THEN it would have included the basic commands that allowed full control of init and systemd would not be a thing. Since we're on the subject of dead horses.

These guys seem like parasites and I hope they just fuck off.

For totalitarians, need to identify people is critical. It's why DPRK is indeed democratic and holds elections where Kim wins every single time.

Because voters are identifiable.

This is why 16 gig slow GPUs are more expensive right now than very fast 12 gig ones. More RAM means bigger model can be fit into memory. Also why 24 gig models are unobtainium.

4090s and 5090s have been long used for narrow models in things like research in much of third world. This is the natural next step. Shrinking models further so they can be operated from phones that already have good enough cameras to enable things like discriminating vision, where model helps identify specific things that camera looks at. We're looking at the next big ag breakthrough in marginal places like Sahel. We now have an actually good chance of AI machine vision doing something we just couldn't do with mere human vision and algorithmic machine vision. Identification of pests and weeds, their eggs and larvae, etc.

And in medium to long term, it looks even better. We may have an actual viable chance of eradicating Tsetse in medium term future with AI vision. One of the main reasons why Sub-Saharan Africa is still absolutely fucked in terms of human development may actually be finally removed.

X's "automatically translate into your language" feature has actually rebuilt the tower of Babel. The main barrier in interpersonal communication came crashing down.

I suspect that minors can to an extent form contracts. For example, to buy anything from a store, you have to fulfill a contract (money for product). This does not require parental intervention. They can take on a summer job. Same thing.

Parental intervention only comes when there are contractual violations (i.e. minor shoplifts, parents are on the hook for at least some if not all of the damages). Though in some cases/places, parental acceptance can be required for taking on a job as a minor.

So the argument they're making is most certainly legally sound in this aspect. The point of contention is going to be "how much can a minor contractually agree to on his/her own" and "with this much additional obligations, how can amount of obligations for each contract be verified".

The whole thing is a horrible mess because before ease of access granted by computerization and proliferation of networking of computers, most contractual obligations required some kind of face to face verification of basics. When you applied for a summer job as a teen, you got into an interview where your identity got verified.

Meanwhile today, the issue is that due to aforementioned factors, we now have countless contracts that are made without parties ever encountering each other in a face to face situation. This seems to be, on a fundamental level, an attempt to get something that is as close to "face to face" as can be generated in age of social media. I.e. other party gets to at least verify if you're specially protected kind of a human (minor), or one that is fully legally responsible for him/herself. Something that used to be done face to face for each contract that extended significant legal obligations for both parties.

But it's clumsy to the extreme, which is likely the main reason why it's being fought over. Essentially instead of "protecting the companies from having unknowingly taken on additional obligation of contracting with a minor", which the legislation purportedly is trying to do, it instead just punishes everyone who isn't a minor (both users and companies) by forcing companies to assume that unless proven otherwise, everyone has those additional obligations of contracting with a minor.

I mean is it flamebait to point out what happens in the world? https://truthsocial.com/@realD...

No... You were. You even quoted me quoting you where you were comparing it. Try and read your own post.

Oh man. This will come as a huge shock to Google Sweden AB, based in Stockholm.

The EU is not America. There's a reason we for example have several orders of magnitude more e-bikes while at the same time having significantly lower rates of lithium battery fires. For the most part every idiot doesn't just throw random Chinesium chemistry batteries into their devices. The first party battery market is huge in Europe.

At no point did the EU technical regulation ever propose anything confusing or incompatible. Quite the opposite, they stipulated that compliant products must all negotiate using the same USB-PD mechanism.

Your actual complaint is shitty products not following the regulations. Just how are regulations supposed to fix that?

No that would be truly dumb. Custom battery sizes are credited as a major factor in scale down of electronics. There's a reason even the EU stopped short of requiring *all* batteries to be replaceable and only stipulated the requirement for certain devices with a certain degree of replaceability.

And yet the actual use drops. It turns out posting speed limits doesn't cause everyone to become a slow driver either, but it does create a measurable effect in society. A few fuckers will always find workarounds. Let them, some people are a lost cause.

They don't need to. Not every kid needs saving.

Apparently that fantasy has resulted in a 30% reduction in social media use among kids. That is by any measure a roaring success. It could be better, but at 30% the law was already well worthwhile. Such a significant portion of a population is more than enough to affect a demographic wide behavioural change.

Kids hell bent on their own destruction will of course continue to do what they do, but many of them are already seeing the light and just really couldn't be fucked bypassing something just to see some stupid wanker do some stupid wank on TikTok, etc.

You're so close to understanding the problem. Just give it a little more of a think, you'll get there in a second.

If you're having trouble flip the premise on its head and ask yourself why people aren't in the street, then ask yourself what people would do if they aren't on social media, and that'll let you know why the premise of your post that this will have a negative affect on people is bullshit.

By the way we've already seen this with mobile phone bans. Kids aren't just going to sit there drooling when you take their phones or social media away. It turns out they do actually find other ways to interact.

What do you mean foolish attempt? It's already positively affected 30% of children. That's already a roaring success.

And the first thing that happens is that people of voting age will should "muh freedoms" "fake news" "your truth isn't TRUTH" and you'll find yourself losing the next election.

I can tell you're not a parent. No parenting doesn't do shit. You're not in full control of your kids, if you think you are you're either delusional or one of those helicopter parents that are a cure worse than the disease when it comes to stunting social growth in children.

"Parenting" has never worked. It didn't stop kids from smoking. It didn't stop kids from reading porn magazines. It won't stop kids from accessing social media. But sure hold on to that failed fantasy.

It's far more effective to attack the problem at the source, as evidenced by the fact that with one quick law 30% of the kids are apparently no longer on social media, which is already a far greater success than any parenting campaign would ever achieve.