There absolutely are influencers who are providing mdeical, financial etc advice and I haven't seen any case law to support the idea that you can give advice as an influencer and use being an 'entertainer' as a defence. There have been cases in the UK where people giving financial advice on social media have been fined for it.

And you can bet they wouldn't certify anyone who disagreed with them as an expert...

I think there's a reasonable case to be made that the collateral, people who can't post even though they are experts due to not being able to evidence it, is a price worth paying because they're drowned out by people making shit up pretending to be experts.

I'd prefer solutions that penalise people for posting false information vs only allowing vetted authorities to post in the first place; although that still has the issue with who decides what is false.

I don't think that's a fair line to draw. There were perfectly viable delivery services available before Doordash etc where restaurants organised delivery themselves. It's perfectly reasonable to be frustrated that DoorDash etc seem to have managed to somehow increase prices, reduce quality, and even then manage to lose money.

SImple answers to others problems are often stupid answers. If half of customers now order delivery then the most likely scenario is that you will get about half as many sit-down customers as you used to (potentially a bit more if you have local loyal customers who will choose to have a sit down meal at your restaurant even though they'd prefer delivery). Most restaurants can't survive a large sustained fall in customer numbers so feel they have to offer delivery to capture a share of that market.

To be fair, a scenario where the driver is dead or otherwise incapacitated isn't exactly impossible either and probably reduces the chance of the current regulated warning deployment from happening...

Thank you for providing one of the few valuable posts here where someone has actually analysed what has been said vs just jumping to a conclusion based on their opinion of regulation good/bad and freestyling from there.

It's unlikely that a study was done, most safety regulation comes about in response to accidents and analysis of the cause after death. Generally we don't go well that's the third plane to crash because the wing fell off so let's do a study and take a couple of planes and bolt the wings on better before changing the rules, because we don't want thousands more to die by delaying a change that is likely to save them.

Once you've added safety rules based on observations of previous accidents it makes sense that you would analyse the effectiveness, and study any theoretical changes to ensure they are at least equally effective.

And surely if the burnout time is an issue that's an argument for requiring a long lasting option vs just binning the rules...

Either disagree with the person you are responding to that the default should be that people provide evidence that changing law/rules is beneficial OR claim that the company did so. Doing both when it is clear that the company did not in fact prove anything like that undermines your other point as well.

There is a general problem with regulation which is that it tends to restrict innovation, or at least the speed of it. It's something we'd benefit from minimising but it's incredibly naive to just claim that because current rules aren't directly based on science they're just made up. The majority of safety measures and safety advisories in aviation are based on historic analysis of incidents; unless you've done a deep dive into the origins of these rules there is no reason to think they didn't come about because serious accidents caused by vehicles seeing stopped trucks were common, especially near to curves, and a group of people with knowledge in this area made an educated judgement that a warning light some distance before the vehicle would be effective (which may then have been validated by measuring a reduction in this type of incident).

While true, that's not the same thing as solving unsolved problems which is what OpenAI claimed it had done. I don't know how to do a lot of things, but that doesn't mean Google is solving an unsolved problem if I use Google search to find the answer.

Which is absolutely fine for most people, not least because any location you work at remotely often will have a dock or similar anyway and if you are on the go and carrying around enough peripherals for it to be an issue then don't bullshit that a tiny dongle is somehow a problem.

If you're carrying around a USB-A keyboard then fuck off pretending that also carrying a much smaller USB dongle is somehow an issue. If you're only using the keyboard at a desk, then you likely have (or would benefit from) some form of dock/hub there anyway and the size of the hub is irrelevant.

Some much of this port argument smacks of laziness or just a general inability to make perfectly viable adaptions to the modern world. You mention USB type B as though that makes your case because of the difficulty of finding a Type-C to Micro-B cable, but it does the opposite because you can buy easily buy a tiny little Type-C to Micro-B adapter which you can use with any Type-C cable (as you can lightning, mini USB etc) that are far more convenient than carrying cables around for each of them.

The rest of your point just reads like using strawman arguments because the underlying point is weak. What laptops don't have 3.5mm ports? Other than USB-A which of your 'top 4' ports are laptops regularly missing? Are you carrying a HDMI cable around with you as well, or are you just relying on their being cables wherever you need to connect to a screen (yet somehow not docks or dongles)? Who cares if you can't get USB-C to RS485 adapters, you can plug a USB-A one in via a Dongle or buy a tiny USB-C to USB-A adapter, and if you are carrying adapters like that around you can carry a dongle about the same size as well.

I work in IT, supporting equipment in a factory, and can do it all via USB-C ports, a small dongle, and half a dozen dongles smaller than the end of a USB-A cable. The vast majority of people want the devices to be more portable, not festooned with half a dozen or so extra ports that add no value for them and bloat the laptop.

Whereas you just teleport into the shower magically? Put the charger on your nightstand or whatever, drop watch on it on the way to shower, put back on when you finish getting dressed...

You have to be pretty naive to think 4chan has no business in the UK; if they didn't then Ofcom wouldn't be fining them or they'd have no issue blocking UK IPs entirely, but as they have a large number of UK users and thus viewers, which is their source of revenue, they won't do that.

Try running a UK based porn site and not requiring age verification from visitors in Utah, which did this 2 years before the UK, (or most other US states by this point) and see how long it is before you're in court.