But. That’s the point. If no one breath tests then the car does not start. Hence it being an ignition interlock device. The whole point of the device is to stop drunk people from driving. If there is a sober person then obviously the drunk person should not do the test since that would lock the car.
“lawyers” can’t bring charges for this law. Only the AG. If people don’t like what the AG is doing then they can just start a recall election.
Even if systemd is managed by someone outside of Cali that does not automatically except them from all Cali laws. When a person decides to distribute software that comes with the legal responsibility of the locations where the software is distributed.
Why does your computer need to ask for your full name or office location? You don’t have any issues with those fields? Or is it because you understand that those are optional just like this field is?
If you don’t want to put your bday in then don’t. fork the software and remove what you don’t want. That is the great thing about open-source.
If you don’t trust the maintainer of systemd then why are you using their software in the first place?
You are right it is obvious that zuck wants to hoover up as much data as possible. But what if, instead of this being a data gathering ploy (since the law forbids the data to be used for anything else), this is them trying to put the responsibility of controlling what children look at online onto the parents?
While I don’t think that FB should be held resonsible for all the ways they fucked up the youth, I also think that the parents are to blame as well.
Are you implying that only people who are affected by something are allowed to contribute to open source projects? If this were some nobody developer in California would that really make you any more likely to accept that this merge request is okay?
Equating this law with hiding jews during the holocaust is crazy.
This whole article/blog post reads as “How dare this person follow the law. ;(”
I really don’t understand the pushback on this one person for submitting the change request. When it is the lawmaker that put this law into place that we should be criticizing. The post repeatedly uses how the contributer said that the change was “hilariously pointless and ineffective.” As some sort of gotcha as to why the merge should not have been accepted but does not explain why the maintainers should not follow the law other than “law bad”.
It also consistently calls out the various peoples’ places of work and experience as some sort of boogeyman for why they should not be allowed to contribute to open source. If these people were universally accepted to be bad actors in the community then they would not be accepted as reviewers for these projects. This just attacks their character to try to prove a point.
I am not sure on what interval they do but from what I have read online and from talking with someone I know who has one. They constantly phone home. Even when parked and turned off. This means that it will drain your battery and if you don’t drive for long enough (from what they said a week or two) then you can end up with a dead battery. Additionally, when driving, the device requires the driver to re-blow every 45-60 minutes. So the driver needs to pull over and test again otherwise their alarm will go off.
As far as what tampering prevention mechanisms they have I have no idea. I would assume they keep that as secret as possible.
Edit: the devices (at least the ones from intoxalock) require the driver to pay a subscription fee to keep the device working (about 100$/month) and also costs a 75$ fee for each time the driver needs to get it unlocked after a failed test.
The device doesn’t just phone home while driving. It does it constantly. It’s likely that any tampering would alert the vendor and by proxy the court.
Not sure that I would really agree that these are backdoor. Since disabling the vehicle remotely is kinda the express intention of this device. Just a consequence of how they designed them to not be circumvented by the operator.
This will be very useful. I knew what the issue was just never had the time or willingness to find the proper fix. Thanks so much.
Fuck Verizon for this exact reason. Never buy from them direct if you can help it.
At least for the California and Colorado laws, it is only attestation. But you also have to realize that, with how this law is defined, this only applies to parents setting up a account for someone <18yo.
Seconded. The only configuration that I felt I needed to do on debian out of the box was install Flatpak and enable flathub repos. Everything else worked.
I see many people disparaging the family. Saying that this is what they get for voting for trump. (unconfirmed, people are using them encouraging others to vote as reasoning to call them Trump supporters… Which is so awful and hypocritical.)
I hope people can remind themselves that these are real people with real lives, dreams, and concerns. No parent should have to bury their child no matter who they are.
Please also remember that service members are not given a choice to opt out of a specific president. For all we know the service member could have been the most stout democratic supporter.
You are more talking about how this debate came to be. My central argument is more about how the debate cannot end.
I am not sure how abstinence only being the only acceptable option is any better than it being the best option. If anything it just strengthens my argument by showing that the Pro-life side will not accept any other form of education. And the Pro-choice side will also not accept any other form of education. This topic is a nonsequiter for both sides.
Again being Pro-life does not necessarily mean that they will vote for dismantling social services.
I simply don’t understand why you insist on assuming that they are lying.
Demonize: to portray (someone or something) as evil or as worthy of contempt or blame.
Is that not what you are doing? You are blaming them for voting how they do.
Ultimately I think we have reached that 3rd situation. I have decided that nothing I say is going to change your mind on this and am choosing to walk away.
I can’t comment on the prenups as I have never even considered marriage.
I am not disagreeing with your opinion on device level age verification. I am interested in what you think we should do to protect kids online. There has been a lot of talk about this being the wrong way to do that but very little discussion on what other methods we could do.
Would you be opposed to a “this computer is used by a child” checkbox and just that true/false would be passed to apps?
Most of them are also owned by a single company. Match Group inc. Some of the more notable ones are:
As well as most of the _ People Meet apps. Ie:
So it is no coincidence that these apps suck.
Anyone have a mirror link to the original petition? The official site is not working for me.
I don’t think that will happen given the strongly held beliefs each side has as well as the polarization in this country.
It also does not help that there are politicians and news organizations out there that are happy to throw more fuel on the fire, driving a wedge deeper between two groups.
That only bans the use of anthropic for government use. So no government entities or contractors could use it. We already do this for some other companies. BOD 17-01
Edit. Granted what they are doing for anthropic is slightly different since it is an executive order not a BOD.