching their movies.
[edit] and that doesn't just mean “okay jimbob is a dirty dirty boy.” It’s also a handy way to create a registry of whatever the handlers think is the target perversion du jour.
[edit][edit] … and it's not even the government who's keeping that database, it's pornographers. Regardless of your political leanings or trust in the gov't, can you imagine a less trustworthy party to hand off your ID to? mein gott
Are there business destroying fines associated with non compliance? Otherwise it becomes a, “Whoopsie fine” when companies inevitably get caught selling out its user base.
> $10,000 per instance when the entity retains identifying information in violation of Section 129B.002(b);
$10k per instance. If you have 1M users and retain their info, you're potentially facing a $10B fine.
The sites that were protesting these laws were saying they're concerned about such retention, so no doubt they're glad to know that they and their partners are banned from retaining that info and face extreme fines for doing so.
That seems like it'd be easy to avoid if you're a small operator. Set up some embarrassing porn site, scrape user details and sell them to a separate company (likely controlled by yourself). Then close the porn business as soon as there's any chance that you'll face investigation and instead work on getting individuals to pay you for not publishing their embarrassing kinks.
I'm not sure that criminal extortion is a great strategy to avoid civil fines, but I suppose as an individual you should just avoid giving your information to any business not large enough to have a CCO.
I understand the sentiment and agree but the practicality is a different story.
Not many people pay in cash (though, for now, it's still possible). 99.9% of people carry a tracking device in their pocket, and it's a junior engineer level task to correlate transaction data to an ID via any number of methods.
So while it's not "built in" at a movie theater it's child's play to figure out who's watching what, when. Effectively, it's the same thing as requiring an ID to watch porn in that light. Similarly Google has shown (repeatedly) it's absolutely trivial to figure out who a person is via tracking. Then, it's absolutely trivial to determine a person and their porn preferences.
I can see both sides. The parents are ultimately responsible for their child's media consumption. But, a company also has a duty to ensure they're not violating any rules. The "Are you over 18" pop ups are there for legal reasons. I think that this ruling simply codifies what has already existed and provides a way to make it harder to bypass (without a VPN).
Surveillance capitalism wasn't innovated when movie theaters started checking IDs.
But since they've moved most ticket purchases online it's very likely they do maintain such a database now, and monetize an "anonymized" version of the data.
> You already have to show ID to see rated-R movies in the US.
The law doesn't, in most places, require theaters to demand or log ID (it sometimes requires them to deny admission to people under 18 without parent or guardian permission, and in some places doesn't even do that, with any restrictive policy being a matter of theater policy following private industry group recommendations), and they mostly don't even do the former unless the patron appears, to the ticket seller, to be underage (and even then, IME, its iffy, probably because while that's generally theater policy, the ticket sellers aren't minimum wage earners, likely teens themselves, and not closely supervised.)
Putting aside the actual differences between that and this, I guess I don't think that should be required by the state either.
If an individual theater wants to do it, sure, but I don't agree with the state requiring it.
There's something sort of hypocritical about wanting to give parents more control over decisions about their children while simultaneously taking it away.
If I have a mature child who wants to see an acclaimed art film that is R rated for whatever reason, why shouldn't I be able to make that decision? What's the next step? Verification on blu-ray players?
ID to see rated-R movies in theaters (but not on streaming services, some of which don't even require payment or even an account), is a voluntary measure done by the industry.
I don't know that I've ever actually been carded at a theater.
In 95% of cases that is entirely on the studios and/or theater's personal desire to not allow minors, it isn't illegal. You can take a 3 year old into an R-rated movie as long as someone older looking is there says they can, and are not IDed themselves or known to have any authority over what a child is and isn't allowed to watch. A lot of hotels don't rent rooms to people alone under 25 or so, that doesn't mean its illegal for hotel rooms not to rent rooms to younger people either.
reply