Pass a law that requires devices and software to support a per-device or per user account 'child' or 'minor' flag. The flag must be lockable with a password or another account. Pass a law that mandates that websites and content handle the flag appropriately, whether that means denying service or limiting access.
This would protect children while only minimally infringing on privacy.
The mechanism by which we make everyone 'just' is laws. The laws that are being passed are telling of the actual goals.
Apt username. I already have to deal with non-functional wifi because of frequency band restrictions. And instead of buying physical media (or streaming), I have to "pirate" content because of DRM.
Any hardware or software that disobeys the user is useless for the user. It just becomes a tool for power grabs.
It's fine if it's opt-in until the opt-in becomes opt-out and I get to use my old gear until it dies. That would still be fine with me except for the fact that my income and by extension wife and family depend on me using a computer. That would still be fine if somehow we could escape this system and still have food and shelter but that won't fly with the healthcare system we depend on.
I didn't see how one (admin) account setting a flag on another account could be anything but opt-in. It's really unclear to me what you're worried about, the whole world getting put onto child accounts or something? I don't think a law that bans the vast majority of online commerce would get any support, among other reasons.
I too think this is likely the only workable solution. My bias is the OS/ecosystem layer is the right place to handle access to the digital world.
However as digital access becomes more and more essential to doing anything in life, this makes the layer even more load bearing, so I wish to see a legal framework for privacy/security as well as appeals process for the painful edge cases where people get locked out for whatever reason. That problem is even harder.
There is a simple and better way to do this, which is device-wide age status attestation. That is, the whole device or user account has a 'minor' flag set, and passes it on to software, and so on.
Governments are not pushing for this because this is not about protecting children, it is about removing privacy and increasing control.
In reality, losing the nsfw content was certain death, but losing the app would have just been a downsizing. Maybe not even a major one - platforms are sticky as hell. I think most people would happily use the browser.
Now if you go out of your way to make your browser experience dogshit, like Patreon... Then yeah, losing the app store is very bad.
'the supplements aren't very good' would be believable - a quick glance at the market shows a whole lot of fish oil supplements that provide low amounts of Omega 3s in large amounts of fish oil. Look closer, and you realize a bunch of them are rancid too.
There are actually a whole bunch of good medium to dark roasts out there, but third wave coffee is hip and has been for a while.
If you like Starbucks beans, you'd probably like a better dark roast. Try Lavazza. Coffee snobs will look down on it, but they're highly consistent like Starbucks while offering more variety and more flavor. Lavazza Super Crema makes a pretty nice espresso and is cheap relative to high-end coffees.
Ehh, who cares what the snobs think? Drink what you like! I've been experimenting with coffee for like 2 years, and have found myself really enjoying dark roasted stuff (as well as lighter stuff!)
The truth is, you can get a really fruity single-origin bean but as soon as it goes into a latte, typically you've lost 99% of the origin characteristics. It gets a bit wasteful and expensive. Cafes typically go for house roasts that lean darker, and I can see why: they just work better in milk!
A real, actual doctor told my brother, who has a chronic headache disorder, to just keep taking OTC painkillers.
You very specifically should not do that; you'll develop a medication overuse headache and be worse off than you were.
It gets worse, though. I was able to ask them a few questions about their symptoms, compare them to entries in the International Classification of Headache Disorders, and narrow it down to, iirc, two likely possibilities.
One of them was treatable. The treatment works. They still have pain, but can do stuff.
An AI that makes stuff up and gets stuff wrong isn't any different from the doctors we already have, except you can afford to get a second opinion, and you have the time available to push back and ask questions.
Edit: to expound on quality of the doctor - diagnosis and proposing a treatment was the work of several hours for me, a layman. A doctor should have known the ICHD existed. They should have been able to, in several minutes, ask questions about symptoms, reference the ICHD to narrow down likely diagnoses, and then propose a treatment with a "come back if that doesn't help".
My thought would be that the game mechanics essentially constitute a contract regarding what you and others can do with your in-game property. Something would only be a crime if it's outside of those terms.
So far, the following has worked OK for me as a custom prompt for ChatGPT.
```Minimize compliments.
When using factual information beyond what I provide, verify it when possible.
Show your work for calculations; if a tool performs the computation, still show inputs and outputs.
Review calculations for errors before presenting results.
Review arguments for logical fallacies.
Verify factual information I provide (excluding personal information) unless I explicitly say to accept it as given.
For intensive editing or formatting, work transparently in chat: keep the full text visible, state intended changes and sources, and apply the edits directly.```
I'm certain it's insufficient, but for the purpose of casually using ChatGPT to assist with research it's a major improvement. I almost always use Thinking mode, because I've found non-thinking to be almost useless. There are rare exceptions.
'Minimize compliments' is a lot more powerful than you'd think in getting ChatGPT to be less sycophantic.
The parts about calculation work okay. It's an improvement over defaults, but you should still verify.
It's better at working with text, but still fucks it up a lot.
The instructions about handling factual information work very well. It will push back on my or its own claims if they're unsupported. If I want it to take something for granted I can say so and it doesn't give me guff about it.
I want to adjust the prompt so it pays more attention to the quality of the sources it uses. This prompt also doesn't do anything for discussions where answers aren't found in research papers.
It's not that you need to ask it to be honest, it's that the defaults are kind of stupid and obnoxiously sycophantic. ChatGPT is also prone to getting stuck on particular ideas. If you're using the vanilla personalities without a custom prompt, not aware of and working against its issues, and not starting new chats occasionally you won't get good results. You'll get good-sounding garbage.
Part of my custom prompt is
```When using factual information beyond what I provide, verify it when possible.
When researching factual questions—especially by relying on papers and studies—actively look for null findings, negative results, and contradictory evidence, not just positive or confirmatory findings.```
To me, the most interesting result of that part of my prompt is that in thinking mode, it ends up re-checking it's assumptions and sources fairly often. It's not about honesty, but correctness.
A custom prompt isn't the be-all end-all either. The right kind of questioning is important, and you also need to get a fresh context when you ask new questions or if you want to double check something.
This would protect children while only minimally infringing on privacy.
The mechanism by which we make everyone 'just' is laws. The laws that are being passed are telling of the actual goals.
reply