The watchabilty thing actually makes stuff nearly unwatchable for me because I like to, you know, pay attention to the movie I am watching. They have to make the characters so one note and cliche so that half-brains can pick up what’s happening in the film. They beat you over the head with everything but don’t bother closing up plot holes because they think you weren’t paying enough attention to see them.

Subscribing to Nebula will be a good start. Quite a few of the channels you mentioned are there already and more keep getting added.

I think of blond ales as a pale ale without the hops. So it’s a kinda sweet, kinda bready, not too bitter ale. No roasty flavors like chocolate or coffee notes since the barley is barely toasted.

I just telling you why it’s easier, since you olaimed it’s not (with no argument or justification).

In regular speech the vowel in “the” is just rolled through as a transition into the M sound.

If you think the way you say it isn’t easier, then that’s cool, but you might want to consider the difference between fully enunciating each word and how people talk in regular speech.

The sounds IN-TH-MOR progressively close your mouth as you say them. AT-…-MO requires a stop as you convert from open mouth for T and pursed lips for M. AT-NIGHT flows well because mouth and tongue position for the sound for N is almost the same as for the T sound.

Not the worst use for it I’ve seen. I’d rather see this than another screen shot of a tweet.

The law has no way to go after parents, unless there’s already some law on the books that does so and the penalties defined in this one somehow apply to that.

The penalties defined in this law are for OS providers not having a way to set age data within an account on a device or for not sending the age signal when requested and for developers ignoring the age signal or not requesting it.

It’s better but the only place the word verification, or anything like it, actually appears in the text is in the title and in the introduction. It doesn’t have any verification in it, just passing whatever you tell your device to other systems it interacts with.

I wish the politicians were honest about what it does. Accepting this makes it seem like we’re ok with verification because that’s what’s in the title, but it’s possible to be both supportive of requiring some type of standard parental control system and be against any sort of age verification.

Think about how much it must take for parents to set up age controls on every single individual app and service their kids use. Having the ability to set up an account for your child on their phone or laptop and know that appropriate controls for that age range will be automatically applied will make it so many more parents will do so than they do now.

This is a good thing because we don’t want what they’ve got in the UK, which is requiring this patchwork of age verification from websites and apps to avoid liability. We want it to be the responsibility of parents, so that we as adults can once again browse freely and no longer be asked to input our birthday to “verify” we are old enough to see a list of beers the local brewery has on tap.

Ok I see you just want to be mad.

Read the bill. It’s not the horror show you are imagining.

Google could do it right now if they wanted to. It’s not against the law to require your customers to provide PII to use services. It just opens them to bad press, liability for mishandling the data, and potentially liability for knowing a user is a minor and showing them mature content anyway.

Have you read the law? I have and I disagree.

It’s actually an incredibly privacy conscious method of doing what it is trying to do, which is to allow parents to set up a child’s account with their age information on a device and have that age bracket information passed to websites and applications. That way, it makes it harder for a child to bypass age-restrictions, but without requiring dangerous age verification methods such as ID or face scans.

It doesn’t require any PII to be sent to any servers and in fact requires that no identity information is sent except age bracket data.

Please update your title to remove the misinformation about the bill, specifically calling it “OS-level ID verification” is not even close. It’s not got anything to do with personally identifying information or any actual verification of age information.

It’s actually an incredibly privacy conscious method of doing what it is trying to do, which is to allow parents to set up a child’s account with their age information on a device and have that age bracket information passed to websites and applications. That way, it makes it harder for a child to bypass age-restrictions, but without requiring dangerous age verification methods such as ID or face scans.

There’s no such thing as ethical consumption.

1-900-28-VIRGIN

This is not a conspiracy to destroy the internet. This is a tragedy of the commons. It doesn’t take many bad agents to ruin it for everyone. AI slop is so cheap and has the potential to make profit, so it’s a no brainer if you don’t have a better way to make money.

The only reason the AI companies are crying is because now they need humans in the loop somehow. They’ll need to source data from only known and verified real-person sources (like reputable news sites, magazines, personal blogs, and podcasts), manually verify data is not slop, and/or pay people to generate data for them.

I think I follow. Top is how I have it set up now, bottom would be how I could do moca?

There’s a utility box on an exterior wall labeled “Television”, which also has a bush planted in front of it. I don’t think I can put my router here… :(

Is it possible to use moca if I have cable internet? There’s coax in my office and living room, so it would be great if I could us them for moca. I know both are connected to the cable coming in to the house because I have set up my modem in both rooms to check which has better wifi coverage.

Smart Tube never broke. So not all clients.