Fringe leftists who got one of these without thinking, I guess.
Does the thesis that people get these out of paranoia have any basis? I use mine for basic convenience, like seeing that a package was delivered, or seeing that the person at the door is a solicitor so I don't have to walk downstairs and shoo him away. Crime is not even on my mind with this thing and I point it so it can only see my stoop, not the street. Maybe I'm the weird one?
> The Xbox One has been emulated though (well not emulated, it's a compatibility layer like Wine).
The parenthetical is not needed. It is OK to call Wine an emulator. The "Wine Is Not an Emulator" thing came about later and was essentially a marketing change. How it came about is interesting.
The first suggestion to change the meaning of the word from a shortening of "windows emulator to the not an emulator backronym was in 1993 over concern that "windows emulator" might run into problems with Microsoft trademarks, but no action was taken.
Over time the not an emulator usage became an accepted alternative. The Wine FAQ in late 1997 for example said:
The word Wine stands for one of two things: WINdows
Emulator, or Wine Is Not an Emulator. Both are right.
Use whichever one you like best.
The release notes stopped calling it an emulator at the end of 1998. The 981108 release notes said:
This is release 981108 of Wine, the MS Windows emulator.
The 981211 release notes said:
This is release 981211 of Wine, a free implementation of
Windows on Unix.
As far as I have been able to tell from my recollections of that time and what I was able to find when I looked into it later is that this happened for two reasons.
1. Wine was useful for more than just running Windows binaries on Unix. It could also be used as a library you could link with code compiled on Unix as an aide to porting Windows programs to Unix.
2. Hardware emulators that emulator old systems like GameBoy or Apple II had become popular. Many people were only familiar with that kind of emulator, and those (the emulators, not the people!) tended to be slow.
That was fine when your emulator is running on a machine with a clock speed 300x that of the machine you are emulating and that has a much more efficient CPU, but when you tried to use a hardware emulator for something comparable to your machine it was usually unbearably slow.
People only familiar with such hardware emulators might see Wine described as a Windows emulator and think it was doing hardware emulation and not even give it a try. By dropping calling it an emulator Wine sidestepped that problem.
A few people have replied saying Meta lobbying, but the bills Meta is known to have lobbied for seem to be the ones that require actual age verification that would tend to increase the amount of personal data Meta gets.
Meta's lobbying spending is cited for states not doing that kind of bill, but that's their total lobbying spending in that state.
These new bills in the style of the California one do not require any actual age verification and don't give any information to sites or apps other than the age range that whoever made the user account on the device entered.
It is essentially just requiring a simple parental control mechanism be provided by the OS which provides a way for parents to set age ranges for the accounts of their children and an API that apps that need to check age can query.
On a Unix or Unix like system this could be as simple as having the command to create a user account ask for age or birthdate and store that somewhere (maybe a new field in /etc/passwd) and then adding a getage() function to the standard library that apps can call to get the age range for the current user.
From the "we want to slurp up everything we can about you" point of view usually associated with Meta it is not obvious why Meta would support this approach.
Age checks can broadly be divided into 3 categories.
1. Done entirely on the local system, with only the result being revealed to the app/site that is asking. Age information comes from the owner/administrator of the system. I.e., the parental control approach.
2. Done using the local system and some external source of age information like your government. Only the result is revealed to the app/site that is asking.
3. Verification is done directly with the site that is asking, or through a third party. You have to supply sensitive documents like your government ID to the site or the third party.
#3 is terrible for privacy and anonymity. The red state laws tend to be in this category.
#2 depends on the details. There may be ways using the timing of the communications between your system and your ID supplier (e.g., your government) and the communications between your system and the site you are proving ID to that could allow the site and the government to get more information that you want them to. There are cryptographic ways to prevent that, especially if the device has a hardware security module. It thus comes down to with #2 that you really need to look at the details.
