So you think if a kid goes to google and searches "free porn" they are not going to find it after this law goes into affect? They will get results and after the top results don't work because of this law, they will end up on page 5 of the results, which will lead to incredibly sketchy sites. They will end up signing up for web forums that don't follow this law (either because they just don't care or they are not based in the US), where their password may be harvested and they files that are uploaded may contain malware. This is not going to stop a kid from getting to porn, it just pushes them to worse sites for it.

So I am not going to address the privacy concerns, those are pretty evident. My issue is that it doesn't even do what it claims to do, which is protect kids. So let's say all the legitimate porn sites follow this law, what is a kid looking for porn to do? They look at the less legitimate sites. The sites that are more likely to leak and/or sell their data and password. The sites that are more likely to have malware. So the kid still see porn, but is less safe while doing it.

I can see an exception for some sales position as well. It would have to be short term and limited in scope, but I can see barring someone who is in a sales position from going to a direct competitor in a small market where they would be able to take their clients with them. It would be maybe 3-6 months, limited by location (say 100 mile radius), and have to be a direct competitor in the same markey, but I wouldn't have an issue with something like that.

The lack of interest leads to more lack of interest. And a lot of the lack of interest comes from the lack of women in tech. Even when women do show an interest, they are often run off by the rampant sexism in the field. Look at something like gaming, which is a lead in for many people to tech. Sexism is rampant in gaming to the point many women refuse to use comms in a game because they know what will happen. Because there are no women, it leads to open sexism, which leads to less women. It is an ouroboros of terrible behavior and bad outcomes.

I don't know how you are doing it, but it certainly works for me. I just tested with "how do you make a bookshelf" (minus quotes in the search). Quora was about the 5th result. I added -quora to the end (still no quotes) and that result disappeared completely.

I mean, this is basically passing a law saying that company A cannot own something. Yes, it is China nd Bytedance, but if this stands, is there anything saying they couldn't do the exact same thing to another company. Could the dems pass a bill saying Trump must sell off all his ownership of Trump Media? I mean, this seems like a REALLY bad idea.

That proves the exact opposite. That's how we know, without any doubt, Apple has complete access to the backups: they handed them over to the FBI without complaint.

However, they were stale, as the phone hadn't been backed up for a while, and the FBI wanted them to unlock the phone so that they could get the more recent data. That's where Apple refused to help the FBI.

In the end, the FBI didn't need Apple's help, they were able to root the phone due to one of the many zero days in iOS.

Which is why it will be complete shit.

People seem to forget this is pretty much the entire reason behind Apple's "privacy!" marketing. Their phones don't protect your privacy: by default, everything is backed up to iCloud along with the key to decrypt it. They hand that over to any law enforcement agency that asks. Pretty much every official Apple app is opt-out when it comes to privacy, the default is that it sends all your data to Apple.

But when people point out that iOS voice recognition is terrible, or that Siri is constantly getting worse, or that these new AI models are useless, their excuse will be that they couldn't train them or use as large a model to "protect user privacy."

Never mind that they're already spying by default.

How would this help exactly? Tickets are transferable now, that is how the resale market works. It wouldn't change anything for tickets at all.

For content creators? Sure. They're going to get screwed.

But for viewers? Pretty much anything that anyone can do that isn't watch YouTube is competition. It doesn't have to be streaming video. It could be games. If enough people decide it's more worth their time than YouTube, it could be watching grass grow or paint dry. It doesn't really matter.

Exactly. If YouTube makes the viewing experience miserable enough, people aren't going to decide "I'll subscribe to YouTube!" they're going to decide "screw this, I'll do something else."

It's one thing if there's arguably a value add for a service, like better quality or earlier access or something. But YouTube Premium's "value add" is basically "we'll stop intentionally poking you with a stick." That's not a good way to get people to pay, that's a good way to get people to do something else, and there's a LOT of "something else" people can do besides watch videos on YouTube.

How do you suggest they do this? All the systems are web based now. Do you think Intuit is going to allow the government access to it's DB to export last years tax data? Not a chance (and really, it would be terribly dangerous to allow a third party access to that info anyway). But not all free alternatives lack this. CashApp Taxes keeps your data from year to year and imports it and is free.

I suppose the fact that this story has been up for an hour with only three comments answers that question.

But really, does anybody care? The PS5 basically didn't exist for the first three years it was out. It's only been readily available for the past year, and even then, pretty much everything released on it (including Sony stuff) is also getting released on PC. The PS5 might as well already be dead.

Plus, Nintendo's new console is also expected out next year. The Switch has proven that a dedicated portable gaming console that supports docking with a TV works. Why would I want to get a large, expensive box I can only use with a TV? Especially when Nintendo is almost certainly going to be coming out with a cheaper console that, while expected to be far less powerful, will play a far greater assortment of exclusive titles?

Sony's going to have to provide a pretty compelling reason to bother with a new, even more expensive PS5. A better framerate or higher resolution graphics isn't it. The Switch has proven that pretty conclusively.

The fact that ChatGPT gives bad answers is a plus when using it to debug your knowledge. I often bring it down from GPT 4 to GPT 3 when Iâ(TM)m using it to help with my reasoning, because when it gives me something that doesnâ(TM)t sound right, if I can then reason out why it doesnâ(TM)t sound right, it means Iâ(TM)ve reached the understanding Iâ(TM)m looking for. Itâ(TM)s not about using it as a source. Itâ(TM)s a better version of explaining something to a rubber duck to force yourself to reason it through. Better because it gives you feedback. As long as youâ(TM)re engaged, incorrect feedback is just as useful as correct one.

Oh, I know the answer to this: no.

Ah, there, that's the real thing. The open secret is that the NSA has largely outsourced mass surveillance. There's no need for the government to spy on everyone if private industry already does, just make sure private industry pumps all that data to the NSA. Overriding potentially stronger state laws is the real goal here.

The other thing a "privacy law" would likely be used for is to attack foreign apps, like TikTok, in an attempt to ensure that the US continues having access to the data they gather. Or "protect the data of American citizens from foreigners" as they'll surely claim.

The one thing we can be certain of any "bipartisan law" is that the people being screwed are the American people.

Thank you for pointing out my point. This image also adds nothing to you. If the image is meaningless, as you say, then what is the issue with changing it? Why are you (and so many other men) fighting so hard to keep thing image that "just is"? IF the image is just an image, what is the issue with replacing it knowing that some people are offended by it?