Is the alternative to then let goods be stolen, have shops lock products away and consume police resources trying to track people down that they have average footage of?
We can think worst case scenario for everything and not doing anything, or be realistic.
I don't think the above commenter disagreed with the need for regulation and the justification for it in this context. But that regulation isn't just for the things you think should be regulated and everything else shouldn't be.
The only difference with the US is that you have interest rates for the term of your mortgage whereas in Australia we can only lock in an interest rate for up to 5 years.
So not only are house prices up, but interest rates are also through the roof and those who bought pre covid at low interest rates are now having to bear todays interest rates.
This is really cool, however as someone interested in it when I went to the British GP race it is telling me I need to "Sign in to Unlock" to various levels of analytics, but I don't know what I am signing up to see.
It would be great if you haven't signed in, to be able to see a mock up of what it is I would be seeing.
In Australia if you had purchased a decently priced property around COVID time you could now likely be considered a millionaire based on the property valuation and your income.
I lived with about 5 people and our internet was 500mbps and it was more than enough.
Looking at the network monitor the only need for anything really above 100mbps was when people wanted to download something. For daily needs, surfing, browsing, the odd download you don't need a lot. And that's with everyone streaming, scrolling, gaming etc concurrently.
From my experience with SD cards in mobile phone when I worked in a Telco, most customers didn't actually know how to use them. Because in many cases plugging in the SD card didn't magically increase the base storage of the device, they actually needed to know how to store things on it.
I think console players are going to enter the era PC gamers did over a decade ago, but this time it will feel forced as opposed to happening naturally as it did with PC's.
Heck, I have games I bought digitally over 2 decades ago that I can still download and play. There's no way I'd still have kept a box from when I was a teenager.
I agree there is a balance, if the separate device gives you more functionality and enhances the experience over the mobile phone, then I can understand the benefit.
I have a Kindle as well as I find the iPhone screen way too small to read from.
> My primary computer is now a desktop with a large monitor, and I’m fortunate to have a room I can use as an office. I also have a laptop, but I only use it when I leave the house – otherwise, it lives in a drawer under my desk.
Pretty normal isn't it? I wouldn't say this is anything different to what a lot of people already do
> Yet, some physical restrictions remained – laptops were still heavy and bulky objects. They were something you had to carry in bags, and not something you’d take out casually. There were lots of places where you’d never see or use a laptop.
They have been sleek and capable enough for over 17 years. The first Aluminum Macbook can do everything I still require of my latest Macbook from anywhere.
> There’s a growing trend among Gen Z to resist the all-in-one allure of the smartphone, and go back to dedicated devices. They’re swaping their smartphones for single-purpose tools like point-and-shoto cameras or dedicated MP3 players, devices that lack the ability to receive notifications. I haven’t gone that far yet, but it’s something I’m considering.
For me this would create more clutter and require more of my attention to ensure the devices work the way I want them to and that I have them on hand. Yes my MP3 player doesn't show notifications but its another device I need to keep with me and keep charged. Buying a device for the sake of it unless I have a real need just feels like consumerism.
Regulators already decide certain content you can see through age rating restrictions (M15, R18+ etc) and has been the case for decades. Its just that no such ratings has been extended into online content, which is the issue.
> These "age verification" laws are - by design - identity attribution systems. They attribute digital identities (accounts) to physical identities (SSN, ID, etc..). This is government's ideal situation, the ability to quickly (automatically?) get identifying information about inconvenient people regardless if they're a criminal or not.
I'll call it out because your article doesn't, but does reference Australia. Here our eSafety commissioner has set the requirements such that the use of Government ID for verification must not be the only option.
There are other age verification technologies that do not assign identity but use other means as a method to identify age. For example, when our ban came into play I wasn't all of a sudden required to offer my ID.
I think you can look at all things pessimistically, like this article does but at the end of the day we all agree that there are things online we don't want our kids seeing or engaging with and it takes regulators to push how we protect them from those online places. What other options to regulators have?
Age restriction has been around for longer than the internet itself, so its regulators applying that logic to the online world.
Whilst I think age verification has its issues, I don't see what other options they actually have. I'll also make the point that in Australia, our regulations explicitly require that Government ID verification CANNOT be the only way and that companies must adopt an additional approach.
Almost everything in technology used to protect us can be used against us by those want or choosing to do the wrong thing, does that mean we don't do anything?
I also see this when people present studies online which say something like "Eating fast food causes obesity" and you get people replying "well obviously".
On the face of it things might sound obvious, but the study or in the case of blogging the discussion actually attempts to get the to the bottom of why that might be the case.