I'd much rather a third party ID that I can easily bypass because they're lazy and cost saving every step of the way, than a governmental ID which will be x100 harder to bypass and can be abused by the goverment whenever there's a man-child in power who likes going after groups of people who don't agree with him.
But in a perfect world it would be parents doing their job and parenting. You can grab your child's pad, phone, laptop, whatever, and black list the entire internet allowing only a few select white lists of your choice. But it's too hard to educate parents on how to do that I guess, assuming this was ever about children and not data collection, which it is that.
I don't care if it's a human, a chatbot, or a dog if they fix my problem.
I don't want to contact customer support in the first place, if I'm forced to, it's because something is very wrong and in that case I don't want to be listening to elevator music and "your call is important to us, please hold" for an hour, and get my call disconnected forcing me to call again.
Issue is that I've yet to have a chatbot actually fix my issues, or most 1st contact human operators for that matter.
This comes from the same EU that's wholeheartedly embracing gambling across their member states, gambling mind you that children can just as easily jump into with their phones and some will, but devastating for grown-ups just as much.
They're not alone in this by any means, America has also opened their doors for all forms of gambling like Kalshi which now even sponsors news networks of all things.
The EU has this disconnect with the things they push, which makes sense considering their size and the speed at which it moves. One example that comes to mind is how they're both pushing for more privacy online while also pushing for things such as chat control which is antithetical to privacy.
Does social media need regulating? Yeah. Is infinite scrolling where they should be focusing? Probably not, there's more important aspects that should be tackled and are seemingly ignored.
Every member state has its own laws for it, and AFAIK all of them now regulate (or ban) online gambling more or less.
There were many startups here in Sweden in the early '00s, and I believe they had taken advantage of a legal loophole which has since been plugged. Regulation has tightened. Players have to be 18 y/o, use digital ID and not be registered as a gambling addict. But I still find the industry to be depraved, to be honest.
In Spain I can’t even have a meal at a restaurant, get groceries or go to IKEA without someone trying to sell me lottery tickets. They really need to regulate that.
Allowing something isn't the same as enforcing it to be allowed. If there's regulation, like with ending roaming charges between countries, then it's required to be followed simultaneously across the EU. If there's a directive, like the Working Time Directive, goals of legislation are set out and each member state is required to introduce legislation that implements it. There's also decisions (for one country for one issue), recommendations and opinions (obviously non binding).
There's also the Court of Justice which is the highest court, but only in EU matters. National courts can refer cases to it, or the commission/member states can bring cases against other member states, if they believe they are not following EU law. This would mean either they are not following a regulation, or that the state has not fully/correctly implemented a directive into their own national laws.
As I understand it, there's no specific regulation or directive aimed at gambling itself. There's things tangentially related (data protection, anti money laundering etc). But since there's no regulation or directive saying "gambling must be allowed", there's nothing stopping a member state banning it completely if they so wish.
The only point in which the EU might step in would be if the law was somehow discriminatory or inconsistent (e.g. we ban all foreign gambling sites, but not our own, we ban lottery tickets but not state run casinos, etc).
Germany has regulated it, (though states have slightly different regulations, some states even allowing online gambling, some banning all except the government run lottery).
Technically no, because EU directives aren't applied as written. They're goals for member states to make into national laws, which intentionally leaves them some leeway.
However, national law must reasonably satisfy EU directives, otherwise CJEU could determine that a member state is infringing EU law and fine them until they amend their law.
It also doesn't matter. It doesn't feel like it, but Win11 released almost 5 years ago (October 5, 2021) and there's already rumors of a Win12 in the near future.
We're way past the "release issues" phase and into the "it's pure incompetence" phase.
Oh wow, I hadn't even paid any attention to that. To me Windows 11 was released on October 1, 2024, when the LTSC version came out, and is roughly when I upgraded my gaming PC to the said LTSC build from the previous Windows 10 LTSC build.
You can block the entire internet and whitelist specific domains. There's multiple ways of doing this, from router parental controls, specific OS tools in iOS/Android, Windows, as well as apps specific to it, and all it takes is for a parent to care enough to make a simple Google or Youtube search and learn if they don't know, and don't even know to know that they should care in the first place.
The failure here is two-sided.
One and the most glaring are the parents who let devices raise their children, this hasn't changed since before home computers were a thing.
Secondly it's a failure of the state for not educating both adults and teenagers on best practices when using online platforms to be safe. If they're interested enough in policing people's web habits, they can spend time and resources on educating the masses. The best time to start doing it was 20 years ago, the second best is now and it could take a decade plus for it to have a meaningful impact.
Also this is important. The UK, like it or not, is a nanny state. They like to use child safety as an excuse to police adult habits, and more important their speech. There's quite a few times they've admitted to this plainly without any ambiguity.
"The Online Safety Act 2023 (the Act) is a new set of laws that protects children and adults online"
There's also examples of them being asked directly in interviews and they admit to wanting to police adults speech and content they consume online.
Australia is in a similar predicament and honestly most of the world is rolling towards this, just not as fast as the UK.
The UK unfortunately has incarcerated people for simply lifting cardboard signs saying Free Palestine. They've jailed people for innocuous social media posts on Facebook and other platforms.
I'm not proud of the USA for a lot of reasons, especially lately, but one thing that any and all Americans should be proud of is their Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment, it's the most American thing and one of the best aspects of America that other countries should aspire to, and I hope that the jabs Freedom of Speech has taken over the past decade doesn't make it crumble away.
In the UK all mobile phones default to no adult content on the mobile networks, if you want to access adult content you need to request it with the mobile network provider. They could have gone the same route with consumer internet access. Most ISP supplied routers support content blocking, it could have been turned on by default with a simple update pushed by the ISP.
