I envy you. Most of us struggle to get the resources to make our actual customer facing applications resilient, let alone our build pipeline.

Building your software usually involves getting dependencies, & those dependencies are, hopefully, in more than one location—which includes a cronjob to a bare repo, or Alice’s fork on another repo that at least has the latest tags. It should be trivial to point to these as mirrors for the cases where any forge/repository, even the ones held by megacorporations, inevitably go down. Even Nixpkgs itself, while not maintaining their own official mirrors, are mirrored by TUNA. Backups are an important strategy, & the source code should also be a part of that.

Because the number of people that care about this is so low that it doesn't affect their sales.

That doesn't explain why they wouldn't want to get rid of HDMI to avoid paying patent fees for it. Adding USB 4 / DP to their TVs is a major step in that direction.

It's not ID based so why would they need fake ID?

> This only protects 90% (made up number) of children so it's a joke.

To suggest this protects children at all is the real joke.

Are you saying there is no harm to children, especially girls using social media or are you saying it will not protect enough of them?

Correct, in fact I strongly assert the benefit of being able to communicate with a global audience and participate early in the information economy far outweighs any alleged and poorly-articulated harm from the same.

'participate early in the information economy' is one way of putting it

Exempting what in my experience are the places where children are the most likely to interact with strangers make it a joke.

> Ban kids

yep, done

> implement identity verification checks

nope, not done so what's your point?

How are kids banned without an ID check?

>>> Companies have told Canberra they will deploy a mix of age inference - estimating a user's age from their behaviour - and age estimation based on a selfie, alongside checks that could include uploaded identification documents.

An algorithmic bouncer guesses your age and if he isn't happy you have to feed him proof until he is happy.

That sounds like ID is going to be required, at least eventually. Either that or kids are not actually banned.

Check out the article.

Oh, I was reading it and stopped at a full-page ad I thought was the end. Looking again, it goes on to mention enforcement, but it's still vague.

not yet

My belief is that late stage capitalism pushes democracies to fascism and the overton window requires politicians to break-up unpopular changes into a smaller changes. I am prognosticating why politicians would pretend to care about the mental health of children.

"Late stage capitalism" is a term used by socialists to describe the period immediately before N̵o̵s̵t̵r̵a̵d̵.. er Marx's glorious socialist revolution.

Predicting it will lead to fascism instead is... humorous.

> Kids not being informed about the war crimes

Interesting to frame this as a bad thing. As a parent, I would take that as a feature, not a bug. To me this is very suspicious why there seem to be so many people here, who I am assuming are mostly adults, advocating so strongly strongly for <16 olds told be on social media, as if it was something they need.

Haha or a person who's been around lots of children of all ages.

An under 16 year old not seeing the social media version of war crimes is a good thing. And that's the upper limit of the age range of this ban.

The “social media version of war crimes” is just .. war crimes.

15 - 16 year olds will grow up to inherit the war crimes of their state. The liabilities of the state are the responsibility of every single citizen.

And, let us not forget, that a government is always and only ever held accountable to its citizens if those citizens are well informed.

“Protecting children” is one thing. But a state that feels the need to defend itself from children - by mass murdering them at scale - is another thing entirely. Let us also not forget that the Australian government is a wholesale violator of human rights, and has committed genocide and participated in heinous war crimes with impunity, pretty much since its inception. This is a nation which was still practicing forced sterilization of cultures its ruling classes deemed inferior, well into the 1980’s. This is a nation that literally got away with the modern worlds’ first genocide.

That state of affairs is never going to change if there are a generation of bootlickers, raised by the state, to never question the state.

There will be a generation of Australians, in 3 or 4 years time, who will either strongly resist the totalitarian-authoritarian actions of their state - or they’ll participate in them.

How come ad supported TV existed for decades without destroying children's mental health?

The algorithms create the engagement, the engagement lures in the ads, not the other way around, at least that's what I think right now.

>How come ad supported TV existed for decades without destroying children's mental health?

Well, there's at least a few reasons this is different than the current situation.

1) It's expensive to make a TV show, it's free to do a fortnite dance or eat a tide pod and post it to several websites. The amount of low-effort, low-quality, probably-harmful content on TikTok or whatever is exponentially more than low-effort, low-quality, probably-harmful TV shows/ads.

2) The availability is on completely different scales. TVs are (basically) fixed in a specific place. Phones are, for most people, within arms reach 24/7.

3) What can be shown on TV is significantly more regulated in most parts of the world, and control mechanisms by governments are more robust (pull a broadcast license, etc.). It's harder to take a website (or TikTok, whatever) offline than it is to pull a harmful show/advert off of HGTV or whatever your favorite channel is.

4) TV is not specifically tailored to the viewer to produce the most amount of happy chemical.

Well arguably TV did destroy people's brains, just a lot slower and less efficiently.

And in fairness, dosage is the difference between a painkiller an a heroin addiction.

It's worth noting that this was a pretty active debate as TVs were going from one in the household to one in every room. "We don't want to put a TV in our kids' room, it'll rot their brains." And there was research to back up that it had a negative effect to some degree.

So why are we surprised that when we put a TV in the kids' hands things got even worse? Meta testified on the stand recently that they're not a social media company anymore, they're now all about video. Tiktok is the new TV. Every app wants to Tiktokify. The money from TV, just pushing an endless stream of video to someone, is very good.

