Actually, we don't stop kids from buying cigarettes, we punish stores that sell cigarettes to kids and are caught! That's my entire point! You just made my argument for me!
And the store does not use facial recognition and/or checking id to know if the potential buyer is a kid ?
The only (huge) difference for me is the scale of the verification and how data are stored.
> And the store does not use facial recognition and/or checking id to know if the potential buyer is a kid?
They can just not serve cigarettes. In addition I think it's also insane to compare cigarettes, which are purely negative, to free internet usage which is massively net positive.
Despite the headline, does this law actually punish the children if they are caught with social media accounts? Or is the burden on the social media providers?
> From one point of view, for a work of art to be considered algorithmic art, its creation must include a process based on an algorithm devised by the artist. An artist may also select parameters and interact as the composition is generated. Here, an algorithm is simply a detailed recipe for the design and possibly execution of an artwork […]
Creating art by AI certainly also uses an algorithm to some extent but it cannot be said to have devised that algorithm and arguably also not to clearly define all parameters to the algorithm.
To summarize, a Jon Seager from Canonical says it’s for safety and resilience.
> Performance is a frequently cited rationale for “Rewrite it in Rust” projects. While performance is high on my list of priorities, it’s not the primary driver behind this change. These utilities are at the heart of the distribution - and it’s the enhanced resilience and safety that is more easily achieved with Rust ports that are most attractive to me.
> 2fa using an app that exists on the same device -- a second factor that secures nothing
2FA on the same device secures against your login credentials becoming known to another party, e.g. by fishing, password reuse, database leaks, etc., which are real threats. It is not meant to protect against someone being in possession or full control of your unlocked device, which is of course also a real threat, though possibly less common.
I always thought there should be a magnet to attract dust. Apparently it takes a "miniature wormhole that warps space-time around it" to pull that off:
Thank you! It always was astounding to me how people could argue with so much vigor and conviction that something as complicated as the immune system could not possibly be affected by something as basic as temperature changes.
Well, not to be too obvious, but people do not pay for news anymore, they expect news to be free on Google or social media. Hence firing of journalists, loss of quality everywhere. Less money, less quality.
Can you provide a transcript or a quote to support your claim that Dr K "only says psychedelics can be dangerous if you already have PTSD"?
Here is the passage that I think is relevant to whether people should do hallucinogens. (I was mistaken earlier when I claimed the passage was about LSD specifically.)
>substances like psilocybin fracture our sense of self -- and that can be traumatic and dangerous by the way and leave people with PTSD, which is why I don't recommend you do it
It is an aside in the middle of another sentence. Here the same passage with more context (specifically, everything said from 7:10 to the end of the video):
>the focus of your mind is on "I". You are the object of your attention. [Dr K looks at the chat stream] OK? Like anxiety, yes. [Dr K stops looking at the chat stream] Then what happens -- so, when this person says, this person on the reddits says, you know, "I actually think that self-awareness is the problem," they are absolutely right because their self-awareness is their default-mode network being highly active. Then we can look at neuroscience papers, and what we discover is that substances like psilocybin fracture our sense of self -- and that can be traumatic and dangerous by the way and leave people with PTSD, which is why I don't recommend you do it -- fractures the sense of self, but when you stu -- when that sense of self gets fractured, you are no longer stuck thinking about yourself, and when you are no longer stuck thinking about yourself, this problem of over-self-awareness goes away, and people get better in terms of depression. Does that make sense?
Because they take a vote? I am not sure what you are hinting at here. I see some people who take a unanimous vote. They seem to be in agreement about an issue, maybe it was uncontroversial and they wanted to move on? What should we see here instead in your opinion?
reply