The combination of not giving kids independence then complaining how teens and young adults are dependant on their parents is diabolical.
I often look at the independence that kids and teens are given in other countries and wish that I could have been given that sort of a childhood. I seriously think I wouldn’t be as socially inept as I am today if I had that.
I don’t work directly with PLCs but we do have them at my work. The main thing that makes these different from any other devices is that they typically control physical machines. Which means there is a real danger that them becoming compromised could lead to damaged equipment or even death.
Additionally, many PLCs use older OS versions like xp because their software is notoriously out of date (if it’s working why rewrite it when that could introduce safety concerns)
This “urgent” message from CISA does not prove that any of these devices are internet accessible just that if they are then they should be removed. If CISA wanted to require this then they would have released a binding operational directive (BOD) or an emergency directive (ED). Both of which are publicly viewable on their site.
Just to clarify the law does not allow your os to transmit your dob. Only your age bracket.
But that is effectively what this bill does, just rather than a check box it is a date entry. There is no verification requirement. Only indication (attestation).
You are right. I have no additional response to this that would not make me sound like an asshole.
I’m sorry I am really not seeing what you are referencing from your link. This appears to be a link to the state administration manual which deals with how departments in the state of California operate.
This does not appear to be a law especially when you look at the procedure for revising the SAM.
Responsibility for updating SAM content is assigned to authoring state departments
Ie. Not assembly members.
Edit: sorry I didn’t respond to your second point. From the Cali law:
1798.503(b) An operating system provider or a covered application store that makes a good faith effort to comply with this title, taking into consideration available technology and any reasonable technical limitations or outages, shall not be liable for an erroneous signal indicating a user’s age range or any conduct by a developer that receives a signal indicating a user’s age range.
exasperated sigh I don’t want to get too deep in it with people again. Here is a link to the California law and some clarifications. (I cannot speak for the Brazilian law as I am not from Brazil)
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1043
I have said this in other posts, but the linux community sticking their heads in the sand and pretending these states don’t exist just leave MS, Google, and Apple to decide how this is implemented. I am glad some distro maintainers are taking this seriously and looking at what is the minimum they would need to implement to comply with the law.
To be clear I do not support this law. The definitions are written so loosely that it leaves much of it up to interpretation. It is clear that they did not meet with anyone in the industry before voting.
The intentions for the law?
AB 1043 offers a scalable, privacy-first approach that helps keep kids safe while holding tech companies accountable.
-Assemblymember Wicks
This ia a quote directly from the author of the bill link for reference.
Now of course the obvious question many people might ask is “are they being truthful?” But that is a question that people will have to answer for themselves.
Just want to clarify something about your comment since it feels like you have not had a chance to read the law yet.
(this is in reference to the Cali law but I am told the Colorado one is basically identical). The Cali law does not, in any way, require ID verification, it only requires that a parent attest to the age of their child when setting up an account for them.
This is not my argument for this exact law or any of these laws. I just want to make sure we all understand what we are talking about before going for the pitchforks.
While I can’t comment on any case law surrounding compelled speech. I don’t thing that this would qualify as compelled speech.
Just based off a quick web search it seems that compelled speech is more about the government telling news organizations to report what they tell them.
Can you provide any sources for these? Maybe a california legislator saying they plan to do this? Or a proposed law? Otherwise it is just the slippery slope fallacy. While that doesn’t disprove what you said it does not provide a valid argument for it either.
How I understood it would be that the api could be implemented as an API contained within your os. So it would be more equivalent to comparing it to a system call like open file or allocate memory than a REST API.
This is just the slippery slope argument.
The California law does not require verification. Only attestation.
The California law does not require age verification. Only attestation. From what I have heard the Colorado one is basically identical.
The NY one I have heard is more stringent. But I have not read that or the Colorado one.
You should avoid using generalizations so much. Not everyone is willing to pay the prices. Some people do avoid buying tickets from them, I know they aren’t my first choice.
This “us vs them” mentality is not healthy for anyone.
Yup, that is what it says.
This will all depend on what the courts (assuming this even gets there) decide an application is.
Maybe we should move more towards package managers only providing libraries and utilities. And not full-blown applications. Then rely on Flatpak and appimages (or snaps :-1:) for actual apps. It would be better for security anyways.
Except some larger artists only post their tickets to these sites. Because they are the largest. And if the artists sell elsewhere, nothing is stopping TM/LN from scalping the tickets to resell on their own site.
So, based on your argument, airlines should be able to form monopolies? You don’t need to fly anywhere.
Automakers? You aren’t required to drive anywhere. Just use uber/lyft/walk.
You are right, lower class people don’t deserve entertainment. /s
Antitrust laws exist for a reason.
The bill does describe what a covered app store is. Here is a link in case anyone wants to read it.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1043
There are plenty of parents that just kick out their kids and drop all support the day they turn 18. It is truly horrific how cruel they are.