It is about California. The comment you replied to was about California. My comments replying to you have been about California. That original comment you replied to and my own comments have said that California’s law is reasonable. You keep saying it isn’t, but you have yet to present any reason why.
Once again, that post is about age verification, so it doesn’t apply to the California law. If there are no documents or pictures stored for age verification, there is nothing to breach.
He said exactly the same thing I said: laws like the California one that don’t require age verification are fine.
what is the point of the OS asking
Because for the purpose of securing kids accounts, it doesn’t make sense for the kids to enter their ages themselves each time they create an account at a new website.
Tell me how it can be used against me. It doesn’t give out any information beyond what I let it give out about me, and that information (an age range) is derived from information I get to make up. Remember, the California law doesn’t require any verification of the age data that is given to the OS.
Companies are already required to ask if their users are kids because, among other reasons, there are laws against creating ad profiles for kids, and companies have been sued for doing this even accidentally. The California law just changes how they’re required to check if they’re a kid from asking them at account creation to asking the OS at account creation, where the parents have set the age for them when the OS account was created. It gives the company checking if they’re a kid no more information than they had before. I agree with [email protected] that this is totally reasonable.
This particular federal bill, on the other hand seems closer to the Florida bill in that it requires some form of age verification instead of just accepting what the parents enter when creating the OS account. That is unreasonable. Complain to your representative, and we’ll see how it gets amended.
deleted by creator
Unlike laws against making guns, this law applies to printer sellers, not to their users.
In the video, ChatGPT was actually being used as a stopwatch instead of a countdown timer.
This will actually be solved in a week. All it takes is to add the current time to each input.
It’s never “bothsidesing” if you take a position.
Responding to your opponent’s strongest argument is steelmanning, and it’s always good practice if you want to convince people instead of just get clicks.
The person I replied to said that the US vetoed the Resolution. I pointed out that it did not and cannot veto the Resolution. It passed.
No, it’s not. Your confusion probably stems from the fact that the US has veto power over UN Security Council Resolutions. It cannot veto Resolutions passed by the General Assembly. This was a General Assembly Resolution.
No, it’s not. This resolution was adopted with a vote of 186-2-0. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3954949?ln=en&v=pdf
The article would be better if it linked to the reasons for the no votes and critiqued them. Otherwise, it’s just low effort outrage bait. To be clear, I don’t think the no votes were justified. I just don’t like low effort outrage bait.
Edit: Not https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/
I also didn’t get Internet connected thermostats until the utility company added demand response discounts. It’s really a smart grid technology. This does mean that it should be secured as such, otherwise it’s another vector to attack the power grid (set all thermostats to maximum and cause blackouts). Regulations haven’t caught up.