12·
1 day ago
- 25 Posts
- 1.52K Comments
Joined 3 years ago
Cake day: June 11th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
deleted by creator
3·14 days agoNo android app, and no API. 😞
The tap to link idea is fun though.
It explains the “my wife” reference, which isn’t immediately clear from the statement about “my husband”. At least to my pop culture illiterate brain.
The title text is necessary on this one.
161·20 days agoIt sounds like you should talk to a priest.
Who are the people in the last few frames? I recognize Enstein and Bob Marley, but I’m not sure who the others are.
9·29 days agoComputer needs practice to get program right.
It’s a really strong lock. It has to be.
might drink and
drivegallop
1·1 month agoOr the AI on shopping websites saying “I’d recommend this model…”
We don’t have a pronoun for “this non-human unit”. LLMs are marketed as conversational, so they need to conform to the limitations of English.
One could argue that “we” or “one” would be more appropriate, but that would sound stilted in many contexts.
I’d prefer linguistic markers to distinguish between people and machines, but we haven’t gotten there yet.
Don’t do catnip. Not even once.
The meh humour cheapens the tiddies.
no way to verify it isn’t beyond “trust me bro” and I don’t trust them
If the verification service is structured like oauth, then the request could be passed through the browser as signed plaintext. You could verify that the requesting site is only passing a minimum age request to the service. That would be as straightforward as viewing the interaction in your browser’s debug tooling.
If you say that you don’t trust the signature, and that it could be used to smuggle identifying information across, there’s a couple of ways to deal with that: open source and audited provider governed by legislation; information theory that would show personally identifying information wouldn’t fit into a field of that size; and “personal auditing” where you can try throwing data at the service to see if you can trick it into accepting invalid input (that really goes with the previous point, because the only field you can usefully vary is the signature).
I can’t speak to Germany’s system, but there’s no need for a site to tell the verification service its identity. If it just asks “is the current session authenticated to someone over 16” and gets an answer back. Identity of both parties remains secret.
And no real humour. I realize it’s in the eye of the beholder, but this stuff is just meh with tiddies.
With a 70% non-compliance rate, that isn’t entirely surprising.
Platforms are even less likely to implement real reforms that the author alludes to.
The platforms aren’t complying with the law:
Of the parents who reported their child had an account on each platform prior to 10 December 2025, around 7 in 10 reported that their child still had an account on Facebook (63.6%), Instagram (69.1%), Snapchat (69.4%), and TikTok (69.3%). Around 3 in 10 reported that their child no longer had an account. One in two of these parents (48.5%) reported that their child still had an account on YouTube following the age restrictions coming into effect.
