For years SO has specifically trained their power users to bully everyone else of the site. Fixing SO means fixing that core issue: a fresh coat of paint ain't gonna cut it

You have a right to raise your kids how you want, and I strongly support that right. If you want to expose your kids to graphic violence of people being murdered, or extreme (eg. that cup video) porn, I will defend to the death your right to do so!

But I also will defend parents who want to let their children use the Internet, but still have some control over what those children see ... as long as it doesn't impact adult rights. Rights are all about letting people do what they want, as long as it doesn't get in the way of other people doing what they want.

Did you read my post? I fully granted that any age verification, of any sort, might be inherently flawed.

But still, I applaud these lawmakers for taking a very different approach from most other lawmakers, who have tried to solve this in much worse ways (many of whom didn't appear to even understand their own country's constitution!)

Do you not think that, as a parent, you should have the ability to prevent your young children from seeing violence and sexuality (including videos of murders, extreme fetish videos, etc.)... without having to completely block them from the Internet?

I don't know of any reasonable people who are against solving that. What reasonable people are concerned about are the side effects (for adults) of any solution.

Honestly, I applaud them. These are non-technical people who are doing their best to find a solution to a real-world problem that still satisfies the concerns of more technical people.

It may still be a flawed approach (arguably *any* age verification is inherently flawed) ... but compared to so many other mindless idiot lawmakers in other states, who pass all sorts of idiotic nonsense with a "won't someone please think of the children!" mindset (and zero desire to understand or address technical concerns), these folks are rocking it!

You mean they leveraged open source tests (not even OSS code) to build a better fork of Next (or at least a potentially better one; we'll have to wait and see)?

And here I thought forking good software (that was poorly managed) so that you could do a better job of it, was a big part of what OSS was all about!

This is a bit of an oversimplification, but Deno tried to do everything differently from Node, then realized that was a colossal mistake, and remade everything more or less the Node way.

Bun just started out trying to build a better Node ... and they largely succeeded. However, they still have a lot of rough edges (eg. you can't autocomplete bun commands at the command line, because the Bun people don't think that's important enough to fix).

Yeah, let's just give up on trying to understand how humans work, and measuring things scientifically: just knowing "people stress people out" is enough. /s

Exactly, these measures have all sorts of constraints, like that Trump can only impose a maximum tariff length of half a year. It won't stop his assault on America, but it will absolutely slow it down, significantly.

No, they wanted money.

Broadcom did some basic math when they bought VMWare. X was the cost of the acquisition, and Y was how much money they'd make by overcharging VM Ware's existing customers before those customers actually left.

VMWare knew companies would leave if they jacked up the prices, but they didn't care, because they also knew Y would ultimately wind up being greater than X by the time everyone actually left (changing virtualization platforms doesn't happen overnight, and companies tend to drag their feet on changes like these).

How do I know this? Because it's Broadcom's playbook: they've done the exact same thing with their previous acquisitions.

So again, it's not about IP, though I'm sure that helps them ... it's about $Y > $X.

You can't change a democracy by just voting: you absolutely need good elected representatives also, and much of what determines who represents you is the work of political machination, not votes.

That being said, throughout history the only way people have ever "changed the machine's inner workings" is through revolution. There's been two types: violent revolution, and democratic revolution (ie. a combination of elected representatives and voters working to fundamentally change "the machine").

To claim otherwise suggests a profound ignorance of history.

Look, when someone from Anthropic, or OpenAI, or even Google makes some outrageous claim like this, I take at it with a giant heaping of salt ... but I at least consider that the person speaking might know more than I do, and might actually be telling the truth. Probably not, but it's possible.

But Microsoft? Come on, those people can't even get their "copilot" to do even half of the things real AI companies can do, despite having more money than God to throw at the problem ... and I'm supposed to trust their expertise? Please.

Actually, he's quite different from other AI CEOs in some important ways. For one, he's not mixing advertising and AI, and for another he refuses to let the military use Claude for unethical (in his view) purposes.

That certainly does not make him a saint or anything, but let's not pretend he's the exact same as (say) the OpenAI CEO.

It amazes me that the company's first reaction wasn't to publicly discipline him (and I'd expect that discipline to be firing). If it's actually a one-time action of a single employee who doesn't reflect the institution, that's what you do.

Instead they basically told their readers "we don't have any journalistic integrity whatsoever". Guess I'm adding Ars to my Google News exclusion list.

I would imagine that having your lead rival completely self-own themselves doesn't hurt either.