Fun fact: in the Americas (Wikipedia says only America and Canada, but I first came across this in South America—Chile or Bolivia, I think), Milky Ways are actually what the rest of us know as Mars Bars. An American Milky Way has nougat and caramel, just like an Australian or Eurasian Mars Bar.
No it was definitely the child slave bit. Thanks for the deets.
Well, “y’all’s” (wowza that’s some interesting punctuation going on, especially with the double quotes 😅) is certainly easier on the ears (and the lips) than “yous’s”, which is what I’d yous use 😆
No it doesn’t. Not in the least.
It implies the comments you’re seeing are from people not into it, but the people who are into it simply won’t comment.
It says exactly nothing either way about you or any other specific person.
We certainly are; have you heard about chips and chips?
But within the English-speaking world, it’s the Americans who are the weird ones in this case. The poms, kiwis, and safas all use it the same as us, and I think Ireland does as well.
I’ve also never come across this specific one in written form, but this kinda thing happens all the time. I did it right there. “Kind of” becomes “kinda” in spoken English, and occasionally also when written. Also coulda, woulda, shoulda, mighta, musta, gonna, wanna, gotta, sorta. Watcha doin?
I dunno for certain, but imma guess you’ve probably seen or even used some of these before. It’s not exactly a whole nother language.
Sprite is lemonade. It’s probably the most popular brand. I’d guess 7up is the next most popular, but Schweppes could be up there too.
The thing that Americans call lemonade just doesn’t exist here. I’d probably call it, like, lemon juice or something, maybe? I’ve heard the term “cloudy lemonade” used, too.
M works well as an alternative to Mr/Ms/Mrs, but I don’t think it works well as an alternative to Sir/Ma’am.
and a journalist likely knows better than to open an archive send to them by a stranger without running a scanner on it first
Right, but nobody here is suggesting sending it to any journalists.
Oh damn, I was just about to reply to your reply to @fishface@piefed.social (which is literally directly above this comment, on my screen) suggesting exactly this. Glad that Piefed initially failed to register my clicking “reply”.
No, Magneto is still canonically a victim of the Nazi regime. But he’s also canonically perpetually in his middle age/early old age. How? 🤷♂️ Don’t worry about it.
I’ve not seen that episode, but I’m guessing they use the word bubbler in it? That’s definitely what we call them in Australia. Or at least here in Brisbane where I’m from, and Bluey is set.
Too much pollution? Release wolves
in factoriesin boardrooms
FTFY
Where’s the discussion about AI as a research tool?
What was her response?
Edit: and what was the cheer?
I’m not sure what you mean. Nobody’s talking about contracts?
identification isn’t a side effect, it’s the raison d’être.
In Australia, the law quite specifically says sites aren’t allowed to require ID as the method of age verification. It can be one option they provide, but it cannot be the only. Even a sort of sentiment analysis is permitted, and from everything I’ve heard that seems to be the method most have defaulted to. Social media sites don’t want to risk losing users by putting up barriers to them making accounts. People talking about politics and taxes are probably adults. People looking at Bluey videos are much more likely to be children. And it’s all based on information they already had used in ways a lot of them probably already did.
So at least here, I think the idea that it’s anything other than what they say it is is just an unfounded conspiracy theory. It may not be well-implemented, but it is genuinely well-intentioned. Or if not well-intentioned, the real intent is bad, but not in the same way you suggest—it’s just about being seen to do something good and win some good PR for the government, without actually having to go to any effort to implement good policy.
The short answer is yes, it can.
I actually think the best method is to put the onus on parents to parent in the way they think best, while giving them effective tools with which to do it. Parental controls should be baked into the OS, and sites should be required to hook into these parental controls via an API. The system could even have the capability, optionally, to block based on a crowd-sourced list, so it can still be effective against non-compliant sites. There would be no privacy problems, because no private information is ever shared. There isn’t even a middleman who has to see any identification at any point.
However, if the goal is to have specific age verification that actually enforces age, it’s still possible. I know of two main ways.
Here’s the first: https://crypto.stackexchange.com/a/96283
It has the downside of requiring a physical device like a passport or some specific trusted long-running locally-kept identity store held by the user. But it’s otherwise very good.
Another option does not require anything extra be kept by the user, but does slightly compromise privacy. The Government will not be able to track each time the user tries to access age-gated content, or even know what sources of age-gated content are being accessed, but they will know how many different sites the user has requested access to. And sites requiring age verification will not get access to any information they didn’t already have other than the simple answer to the question “is this user old enough?” It works like this:
T that can uniquely identify that user.B(T). Nobody who receives B(T) can learn anything about the user.B(T) and whatever evidence is needed to verify age.S(B(T)) and returns it to the user.S(T). This allows them to see that it is the same token T representing the user, and to know that it was signed by the AVS, indicating that the user is of age.All of the moving around of the token can be automated by the browser/app, if it’s designed to be able to do that. Unfortunately a typical OAuth-style redirect system probably would not work (someone with more knowledge please correct me), because it would expose to the AVS what site the token is being generated for via redirect URLs. So the behaviour would need to be created bespoke. Or a user could have a file downloaded and be asked to share it manually.
The AVS could also be private third parties rather than governments, if necessary. Since it probably relies on government ID, I think it’s better for the government to do it, but technologically there’s no problem with private companies doing it. They would still not gain any information about which sites you access. Only that a user with this ID card tried to access an age-gated site.
There’s also a potential exposure of information due to timing. If site X has a user begin the age verification flow at 8:01, and the AVS receives a request at 8:02, and the site receives a return response with a signed token at 8:05, then the government can, with a subpoena (or the consent of site X) work out that the user who started it at 8:01 and return at 8:05 is probably the same person who started verifying themselves at 8:02. Or at least narrow it down considerably. Making the redirect process manual would give the user the option to delay that, if they wanted even more privacy.
The site would probably want to store the unblinded, signed token, as long-term proof that they have indeed verified the user’s age with the AVS. A subsequent subpoena would not give the Government any information they could not have obtained from a subpoena in an un-age-verified system, assuming the token does not include a timestamp.
I’m sorry but I don’t understand. Could you explain what this image and your comment are meant to be about?