It's mandatory for them because there is so much AI slop now it's starting to infect their data sets. Facebook doesn't give a shit about the quality of their advertising because no matter how many bots there are people keep buying the ads. But the advertising is only about 1/3 of their revenue 2/3 of it is selling data to brokers and law enforcement.

There is so much AI slop and it is so sophisticated it's becoming difficult to keep it out of their data sets and that's gradually making the data sets useless.

So they are going to force complete tracking under the guise of think of the children so that they and they alone know who is a bot and who isn't. As an added bonus is also means that they can effectively and easily figure out who is a person and use their data to train llms.

AI slop is basically an existential threat to these companies because at the end of the day they do need to know who is and isn't a real user and they need to be able to do that quickly and effectively. So mandatory age verification is the way to go.

Your privacy is completely irrelevant. And frankly I think it's irrelevant to most people here. Everyone will talk about how important privacy and internet and anonymity is but when it comes time to vote a dozen other issues come first often pretty stupid ones.

So Mark Zuckerberg can go around buying up laws and there really isn't anything we can do about it because voters prioritize other things.

Probably humanoid robots, it's already happening in China:

https://jingdaily.com/posts/ch...

Taxes made them successful. We used to have super high taxes for the wealthy and corporations. This created a use it or lose it mentality among businesses because they couldn't just pocket all the money themselves because it would be taxed up the wazoo at a certain point. There were ways around taxes even back then but they weren't nearly as effective as they are now where you have billionaires paying an effective tax rate of 0%

Also stock BuyBacks used to be illegal. Stock BuyBacks mean that companies don't invest anymore they hold on to their cash so that they can do BuyBacks and pump the stock during downturn. This is exactly why stock BuyBacks were illegal for so long.

I don't think folks realize how much of a role public policy plays in their daily lives or the myriad of knock-on effects from those kind of policies. There's an idea of a chesterton's fence, which is a fence that you don't pull down unless you know damn well why it was put up. High taxes and Wall Street regulation were a classic chesterton's fence.

It's not. There's nothing about news which requires it to be a surprise. Why do you think anyone finds it surprising? TFS and TFA don't. The only surprise was the cancellation of SORA which very much came out of nowhere.

This isn't just AI. Since launch $100 would be accounted for due to inflation alone. Add to that Trump's tariff war which would have added over $100, and then add AI on top of that, and AI looks like the least of the actual contribution to price rise (it's not, to be clear AI = bad and hardware prices are out of control).

Also reminder that there's no connection between hardware price, and time in the console war. Consoles have never been priced according to hardware prices as (other than Nintendo) everyone else produced them as a loss leader to sell games. The idea that console prices go down over time caught COVID and died.

In the current politico-economic environment in the US Valve has committed as recently as 2 weeks ago that it will be brought to the market this year.

At this point though it's a matter of faith, I agree it is at risk, but right now Valve has shown they are still committed.

If he clearly meant morally he would have used the word morally. He didn't clearly mean anything. He wrote an ambiguous statement to be interpreted in a number of ways. If that wasn't the intention then he fucked up.

Frankly you're an idiot for making assumptions, and an arsehole for labelling those who disagree with your assumptions. Be a better person.

This isn't subservience. Subservience is the end user adopting something optional. It's no different than seeing two different downloads on websites in the early 00s when encryption was export controlled. The GP fundamentally screwed up due to not understanding how and why something was failed. The optional inclusion of something in a software does not help support nor defeat any legislation. That is up to adoption of the end users.

I pride myself on downloading the "US version" of software back in the day. Stick it to the man, showing that despite legal avenues I am in fact a rebel. The same applies here. Adopt Systemd with all it's age verification goodness and then demonstrate to the world how you give it the middle finger ignoring the field.

There's a very big difference in approach here and specifically about *who* was responsible for doing something. Encryption wasn't illegal, it was subject to export controls. The onus was exclusively on those exporting a product, and that fundamentally fails in the world of the internet.

It's fun to think that some open source coders standing their ground ended this, but the reality is it was big corporations. Those who offered "US version" and "International version" downloads on the same website. The "Here's a complaint one, pretty please use it" approach to adopting the law. This change here in Systemd is very much along the same lines: An entirely optional field. You want to be a rebel end user, don't use it. You want to be a large corporation who actually has legal departments that would otherwise ban the product from being used internally? Do use it.

