Moderators are, for some reason, modding my post down pointing this out, so once again:

The above comment is a complete misrepresentation of what I said. A lie indeed. In no way can my original comment be interpreted as meaning that I am in favor of Florida style age verification laws.

Powercntl doubtless has his own reasons for claiming that. But it's quite simply a lie. I proposed nothing more than CA mandating that if an OS has an optional age verification feature be there, it be used by apps and web sites needing age verification, and that strong privacy controls be added.

This is the EXACT FUCKING OPPOSITE of what Florida has done.

"Apple has never offered a product that justified a large chassis. It used to be lots of slots, hard drives and other storage that justified it. Macs have never been about that"

I see you don't remember the 68k Macs OR the PPC Macs. Apple offered machines with lots of slots ever since the Macintosh II line. HTH.

Too much latency for RAM.

You mean running them on an external GPU? That doesn't take much bandwidth unless you're constantly loading new models.

NOTHING HAPPENS?

Seriously?

Were you AROUND in the late 1990s? The President got impeached after years of the cable news networks talking about LITERALLY NOTHING ELSE.

What is wrong with you?

Why are you still lying about what I wrote? And now what you wrote?

I propose:

1. Requiring only that third party apps and websites respect a mechanism built into the OS if available.
2. Placing strict privacy controls on that mechanism.

You claim that this means:

1. Requiring third party apps and websites use invasive third party age verification systems or block justisdictions
2. Claim you didn't say the above when in fact you did. You wrote: "We have age gating at the website level here in Florida. Some adult sites complied by blocking Florida IP addresses from accessing the site, some sites actually are doing the age checks (which is a potential privacy issue)"
3. Now pretending the issue is in some way related to jurisdictions as if this is something new and novel and a reason to not propose any regulation at all on any level.

(And, to answer your goalpost moving, if a company wants to do business in CA, it has always had to obey the local laws. That didn't change because of the Internet. Same for Florida. Except Florida's law is privacy intrusive, impossible to comply with in many cases, and fucking stupid, while the CA one might be salvageable if it changes who has the onus on complying with calling an optional API.)

Please, do us both a favor and fuck the fuck off.

I shall foe you as you're clearly trolling or illiterate.

I'm sorry but not understanding the moderation here at all, and you're claiming it's flamebait too. So what is flamebait about it?

> Yours is the first I've seen of someone actually praising this mess as the lesser evil.

And yours is not the first or last to completely miss what I said and substitute an invented version of my views instead so you have a strawman to attack.

Listen, if you're not prepared to make at least a minimal effort to understand, just don't reply. It's easier on both of us. Florida is not using an optional operating system level option age gate to age gate websites. You know that. I know that. So why pretend it is or that I'm advocating what Florida mandates? You're just wasting all our times.

Hey CA,

Listen, I'm not saying this is a bad idea. Parents should have some control here, and yes, them having some control over their kid's blogs makes a little bit of sense though I can see occasions in which it could be abused.

But do you REALLY want to be focusing on this right now rather than undoing the giant fuck up you did with parental controls? You had the germ of a good idea there (let computers be configured to have some control over what's visible) but you mandated the wrong people - operating systems to have the functionality, instead of apps and websites using the functionality with strict privacy controls on what can be asked for and how often.

So you already did a giant fuck up, swathes of the software ecosystem are now withdrawing and blocking CA, and you want to add more laws without (1) undoing the last one and (2) having some introspection and figuring out how you managed to pass such an ill thought out law in the first place?

Knock it off! You're supposed to be the non-fascist beacon in these depressing times and you're handling Palintir your entire citizenry on a plate because you can't think further than "but the children!"

> Trump is just a symptom. He is not immortal, and when he finally kicks the bucket, the american people will simply replace him with the next grifter in line which will tell them what they want to hear.

There's the risk of that. The bigger problem is that he's basically the face the Republicans are hiding behind. Project 2025, one of the most extremist political agendas in modern American history, is a Republican, not a Trump thing. And they're using Trump to get it done.

And as long as the Republicans and corporatists own most of the outlets of information people use, and run propaganda and disinformation campaigns promoting culture wars et al, it'll continue.

At this point there are very few directions things can go in that would lead to sane governance in America, and some involve outside involvement which I'm reluctant to write anything that would encourage or give the appearance of encouraging. But I can see it happening after the insanity of the last few months and the invasions of multiple countries.

>> The Studio is a sealed box ...

> That was the redesign.

No, because Apple already had sealed boxes. Why not claim the MacBook Neo is a "redesign" of the Mac Pro then? "Yeah the lower spec, and built in keyboard and screen, is part of the redesign"

> The discrete graphics card situation is not like the PC's. First, you were severely limited as to

Blah blah blah.

The Mac Pro specifically existed so that these features were available. The fact Apple was fucking them up meant Apple needed to address that issue.

> Those drives were connected using what SATA III? So 6 GB/s. Wouldn't an external on a USB-C 10 GB/s connector be faster?

You must be trolling at this point. You're seriously arguing that the feature people are looking at when they say they want internal drive bays is the connector? (And what stops Apple from supporting faster interfaces anyway?)

I'm glad you like your Mac mini, but you clearly have no experience of why people would want an open box with open architectures that can have added features added to it internally. Could you maybe shush and let the adults talk here?

Chinese law doesn't require a warrant for such access and it may be done in secrecy (i.e. without informing the user) if necessary to perform duties. The problem with Apple in China isn't that they aren't following the law, it's that they are and the law is openly fascist.

Check his posting history and it's very clear that he is not.

If he is not a trollbot, he is so frothy as to be indistinguishable from one. Every comment is the same.

Mobile Firefox has become nearly unusable. It crashes on me at least once per day now. The memory leaks are worse than ever.

Dice isn't relevant here, it's B1zX