Kids here in the UK get educated about online safety in school, schools have sessions for parents covering this stuff too. My own kids have had age appropriate internet access all their lives, its not been difficult to control it, we have had the tools and knowledge for years.
This stuff really isn't about child safety in my opinion.
Does router setting spply when the child is at school and using data? I do not think so. So you need to have the averager parent setup DNS records and probably pay some subscription to soem people doing the filtering?
It is not easy, if there was just a simple toggle and iOS/Android would ask the parent what kind of religious extremist or prude they are and then do the filtering then sure, but you want a parent to know what a router is, or DNS, or buy some subscriptions for some big tech app?
I agree that parents should do the filtering, but I think big tech should cooperate here, for example I could allow my young child on a PlayStation since Sony did ask the age of the account user and did apply filters in the store and chats.
But what is your objection? Is it really, REALY to much to ask for the Os to ask the birthday of the account user and then the browser to set the appropriate age range flag in the requests? Then the websites can deny the requests instead of the "Are you over 18" popup? Is that too expensive? too dificult? is it too communist?
>The Uk could force the OS to have that toggle instead of censoring the internet
I know, and my point is if Big Tech would have added that toggle (or add it now before even more countries or USA states make more laws with different requierments ), made it easy to setup when you turn on a device for the first time to give it to your child then you could tell the politicians that the solution exists already. Now using the think of the children some governments will implement more invasive laws.
It's not even that big of a leap. We've seen a off-duty ICE agent drunk driving his child, getting stopped by the cops, implied threats to one of the officers for being black with payback, spent the whole time saying "come on man" using his position as a federal officer as a way to get out of trouble, and ends to the point that I wanted to make, complained about his and I quote "bitch ex-wife" for divorcing him.
What is stopping this lowlife from going after his ex-wife, or one of those cops by using databases that they have access to? We know from journalists going through the process that there's no curation or training involved to join ICE specifically.
But this goes beyond them. We know that cops can be corrupt to, we know politicians can be corrupt to, what is stopping any of these people from using private data to not only go after their spouses, but also business rivals, and people who slight them?
Depends where, I think. Where your neighbors are mostly honorable, it mostly works. There are plenty of nice neighborhoods, and no shortage of bad ones either, sadly.
That assumes that the people who enforce the law want good people to be police officers, and that has never been the case. It is certainly not the case with our current ICE officers.
It doesn't assume anything. It's literally what's happening right now. All of your neighbors don't want to steal all of your stuff. Think about the fact that this is only true in certain places, regardless of what laws exist. Laws have very little effect on criminal behavior. Your peers being cool people are all that really protects your safety and your property.
Sounds like the solution to crime is therefore to mitigate the factors that precipitate it. If people steal in order to meet their basic needs, then providing basic housing and medical care to all should see a reduction in crime.
You can subscribe to our GeForce NOW service to rent a top of the line card through our cloud service for the low low price of 11€$£ or 22€$£ a month with *almost no restrictions.
I just bought a 5070 Ti a week ago and can attest I have used it for maybe 3-4 hours since then. It begs the question maybe I should have rented the compute instead instead of paying 900 eur on spot - that's like 3 years worth of rent.
If the compute is the unit of value under consideration, maybe. But there's more - you have access, freedom from supervision, the capability to modify, upgrade, tweak, adjust anything you want, resell compute under p2p cloud services when idle, etc. And then if the market for these gets hot, you can sell and recoup your initial costs and then some. The freedom and opportunity benefit - as opposed to the dependence and opportunity cost of renting - is where I personally think you come out on top.
The correct calculation is not 900€/36 months but (900€-$resell_value)/36 months. If you sell your GPU for 450€ after three years you saved a good bit of money. If the AI bubble doesn't pop, your resale value might even be a good bit higher than that. I've had a used 1080TI that I used for five years and then sold for nearly the same price, making it effectively free (minus electricity use and opportunity cost)
Even if you don't resell it, at the end of the three years you still have a GPU that you can keep using, or gift, or whatever. After three years of renting, you have nothing.
And what about the extra energy consumption of the RTX 5070 TI vs. a iGPU? If you go GPU cloud then you can save on energy as well in your PC. Less energy means also less noise by the way.
To get an idea, if you go gaming via cloud then fast internet + office PC or Laptop is enough. So you save way more than the GPU only in a proper comparison.
This is why I play consoles only. I can play games for years without ever changing HW and save tons of money compared to my PC gaming times.
Currently after 3 years the price of the GPU if you decide to sell it might be a wash, much like it was after the crypto boom. Granted you have to pay for electricity to run it, but you also have full control over what it runs.
I think that's comparing to 3 years of GeForce Now at ~22EUR/month for the Ultimate plan, for a total of ~800 EUR. For someone using in 3h/week then you might as well go for the free plan and pay nothing. But renting has while owning can only have financial cost, renting has a hidden cost on top of that. It leads to "atrophy" of the ownership right and once you lose that option you'll never get it back. That will have incalculable costs.
They've just recently been able to reverse engineer ASML's EUV machines. They're years and years behind, although the way things are moving forward with hardware prices skyrocketing (RAM, SSD, GPUs...) regular consumer won't have much choice in anything anyway for a while.
So at a rough guess would that be expected to put them on the equivalent of TSMC 7 nm a few years from now?
I wonder if a bunch of consumer electronics will move back to something like 12 nm for a while? Seems like there's a lot of capacity in that range. Zen 2 wasn't so bad, right?
But in a perfect world it would be parents doing their job and parenting. You can grab your child's pad, phone, laptop, whatever, and black list the entire internet allowing only a few select white lists of your choice. But it's too hard to educate parents on how to do that I guess, assuming this was ever about children and not data collection, which it is that.
reply