China and India are also rather substantially less likely to portray a serial killer as a notable scandal deserving of infamy.
AFAIK they also have a less rights-respecting criminal prosecution system, meaning their native serial killers are more likely to be incarcerated or executed if identifed.
The NY AG doesn’t generally bring criminal suits. And “was a rapist in FL and a private island” may not be enough to give anyone standing to empanel a grand jury and indict.
If you live in NY and then take a vacation in Texas during which you open carry a AR15 and then “self defense” somebody at the Alamo who called you a Yankee, there wouldn’t be much NY could do if the local DA accepted your defense.
It’s probably not wise to try and annoy a being not bound by causality, physics, or conservation of anything. Especially when said entity has previously near-eliminated our population and discarded essentially all of us to our own folly.
(Thankfully She got bored, picked the most stubborn group She could find to remember Her, spent a thousand years trying to teach them to be good, and finally said “oh fuck it, just watch Me”)
Newsom isn’t a democratic nominee running against Trump. He’s a Democrat who wants to be chosen over other Democrats to be the 2028 nominee.
Calling out any apparent backsliding or bigotry is relevant, be it transphobia, homophobia, Islamophobia, anti-semitism, sexism, or racism.
That’s why bsky’s pseudo-federation isn’t as big a deal as some ActivityPub boosters claim.
As I understand it, if lemmy.world shuts down or starts demanding cash my only resource would be the same as if Facebook decides I’m too critical of billionaires – start all over elsewhere with a new account. Sure, I could get close to the same experience with a different node, but I’d be a brand new account with no history. I might as well go someplace else entirely.
Bsky’s “portable user” idea fixes that. There are accounts my bsky account follows who switched to blacksky, and if they hadn’t said they’d changed I wouldn’t have noticed. The essential identity of their account shifted almost seamlessly, and they “federate” with everyone else, aside that their appview shows accounts that bsky’s ordinary moderation hides.
I don’t have any illusions about how altruistic the cryptobro VC’s are. But the entirely of their value proposition is that “leaving bsky” should be about as painless as porting your number from Verizon to AT&T.
Not really. Congress is constitutionally “in session” except when they themselves deliberately and formally pause for at least a weekday. And to do that requires the exact same two-chamber majority that is required pass a bill. (“Pro forma” sessions with just one senator and one house member are common.)
Until December 21st Congress is essentially immune to the “pocket veto” unless they specifically choose to be.
The claimed reason for that is to highlight “referrer” links for the sites people go to from bsky.
My understanding is that if you click like https://www.themarysue.com/ the website operators would see a “feddit.org” or “lemmy.world” referer if you’re using a web browser and don’t have a defeating option enabled, but not if your browser is locked down or you use an app. The immediate redirects, however, do consistently show in the web site’s access logs.
It’s possible bsky could fuck around with this in the future, but doing so risks just sending users to a pseudo-fork like blacksky.
You’re right about the effect (lawsuits and the threat of the same are more common in America than Canada or the UK) but not at all about the cause.
The USA has had a decades-long choice to have our industry regulated primarily not through government bureaucracy but instead judicial liability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_through_litigation
Daredevil has been a “blind batman” for so long a satirical fanfic-turned-unofficial-spinoff got a cartoon, three movies, another movie, and a CGI revival that multiversed back to the cartoon and the original.
Matt Murdock’s no more an anti-hero that Peter Parker was when he tried to break into the fantastic four’s building in hopes they would hire him. (Which they didn’t, mostly because they didn’t actually pay themselves)
So, if I understand right, basically they assume its correct unless given significant evidence otherwise?
That’s how it reads to me this morning. Assuming by “given” you meant “they have at all”.
So like, if this flag is enabled and I visit a website and don’t directly provide personal information, then they have to assume I am a child under CCPA and thus can’t share my data. Right?
Based on the CA AG’s page at https://www.oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa , I don’t see how “the browser reports the user as a child” gives a substantial additional burden on website developers. Presumably, the most they’d have to do to comply is use the flag to change “do you agree for yourself” to “PARENT OR GUARDIAN: Do you agree for the user of this account…”
I’m missing the part where an adult setting their age category incorrectly for themselves would do more than get a stronger porn block and a bunch of “go get your parent” pop-ups instead of “click here if you’re over 18.”
Presumably, if Microsoft and Google and Apple don’t get the Digital Age Assurance Act blocked in court, we could see a broad adoption of it as a way to skip paying for third-party age validation for sites like Reddit, BlueSky, and Lemmy, and all of the porn sites on the internet would just ask for the flag in lieu of their current “do we have a cookie where this user clicked that they’re at least 18” code.
Not a lawyer, answers based on https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1043/2025
- Under section 1798.501. (b) 4A, wouldn’t this make collection of almost any system information illegal?
No. Because the terms are defined in 1798.500. They can ask your system directly whatever they want; they just can’t ask Microsofg, Apple, or Google for correlating specifics.
- Since 1798.501. (b) 2A seems to require that developers that receive this age flag treat assume it is true, this would at least apply to CCPA, and California Civil Code, right?
Yes, but only insomuch as laws that protect minors impose additional constraints on those who have “actual knowledge” that a user is actually a child.
It doesn’t mean they need to trust the OS flag if they have suoerior knowledge as to someone’s actual age. If I ask a child to contact Imgur to delete my account they’d block out my porn stash but otherwise treat the request as any other “delete an adult’s account” request.