I pretty much agree with this.

We were able to go back to one TV in the house (at least I was), and even avoid a big chunk of the ads when watching TV (by paying for Netflix/etc) and even radio (Spotify/etc).

Except we now we put a garbage TV in every hand.

It's a terrible idea because it's a tiny screen; because it's not a shared experience, but an isolating one; because it's been proven that it's bad for eyesight/myopia. But most of all, it's terrible because the content is crap.

Spending hours watching a never ending sequence of low effort 2min videos that need to deliver on the first 30s (or they're skipped) is not the way to make anyone smarter/saner.

"Do you or a loved one suffer from an abundance of brain cells? Speak to your doctor today about whether The Jersey Shore might be right for you!"

In Australia TV is very commonly referred to as “the idiot box”.

Australians are very aware that it destroys people’s brains.

> How come ad supported TV existed for decades without destroying children's mental health?

I would argue that it did, we just did a poor job of measuring it.

Anecdotally, during my childhood I moved from a place that had very little TV advertising to a place with a normal amount and it had a noticeable impact.

TV programming has to broadly appeal to society generally... you can't really go down a niche algorithm that progressively feeds you more specific content until you're radicalized any certain way (it can sorta, see conservative media, but there are some guardrails). Social media can with much less restriction.

Im sure the wealthy find a way to socialize these “losses”.

Also what a shit headline. There’s no wealth destroyed, it’s all just numbers go up and down. But until you sell you haven’t lost any money, have you?

But truly, is not red in the brokerage accounts of the wealthy the greatest social ill of our time?

Without buying and selling, there is no change in price. Obviously, wealth will therefore be destroyed - just not that of buy-and-hold people.

I have no sympathy for the uber-wealthy, but claiming no one's wealth will be affected is ridiculous.

The way I think about it is that it'll affect those most that are the most greedy, those that are exposed to the most risky "products". If your wealth is in bonds or something else boring, won't this be a non event?

I'm not convinced it's not someone in the background choosing wrong (greed) that's the problem.

Maybe a distinction without a difference. If my "numbers go down" it follows that so does my spending, investing, etc.

You're right. I guess it depends on many variables. If you're income depends on dividends and gradually selling offs of your portfolio, I can see now how that would affect my behavior. Same with being someone close to retirement but then, financial planning should have pulled out high volatile stocks from a portfolio that needs to get converted to cash shortly.

If you're a normal person, planning on buying and holding broad market ETFs for the next 20 years, we're just gonna ride it out, right? Right?

Not familiar with wired. Is this an ad? Reads like a “review” but there is a “buy now” button, permanently covering about 25% of the bottom of the screen.

Wired is the online remnant of a once-popular computer magazine. Like any industry mag, it makes most of its money from ads, so its reviews should always be viewed with this in mind.

From TFA last paragraph

> Ultimately, if you already have the second-generation Scribe, I don't think you need to upgrade.... you might as well upgrade to a reMarkable tablet.... a pretty big investment for a still-limited device.... neither of them would be my go-to pick.

Don't think reviewers are getting paid to shill for Amazon.

If you look at the query parameters of the Amazon links you can see that they are affiliate links. It might be more or less an honest review but they do earn money from it.

We’ve discovered the review that says the thing is bad, is actually an ad for the thing, because the buy link has an affiliate code.

Am I understanding you right?

I feel like we have stumbled into a classic HN tarpit, where people try justifying something obviously wrong by adding one observation and implying it can be twisted into one segment of the obviously wrong thing.

It’s a tarpit, because as soon as I point out this doesn’t change anything, you can either point out you were just observing or claim some other claim was what was being implied

I don't think magazines using affiliate links necessarily makes a review unbiased. Recommended or not, if someone buys it from them they may as well make a cut.

That said, many of these type of articles are just thinly veiled paid advertorials.

Nothing wrong with ads in the correct context, a good part of why we bought print computer magazines was to look at them as well as the articles.

That's not correct; Wired still produces a print edition every other month.

So you’re not familiar with Wired (!?), and think this is an ad, along with a side of review-in-scare quotes? “you might as well upgrade to a reMarkable tablet.... a pretty big investment for a still-limited device.... neither of them would be my go-to pick”

And you’ve been on HN 15 years, just like me?

Something tells me you’re cranky this morning and trolling a bit

The day I trashed my huge collection of WIRED print mags, including that one Y2K dark glossy cover, was a sad day

I still bemoan selling the first couple of years of issues to someone on ebay. I needed to get the stuff out of the basement, but feels like I should have kept them just for the technology history lessons.

I'm still looking for the very early Wired issue that has an ad that goes something like "they laughed at you when you were growing up because you were different. now they wear a uniform with their name on it. and you don't."

Wired used to be more popular here, they aren't as they used to be it feels like, but it was basically a primary source of tech news for many of us.

16 years on HN, and enough karma to indicate that you regularly participate, but never heard of Wired magazine, huh?

Do those folks make more than minimum wage?

And becoming a nurse isn’t something you switch to after being underpaid as a barista. It’s a career with real training.

I do not see why a barista cannot do “real” training and switch to working as a nurse.