Pamasich

This bill requires the OS to ask you for your birth date, explicitly the birth date. That’s all the age verification it requires. So I’m not sure how that’s “not going to qualify as age verification”. Why would the very method specified in the bill not count? There’s no requirement to use other methods to verify the age you’re given. The user just selects their birth date freely and the OS accepts it and that’s it if they’re not underage.

I’m personally against this kind of thing, but I hate how much of a fantasy echo chamber this stuff is here. There’s so much misinformation and hyperbole in this thread alone.

In general I support the idea of device-level age verification. The narrative around it uses old school methods only (this one goes with just inputting your date of birth, which I’ve already done for years for stuff like Steam), rather than the ID or face scan by random third parties methods used in age verification discussions and requirements elsewhere. In my opinion software being able to use an API provided by the OS itself is much better, and with the right OS (linux) much more trustworthy than any web-based solution.

My only real problem is the lack of user choice. This comes in two forms:

1. Giving your birth date should be optional. I’m fine with them requiring that no birth date given means you default to being underage, but actually giving the birthdate should be up to the user.
2. The birthdate should not be given out to random software asking for it. Either the user should be asked for permission, or only a boolean of whether they are underage or not should be provided. This bill doesn’t require either of those, nor leaves it to later clarification.

You mean the adblocker a friend had to switch away from a few months ago because it stopped working on Youtube?

I’ve seen many other ublock users on /r/youtube affected by various anti-adblock measures over the years too. That one isn’t as immune as you think it is, you’re just lucky to not have run into the A/B tested experiments yet.

They do A/B testing of anti-adblocker measures. If you haven’t been hit yet, that’s just luck. A friend who uses ublock got hit a couple months ago and had to switch to a different adblocker temporarily, so even that one isn’t safe.

What do you mean with that in regards to Discord?

Fluxer has screen sharing.

Fluxer has screen sharing with audio.

I mean, ChatGPT can do it. I just tested it. And if you run your own AI, you can probably remove most such rules anyway.

Nowadays people use OpenClaw agents which don’t really involve human input beyond the initial “fix this bug” prompt. They independently write the code, submit the PR, argue in the comments, and might even write a hit piece on you for refusing to merge their code.

Iirc this vote is about neither. It’s about not allowing further immigrants after that limit, not preventing births, nor culling.

Though it’s not like I’ve properly informed myself properly on this yet. So, again, iirc.

Democrats seek to reassure Europe about post-Trump America

Not going to read the article, but the only way to reassure Europe is with results. Get Trump out of office. Clean up the mess. That means prosecuting EVERYONE involved. Prosecute the people in the Epstein files. Prosecute every ICE member. Prosecute the Republicans that enabled this shit. Reverse what can still be reversed, or at least make plans to. And change your fucking constitution to actually have teeth and effective division of power.

Don’t just take back control and then act like it’s back to business as usual with all the changes kept in effect, no one punished, and MAGA allowed to organize once more.

There have been some users reporting they get ads despite being Premium users, especially in regards to Youtube’s efforts to bypass adblockers (even if they weren’t using one). I always assumed that’s because their measures were misidentifying the lack of ads as using an ad blocker, even if that lack was due to using premium.

Just wanted to give an actual explanation. I’m not qualified to actually confirm or deny whether those user reports were factual or made up. But people usually consider them factual because of herd mentality.

Not just the premium part, but also it affecting descriptions makes me think this is some kind of bug. At least partially. There’s not really any point to disabling descriptions specifically, most people don’t read them anyway.

“there’s currently no way around it” “The issue goes away with a refresh”

The way I understand it, the issue only resolves if you refresh while on the video you want to watch. Navigating to another video would unfix it again. So it’s not really a real fix the way most people expect a fix to look like. They want something they can apply and then they don’t have to deal with the problem anymore. Which, based on this article, only disabling your adblocker achieves.

For people who only go off headlines and comments and don’t read, here’s the important bits:

• This only affects some users, not everyone
• The issue is that comment sections are disabled and video descriptions claim to be empty
• The issue goes away with a refresh, you don’t need to turn off the adblocker, though you’ll have to refresh every video
• It affects all videos
• The link to adblockers is due to everyone who is reporting the issue being a user of an adblocker, and turning it off fixing the issue permanently until it’s turned on again
• There’s no specific browser or adblocker mentioned in the article
• It affects Premium users too

So I’m currently at work, where we use Fortinet, which is blocking your website for “Phishing”.

Before that, your website made my browser ring the alarm with the error “net::ERR_CERT_AUTHORITY_INVALID”.

You might want to look into those two.

Is there a reason the room icons have to be humongous, at least in the web version on PC?

Other than that, looks great.

The remote code execution isn’t “via a text file”. It’s via a link in a text file, which Notepad now lets you actually click.

Just don’t click on links you don’t know the destination of (Notepad shows the destination for https links at least, on hover) and you don’t have any remote code executing.

It’s called projection. You accuse an enemy of something that actually applies to you or your team. Heavily used by people on the far right. People also refer to it as “every accusation is a confession”.

Like when Musk called that diver a pedophile, when Musk is the actual pedophile.

That’s why the accusation seems odd since the antichrist is more likely to come from the Republican party than some random activist. Because this is actually about the Republican party, not Greta.

Is he saying there that the entire reason they are destroying the world is to bring about their religious doomsday fantasies?

I mean by now “every accusation is a confession” is pretty much proven about these people. So this too has to be projection and actually about his team.

Wouldn’t Trump just mistake the red hats as translated MAGA hats and so take it as public support of the invasion? Not like he can understand the language, or read the fine print on the side. He just sees you guys using the same hat his base does.