NO! This is an outrage! [slams table]

Our religious war should be about reader's choice vs writer's choice!

Ok, but which of those things came with the new law? A lot of what you're describing (I suspect all of it) was already in place. What changed for non-banned users?

Oh, so they're doing it the same way I take "good" photographs: by taking a fuckton of mostly-shitty photographs and trawling through them for the rare few which actually look decent.

Vaporware. If this feature doesn't make it into the Open Source driver so that I can know where my computer is, then I'm not going to buy any Nvidia hardware!

If you wouldn't allow children to play in waste effluent from a 1960s nuclear power plant

It was good enough for us!

Forget the kids, they don't vote so they can be safely trod upon. Who cares what their experiences are.

But seriously, what about the not-kids? Australian adults, are you having to show your ID when you get a DHCP lease? Do a lot of websites who didn't have mandatory logins, now have 'em?

How does it work, and what has changed for you?

Europe is now eyeing similar bans, as well as proposals for a late-night "curfew", curbs on addictive features, and an EU-wide age verification app.

LATE-NIGHT CURFEW?!

If Europe isn't careful, they're going to teach a generation of kids that it's ok to do their FTPing during business hours.

Begone.

Do these people really think they're hiding Directive 4 from us?

We are only a year out from the murder of a health-insurance executive, so the police are more on edge than usual.

Then we need to threaten such things much more often, so that the cops will eventually get used to it, and relax. ;-)

Debian never tried to kill me through my computer. I'd appreciate it if my car manufacturer made their car as safe as my computer.

Fuck it, I just want a Debian car. Then I won't need to extract bloody vengeance from beyond the grave, as my zombie revenant tracks down the CEO of Subaru, and the rotting flesh of my hands tightens around his throat as payment for the time a popup distracted me.

Some people are busting out "definitions" of "End to End Encryption" but people were already using that as in informal descriptive term long before your formalized technical jargon was made up. Nobody should be surprised if there are mismatches. Have faith in our faithlessness.

I personally view the term as an attempt to call semi-bullshit on SMTP and IMAP over SSL/TLS. In the "old" (though not very old) days, if you sent a plaintext email (no PGP!), some people would say "oh, it's encrypted anyway, because the connection is encrypted between your workstation and the SMTP server, the connection from there to some SMTP relay is encrypted, the connection from there to the final SMTP server is encrypted, and the recipient's connection to the IMAP server is encrypted."

To which plenty of people, like me, complained "But it's still plaintext at every stop where it's stored along the way! You should use PGP, because then, regardless of the connection security, or lack of security on all the connections, it is encrypted end to end. Never trust the network, baby!"

Keep in mind that even when I say that, this is without any regard for key security! When I say E2E encrypted, it is implied that the key exchange may have been done poorly/incorrectly, mainly because few people really get to be sure they're not being MitMed when they use PGP. You can exchange keys correctly, but it's enough of a PITA that, in the wild, you rarely get to. You usually just look up their key on some keyserver and hope for the best. Ahem. And I say "usually" as if even that happens often. [eyeroll]

Indeed, every time I hear about some new secure messaging app/protocol, the first thing I wonder is "how do they do key exchange?" and I'm generally mistrusting of it, by default. And sometimes, I'm unpleasantly unsurprised, err I mean, cynically confirmed.

But anyway, if my E2E definition matches yours, great! And if it doesn't, well, that's ok and it's why we descend into the dorky details, so that we can be sure we're both talking about the same thing.

Wow. That's quite a story. I've posted this similar story below. I've stuck with this GP. I spent a bit of cardiac muscle training him. :-)

--
A few years ago, I presented to my GP - a skilled one - with sharp chest pain as a 43 year old with a history high BP and cholesterol. I met him alone. I asked him if it could be a heart attack. He said no. He diagnosed indigestion (even though I've never had indigestion in my life) and sent me home. He didn't go an ECG or a Troponin test (sometimes called a Troponin-T test, this is a blood test that dianoses ezymes released during a heart attack, when heart muscle is injured during a heart attack). He told me to keep taking my BP meds or I'd have a heart attack in 5 years.

I was likely already having a heart attack. :-)

A few hours later at night, when my condition didn't change, I drove to the ER where the hospital did an ECG and Troponin test. There, I got diagnosed with an ongoing heart attack and had a stent implanted immediately.

When I spoke to my GP afterward, he didn't consider heart disease because of my age, and because he'd be stuck there forever if he did an ECG and Troponin-T test with everyone with chest pain. When I spoke to the medical center's pathology nurse about this later, she was horrified the GP had done this. She said to come to her and she'd do an ECG and Troponin-T test if this reoccurred.

Which is a long-winded way to say this: you need second opinions. You ALWAYS need second opinions. A pathology nurse proferred a second opinion.

I think a doctor's notes and verbal discussion should be IMMEDIATELY relayed - as they are being made - to your own AI (or ChatGPT subscription). The AI should then have a chance to IMMEDIATELY second-guess the doctor's findings, and relay additional concerns to the doctor and to you. It would be like having a medically-informed layman accompanying you on your consultation.

A few years ago, I presented to my GP - a skilled one - with sharp chest pain as a 43 year old with a history high BP and cholesterol. I met him alone. I asked him if it could be a heart attack. He said no. He diagnosed indigestion (even though I've never had indigestion in my life) and sent me home. He didn't go an ECG or a Troponin test (sometimes called a Troponin-T test, this is a blood test that dianoses ezymes released during a heart attack, when heart muscle is injured during a heart attack). He told me to keep taking my BP meds or I'd have a heart attack in 5 years.

I was likely already having a heart attack. :-)

A few hours later at night, when my condition didn't change, I drove to the ER where the hospital did an ECG and Troponin test. There, I got diagnosed with an ongoing heart attack and had a stent implanted immediately.

When I spoke to my GP afterward, he didn't consider heart disease because of my age, and because he'd be stuck there forever if he did an ECG and Troponin-T test with everyone with chest pain. When I spoke to the medical center's pathology nurse about this later, she was horrified the GP had done this. She said to come to her and she'd do an ECG and Troponin-T test if this reoccurred.

Which is a long-winded way to say this: you need second opinions. You ALWAYS need second opinions. A pathology nurse proferred a second opinion.

I think a doctor's notes and verbal discussion should be IMMEDIATELY relayed - as they are being made - to your own AI (or ChatGPT subscription). The AI should then have a chance to IMMEDIATELY second-guess the doctor's findings, and relay additional concerns to the doctor and to you. It would be like having a medically-informed layman accompanying you on your consultation.

Oh, its Waymo times than that!

How many hours of an Asian font designer'(s) time can you buy for $20k? It'd be funny, if it turns out that firing the font company pays off in less than a year.