- Would 1798.501. (b) 2A also apply to COPPA? I know this is state versus federal law, but…
Statr law can expand upon federal law but not contradict. And it smells like AB1043 is more “add a more explicit signal of user age” than anything affecting data retention relating to children.
What part do you think is contradictory?
“Actual coverage is less than what’s theoretically possible” is a hell of a way of saying "these things aren’t good enough (yet) to actually replace real people ".
a) Explain why the US hasn’t gone back in so long, and why with modern technology it seems so difficult?
Going to the moon is expensive and has essentially no direct revenue. There are no resources to be had on the moon that provide worthwhile efficiency over what we already have on earth, and most of the basic science was done by the Apollo missions.
How do you verify moon rocks without having actually been on the moon? How did scientists figure out what a moon rock looks like?
Getting moon rocks, which have a unique microscopic texture due to no water erosion, was one of those “basic science” bits I mentioned before. They don’t really prove the moon landing except that “they’re from the moon” is the simplest answer for why these rocks have that unique texture.
Why aren’t the old Apollo designs being reused for a moon landing? (by either the Americans or the Chinese)
Because thre 1960s were fifty years ago.
The industrial base to build an Apollo rocket isn’t there anymore than the industrial base to build a 1965 Buick skylark or an Atati 2600. You could throw money and rebuild all those factories, but it’d dramatically balloon the cost even before you start to recon with correcting the inevitable mismatch between the original spec and what your rebuilt factory can make.
(And even if we did just rebuild Apollo, we’d wind up with a rocket that didn’t have the advantage of 50 years of advancement.)
1984 is an anti-tyranny dystopia that has more bad readings than any other work I can think of.
The essential problem isn’t new-speak, the five minute hate, constant war, one-party rule, rat-based psychotorture, or even ubiquitous surveillance. Rather, it’s the abandonment of truth. It’s not nearly so bad if Big Brother is Watching, except that Big Brother lies.
(And Orwell wasn’t even inventing the danger out of whole cloth: both the German Nazi and Russian Communist tyrannies had well trod the path of internal propaganda and historical revisionism)
((AND you don’t have to squint all that hard to argure that 1984’s Britian was most plausibly a pariah state that didn’t actually have any power beyond its aquatic border…))
Like nearly all science fiction, 1984 wasn’t so much written about its future as it was written about the past.
You’re trying to place blame on an individual instead of a party that encourages policies that creates voter disenfranchisement.
No. I’m recognizing the actual system we have pointing out that anti-genocide non-voters made a deliberate choice.
This isn’t a disenfeanchisement issue so much as it is a disengagement problem. There citizens had the sane franchise as everyone else, and chose not to go vote against a rapist.
There’s plenty of blame to slap on the Democratic party from the former president and candidate all the way down. But Biden not standing by his purported morals and Harris not breaking with him when he didnt compel non-voters not to cast a vote. They’re adults and citizens and should either stand by their choice and argure that it was correct or else concede that they made a mistake and would change it if they could
The USA is a democracy; every one of us is responsible individually for what we do with our votes.
You, I infer, decided that the best thing to do with your vote was endorse the rapist who promised to do absolutely nothing to stop the genocide in Gaza over the candidate who at the least would have protested.
Which sure as fuck was your right, but it’s kinda weird that you’re trying to argue that this isn’t exactly what you voted for.
In a single-ballot plurality-wins-all election anything but a vote for the runner up is an endorsement of the eventual winner.
The “State of the Union annual speech” has been pointless since before anyone living was born.
And yet it still happens, because “rapist who breaks all norms” still does it. (Were I a congressional dem, my pick for next speaker would be whomever pledged to not invite an infamous sex pest to ramble in person.)
Who is this “user” you’re talking about? Near every choice in a social media platform design is an engineering choice between conflicting priorities.
The troll who wants to post garbage finds it easier, but the earnest poster now needs to filter out trolls on their own.
The person wanting to co-opt a community label finds it easier, but the person who wants it to continue as-used now has no recourse.
The pervert wanting to upload PG boob-shots definitely finds self-moderation easier, but your change would force rape victims with PTSD to let that smut into their already-curated set of communities.
If you wanted to add a new layer of moderation for posters beneath instance owners and community moderators that might be plausible, but “OP posted something dumb and is getting piled on” is a it’s own force your suggestion would abandon.
(And if you think just adding more random part-time moderators to a community would improve its moderation I would encourage to try Improving your next family dinner by giving orders in the kitchen. Especially one that you didn’t plan.)
Like the woman who sued macdonalds for getting third degree burns because their coffee was too hot.
Please never mention this story without pointing out at least one of the following;
There literally isn’t an instance of a US company being sued by a customer more deserving of empathy and horror.
A bit late to the party, but… well…
If a streaming service has an ad-free tier, the ads shown aren’t really there to sell the things they advertise. Oh, sure, the buyer of the ad wants your money, but they didn’t pay a bunch to show you that ad and the revenue from the ad buy just has be “slightly higher than spam” to be worthwhile.
"Ad-Supported’ tiers exist to differentiate the higher cost points. Which is why the ads frequently aren’t aligned with natural break points in the video. And why in some cases it’s the same two or three ads shown for every artificial and clumsy break.
The ads you are seeing exist primarily as an advertisement for the ad-free tier.