These have always been about maximising availability while minimising risk. Gen-X rebels didn't kill the encryption debate. The entire concept of an internet which knows no borders did.

Someone else already pointed out the fridge is running Linux but you missed some other crucial fact. No the fact that something is open source doesn't not impart you magic powers to do what you want with ease. This is not a computer that you slot an SSD into, change some UEFI settings and watch it boot to a FDE (Fridge Desktop Environment). You can't just throw a memory stick in to boot from your fancy custom distro and click an install button.

This is an embedded system. Changing the OS on an embedded system will require you to either be blessed to have a vendor management interface exposed (and hope it's non proprietary and not password protected), or required probing and accessing certain areas of a circuit board. End users won't do that.

My TV runs Linux as well, yet I have ZERO way to install something custom on it without completely disassembling it and getting out a soldering iron since the initial firmware was baked in during production.

Yeah Android could do that in theory, but in order to do that you'd need some very deep integration with Android Auto and the car system so that the interface is unified. I'm not sure anyone would go to the effort of doing so since 99% of that effort is the same as implementing Android Automotive, which at that point... why would they make their own system and implement their own API when they can outsource it?

WRT controls I agree. Buttons need to exist (and they do on my car too). But my demand here is to have functional options. Fun fact the small space in the car means that a HVAC system is fundamentally able to control the environment to a tighter tolerance. There's less lag time, etc. The reason I prefer voice control for my HVAC system is that I probably change a setting maybe once every few months and as such haven't even bothered committing to memory where those buttons on the dash are. The system just regulates the temperature that well that summer / winter the car is just comfortable. The only time I touch it is if I do something weird like have thermals on when I get in the car and can't cope with the temperature it's set at all the time.

For functions used very infrequently, voice control is superior. I can do things without taking my eyes off the road.

Why would the infotainment system be obsolete? It's not like the system stops working just because it doesn't have the latest shiny patch.

Fun fact my car's Android Automotive version got an update yesterday. ... to Android 13... It was applied to the 2023 year models and later only. My friend has the 2019 version of the same car, his system still runs Android 11. Still runs, just fine. Has all the same functionality.

So you're saying that no one should be pissed since zero functionality was lost because everyone has a phone anyway? Please don't watch Disney movies while you are driving. Come back to me when something meaningful in the infotainment system stops working.

They are actively working on that. But imagine how nice it would be for a common UI to work between my phone and my car when my phone is dead... the reality is I'm orders of magnitude more likely to have my phone stolen or broken than my car.

People say this, right until they are stuck somewhere with a non-functioning phone. Do you have a map in your car? Like a physical paper copy? And a Ukulele so you can play yourself some music? People throw the word infotainment around as if they don't go into a panicked shock when they are suddenly sitting in a vehicle in silence unsure how to get to their destination with a phone that won't turn on (or has just been stolen, or dropped and broken, etc, etc).

I demand my car retain 100% of its functionality without my phone. In 2026 that includes navigation, traffic updates, and because my car isn't a 1990s gas guzzling PoS that includes charging station finder, and information about the state of charge.

I'm with you with the buttons thing, but only in principle. I want those buttons to exist, but I demand a car with flexibility not to force me to use them.

Your no true Scotsman fallacy is showing you don't even know what a Scotsman looks like. Virtually 100% of patent holders sit on all their patents for the entire duration of the patent.

Dolby actively used their patents and actively defended them. They created that technology and marketed it heavily. They didn't sit around and wait. Just because they make most of their money from licensing doesn't make them a patent troll any more than every university in the world is suddenly a patent troll by your definition.

This isn't offensive. By all accounts their licensed product has been taken without a license paid.

Congrats on falling into a vortex of ignorance. Headlines are fun to latch on to, especially useless ones likes Slashdot headlines. Dolby isn't suing Snapchat for AV1. Dolby is suing Snapchat for not paying HEVC license. AV1 is just caught up in as a listed example due to Snapchat's HEVC-AV1 transcoder being one of the infringing items on the docket.

That's not how the law works. AOMedia has infringed zero patents. You can't infringe a patent by creating an algorithm and publishing it online. If that were the case you may as well say the US Patent Office is infringing patents. Businesses using products infringe patents.

Literally no one is suing AOMedia.

You're going to live a sad and miserable life if you're waiting for a completely unrelated and impossible fantasy to bring you joy.