Only business that would require an ID/Age Verification check, but yeah. Except they don’t want to hold actual websites liable. They want to hold ISP’s liable.

There’s literally no way to know if the people using the VPN’s are located in Utah. So this law would be unenforceable against actual websites.

It might possibly be enforceable against ISP’s but the problem is, once you fire up a VPN your ISP can only see you entry point and maybe that there is a Volume of traffic going to and from your device. They can’t see what websites you visit (provided your VPN is properly configured).

I also don’t understand how this bill could effectively lay any blame against the websites for knowing you use a VPN because they also can’t see any of that information. They know that you visited and from a specific IP “located” in “place” and they can either assume that the use of a VPN means you’re in Utah (very unlikely), or they can assume you’re not (more likely given the population that lives outside Utah).

Not web sites. Service providers. They mean ISPs. They aren’t holding pornhub liable if you use a VPN and are located in Utah.

The law is also technically flawed, given that it assumes that a web provider can reliably detect VPN traffic and determine a user’s true physical location — they can’t. IP reputation databases such as MaxMind and IP2Proxy can flag traffic from known datacenter IP ranges, but commercial VPN providers rotate addresses constantly, and residential VPN endpoints are largely indistinguishable from standard home connections. Autonomous System Number analysis can catch traffic originating from datacenter networks, but can’t identify a personal WireGuard tunnel running on a cloud VPS, for example, which routes through the same infrastructure as ordinary web hosting.

I think what it does (my take from the outside looking in) is rob people of context. Sometimes that context is extremely important and without it even the best answers can cause flaws and failures.

The one good thing about going to a website and reading an article is that you get context that helps you understand the concept not just the answer you were looking for.

The context is how we learn. It’s how we build on basic understanding. It’s also how we vet information for factualness.

I believe this is why people see a decline in their skillset when they use AI LLM’S in place of their own skills. Every time you use a skill you refine it. Don’t use it and in a lot of cases you will lose it.

I just want to try this for the lulz.

The idea of traveling anywhere near half the speed of mach 1 with a window that opens is terrifying on its face, I will admit.

I’m just gonna say aircraft are often made of class D fire materials and if a fire breaks out that fire is often self sustaining. Those windows open so the pilot has an evacuation route in the event they can’t leave via the door to the flight deck.

It does.

Not exactly roll down. The window opens on a roll lock mechanism that slides inward and then aft.

I think my first might have been alta vista.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Join a lobby. Start a lobby. It’s not just tech Bros that can do this. Anyone can and should lobby for what they want. The difference between you and a tech bro millionaire is that they are organized.

I took the headline to mean the critics of the law were saying they don’t want teachers to be allowed to have cell phones on the job. I wonder if a lot of the commenters here took it the exact opposite way (teachers and students should be allowed to have cell phones, rather than teachers and students should both be banned from having cell phones in schools).

I think that may be where the crisscross is.

You’re asking a bunch of people with different backgrounds and social norms (and neurodivergences) to answer your questions. You got an answer that is pretty factually correct, backed by reliable sources and your main arguments against it are:

1. It was caustic and it made me feel bad.
2. I think this person might be speaking from a bubble and therefore their view of things can’t be accurate.

These reactions did make it seem like you were going to disregard this information regardless of what lip service you paid to the people who said don’t disregard it.

While I can appreciate that the answer didn’t start off diplomatic, the bulk of it is factually correct and actually pretty well represented.

If you are ever in a room asking questions and you only receive diplomatic answers you can be pretty positive you aren’t getting the full scope of facts or opinions.

This would be easier than banning VPNs wholesale.

“Designed to prevent bypassing age checks by people who don’t understand the technology they are trying to regulate” more at 11.

Legislators should be required to understand technology or consult experts in the field before they enact legislation. This is a waste of tax payer dollars and I’m not even sure it’s enforceable.

I just wanted to make sure I understood the context. At first glance I had no idea what was going on. A ferry was the only thing I could think of that made sense.

Is this for a ferry ride?

If my tax dollars are paying for it then I deserve to see it. This is public. I don’t have a choice but to be surveilled so they shouldn’t have a choice but to make it public.

That’s specifically why I said something.

No offense meant but I don’t have a Bluesky and I don’t go there. I also have no idea if I’m supposed to have seen this video and so on.

The baseline of the joke is basically “tech oligarchs are aliens or machines” which is a well known and kind of playe out joke that has been made repeatedly at the expense of literally almost every tech oligarch who’s heading a tech company today. Sam Altman, Elon Musk, Sataya Nadela, Sundar Pichai, and Mark Zuckerberg have basically all had this joke made about them especially in regards to how they schill AI.

Even if it’s not a self insert it follows the same basic premise of saying something we all agree with as the punchline. I don’t consider the HAL or Mr burns reference to be particularly funny but I’m not trying to trash talk this comic or the other one (which I also didn’t find particularly funny).

I’m just pointing out the difference in reaction and also wondering if this is a holdover from the comics community where people read an opinion they agreed with and then regurgitated it over here.

Much though I like the anti-ai community, I am willing to admit that something like this comic and the other one normally would do numbers with its users and not receive a lot in the way of backlash or open dislike except by trolls who frequent the community to start arguments.

Who is the purple guy supposed to be?