Knowingly saying something false. I wouldn’t consider omitting information to be lying. Maybe in some contexts it is but for a lawyer that seems too stringent
To your point, in the UK and Australia you can now literally get jail time for saying some pro-Palestinian slogans. So certainly there has a cultural and sometimes legal shift towards not tolerating opposing viewpoints and it is not healthy. That said this behaviour is not limited the right. The left is not very tolerant of opposing viewpoints either
I remember my second grade teacher saying that stars aren’t actually suns, they are just specs of light in the sky, and they don’t get much bigger once you get close up to them. In hindsight I’m baffled that someone with such a simplistic worldview actually managed to meet the educational requirements for being a teacher.
Yeah I’ve heard of similar systems in Europe. It’s similar to two factor authentication. Hopefully something like this could also screen out bots, making influence campaigns more difficult. But regardless, however its implemented I hope it will be easy for not-for-profit operating systems (such as linux distros) to operate
Including an age flag field in user data on Linux is fairly trivial, and I’ve seen several proposals for it
What would these systems look like? Im curious.
My concern is that, even if these systems are technically possible, the law will settle on using lucky inefficient methods of age verification such as using AI to scan someone’s face.
OS age verification would effectively make some, if not most, linux distributions (or other less-popular operating systems) illegal. Because many linux distributions are made by small team of volunteers. In some cases a linux distribution might be maintained by literally one person. So these people likely do not have the time or money to include something like age verification into the operating system.
That said, there are some technically possible ways where this could be done to reduce the load on developers (perhaps with access codes, and a government maintained database) but the way age verification had is being done right now (face scanning, etc) would be a real headache to implement and quite possibly cost or time prohibitive.
It would be a shame if age verification laws effectively made open source operating systems illegal. It would suck if these laws inadvertently made it legally required that we need to support big tech companies like Apple or Microsoft in order to use a computer.
Yeah. The DSM isn’t the final word here. Obviously any superstimulus will have extreme addictive potential. There’s no reason why pornography would be any different than, say, junk food in this regard.
Not only this, as much as I love him due to him being family, I don’t love his views.
First off, I want to tell you that this is OK, even if it’s hard. I know plenty of people who hold similar views to your dad. Some of them I love very much even though I strongly disagree with their politics.
I think it’s important to emphasize this. People on the internet can be quick to demonize others. But OP is 15. What good is there in trying to create a divide between a 15 year old and his grandpa? There is none, not in this situation, anyway.
Besides, if we’re being honest, most of our grandparents have questionable views. There’s a massive generational gap there, and a lot of social progress has occurred since our grandparents were young. And in old age, people often just don’t have the cognitive flexibility required to adapt to these changes. And there comes a point when it might not even be worth trying to change them because they might literally just not be capable.
Being the one crucial vote is a hell of a lot of leverage.
Yeah, by being the tiebreakers the NDP was in a position of power. But not anymore, with this floor crossing. So I don’t understand this. The NDP could have still helped Carney out where they felt it appropriate
Right now it's monkeys. I used to think monkeys were gross and disturbing in an uncanny valley sort of way, so humanlike but not human at the same time.
I agree with you that it’s monkeys. Thats why this image is my profile pic.
It’s a selfie taken of a monkey. IIRC it became a precedent setting case in copyright law, because the owner of the camera tried to claim ownership over the photo. The issue was that you need to actually take the picture to own the it. But the guy didn’t take the photo; the money took the photo. And monkeys cannot own property, under the law. So the image became public domain. Here’s the Wikipedia page on the case
Not to sound too utilitarian about it, but less people die the day after they add an hour, too, so though more people die after going back an hour the losses cancel out
Just want to note that physicalism =/= atheism. There are theistic physicalists (eg Thomas Hobbes) and non-physicalist atheists (eg David Chalmers). Atheism is the belief that there is no God. Physicalism is the belief that reality is made up of entirely physical stuff. The two viewpoints are not necessarily related.
Knowingly saying something false. I wouldn’t consider omitting information to be lying. Maybe in some contexts it is but for a lawyer that seems too stringent