I'm not sure if any US state is taking this approach. The EU is, with cryptography to make it GDPR compatible and allow anonymous verification. Google and Apple are also working on such systems.
#1 is basically equivalent to the "Are you 18+" dialogs on many adult web sites, except moves to the device and the admin can if they wish prevent non-admin users from lying.
It is not really surprising that blue states are tending more toward #1, especially considering that several of them are among the states that have the strongest state privacy and data protection laws.
Because Meta's got the government breathing down their neck to confirm that everyone who interacts with their site is of appropriate age due to COPPA. They don't want to do that kind of verification themselves so they're backing legislation to compel the OS to do it.
What you have overlooked is that this type of bill is being introduced in states that have the strongest data protection and privacy laws, such as California and Colorado, and now Illinois.
This is happening after several other states have introduced age verification laws that actually require age verification which typically involves uploading your identity documents to each website that is required to verify your age.
Apply Occam's razor. Which do you think is more likely?
1. These states that have a record of concern for privacy are now introducing an age verification law that relies entirely on the age that the administrator enters when configuring a user account in order to give a push down a slippery slope toward their nefarious secret goal...even though it would be a complete waste of time since as the examples from numerous other states shows it is not hard to pass a law that starts with making people upload their ID documents to any social media they want to use.
2. These states that have a record of concern for privacy are doing age verification in the way that many privacy advocates said it should be done when they were objecting to those bills in those other states that required uploading ID documents, because those states do not want to go down the slippery slop that those other state approaches risk going down. Namely, through parental controls on the devices that children use that put the parents in control and leave the government out of it (other than requiring that such controls be included with the OS).
Real conspiracies exist. Openly. They're open secrets for those in the know.
You'd be surprised by how banal so much of this is. So many parties trying to get what they want. Doing a cost v benefit analysis and looking the other way.
That post first appeared in 2019 and has been updated since then. The last update was sometime between from May 2023 to October 2024. It includes a link to something dated Dec 23, 2023 which further narrows it down.
Interesting that all those you specifically named aired on Fox, which is where Firefly aired.
Other science fiction shows Fox killed after not more than one season were The Lone Gunman, Harsh Realm, Minority Report, Second Chance, and John Doe.
Others did make it past the first season but not past the second, such as Dark Angel and Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles.
Even shows that make it longer often have trouble on Fox. Futurama for example was put in terrible time slots that often got preempted by sports which made it hard to grow its audience, and most of the time the creators had no idea if the current season was going to be their last. They had to keep trying to write season finales that would also be good series finales if they got cancelled between seasons.
They also do this to shows in other genres. Lucifer for example got cancelled after 3 seasons, with season 3 having ended on the biggest possible cliffhanger there could be for that show. That was very annoying.
My rule has now been for a long time that I will not watch any new scripted series on Fox that has any kind of ongoing story. If there are enough good reviews and word of mouth to make me want to watch it I'll wait until complete seasons are available on streaming, and then only if there exists some N such that if I watch to episode N and stop there won't be any cliffhangers or important ongoing story arcs open.
Multiplayer PvE can still be ruined by cheating. In many such games, such as MMORPGs, you are still competing for resources such as rare spawns.
Spending hours setting up conditions for the rare spawn to appear, and then before you can get to it having someone using a tracking cheat and a speed cheat get to it first is very annoying.
The first time I looked at the comment above, there was a reply, a reply to that reply, and a reply to the reply to the reply.
Later I came back and this time there were no replies. Since HN won't let you delete a comment that has a reply the only ways a comment chain should be able to go away are (1) the participants delete them in reverse order, or (2) a moderator intervenes.
I came back again and the comments are back!
I wonder if this is related to another comment problem I've seen many times in the past few weeks? I'll be using the "next" or "prev" links on top level comments to move through the comment and will come to a point where that breaks. Next reaches a comment that it will not go past. Coming from below prev will also not go past that point. Examining the links, next and prev are pointing to a nonexistent comment.
reply