Hey nice to hear somebody taking about social feature of a social network when so much of this is about profiling people through infinite scrolling content from strangers.
It'd be hilarious to see the EU demand interop on features like Events, Groups, Marketplace.
Well if you're going to limit the universe to a set of cars that can drive far enough. Sure, new premium EVs bring far less range anxiety.
Used, budget EVs have both longevity and range issues. Used, budget ICE vehicles do not. It's important to remember that the market isn't just $50k+ vehicles.
And cars on the limit cause the most hand-wringing. Did you plug in last night? Do we stop early or at a meal time? You plan your day around it. It's not insurmountable but it exists.
I mean, we have an EV and you do have to think about range if you're going over 100mi away and time is tight (eg you have young children, appointments, etc)
When I can throw 100mi into my car in 5 minutes without having to do backflips to get the charger to start, or drive out of my way to specific chargers, and not pay 20 times the market electricity rate... Then people will stop worrying about it.
I do think we'll get there with new EVs (800V platforms look amazing), but it's not going to be retroactive. There are lots of EVs in used circulation where range will be a conscious consideration for another decade or two.
The early generation Nissan Leafs (no battery cooling) did most of the work to tar EVs longevity. It's not propaganda. They were shit.
Maybe. At the very budget end, I was really thinking you take the £150 worth of sensors and motors (when bought new) to make something better.
We just got a second hand Ultenic T10. The 2021 model is commonly available for £40 used. It tangles a couple of times a week and its battery will probably need replacing eventually, but it maps well and empties itself. At that sort of featureset, just a brain transplant to get it offline would be a welcome upgrade.
The hardware is an issue, not because it's bad but because it's massively expensive to buy the components piecemeal.
You can purchase a lidar vac for £70-80 now. Even if you only replaced the brains, that's a quarter of the price of a Oomwoo. The only upgrade I'd want is self-emptying. You'd probably have to relocate the charging contacts but it seems highly achievable.
Or you could break up an existing vac for the parts. You'd get the lidar, bumper, ToF, cliff sensors, motors and wheels, perhaps even some seals for your printed parts. Again, much cheaper, especially if you shop on the used market (I can get a whole working vac for the price of new wheels). All these robots use common parts so the risk of getting it wrong is very small.
My point is perhaps they could coalesce around a common white label option unit or set of parts currently sold as a vacuum.
Attestation from other services is a good option. I have Apple, Meta, Google, PayPal, eBay, Microsoft, Twitter/X and Steam accounts that —through age of account, and their own identity checks and purchase histories— could attest that I'm probably an adult. This obviously isn't a feature they offer currently, but could. Most are available as a federated OAuth IdP.
You already entrust far more than an adult flag to these services so I doubt the news you like to touch yourself is going to be met with an emergency board meeting.
But if that were a problem, would it be that hard to separate identity from end service with an intermediate AV condom service? I'd personally prefer to not add another leaky abstraction layer but that's me.
It's "social media". The whole thing is profiling for advertisers. The idea that there's privacy is laughable.
There is a network effect as a child's peers stop using social media though. Make it inconvenient enough for enough for kids and they'll read a book, take up slam poetry or whatever it was kids did before our attention became currency.
That's because you're treating AV as a system that must be 100% correct immediately. This isn't banking or an election.
As soon as you loosen off the requirements to "reasonable effort", you can start looking at account age, facial features, social attestation, and include retrospective tools to revisit someone's verification if they get in and start acting like a child. Heuristically messy but far from impossible to demand a stronger form of verification if their original might have been borderline.
The goal is broad coverage, not complete. Screening doesn't have to get 100% to have an effect.
You're lost. The whole basis of this discussion is that is that certain services (porn, social media) will have to AV. A kid having open network access doesn't help because they still have that interface to overcome.
Services that enable circumvention is a natural extension. Yes that means going through the same verification process you do with pornhub with your VPN host.
Completely by-the-by, your school networking experience is notably different from mine. Ours are locked down. Kids don't get access on their own devices. They whitelist domains, Google has educational filters, etc, etc. Could somebody red team their way through it? Maybe. Kids aren't.
I don't believe proving I'm an adult to Meta will deprived me of any further privacy than I've already surrendered. What security do you feel I'll lose?
These "platform design problems" are features for some adults. If they want to pour their life into being radicalised by a neverending, bias-confirming, slop-filled doom scroll, that's their choice, isn't it? Outright prohibition is far more fraught both politically and technically.
Blocking 100% of kids isn't required to prevent harm. The key is finding the optimum balance.
I'd be surprised if the law requires much beyond a vague best effort from service providers, but many already block connections from known server hosts and some even VPNs.
An airtight block is not what's required; stopping social media being mainstream for kids is.
We've had time to witness the damage of a dopamine-doomscroll. I personally know children who've posted too much, and children who've been solicited directly by adults, both to try and meet and for nudes. And we've seen the complete lack of positive action from platforms. Roblox is full of paedophiles and Grok was letting you nudify your classmates just a few months ago. These places aren't suitable for kids.
I don't want a ban on VPNs. That isn't being suggested, just making sure they're also age-checked. But some inconvenience is a price worth considering.
They could, yes. You can buy 5GB of service for £2.50 at many convenience stores. Paid cash.
This is such a weird angle. Like saying shops shouldn't age check for alcohol because the parents would know.
They are also friends with other children who have their own parents, devices and network access. Your child doesn't live in a bubble you have control over.
These are all the same fantasy arguments that completely ignore the pervasiveness of the internet and the tenacity of determined children. 15 years of waiting to see if social networks can fix this themselves has only shown us how much they want to exploit us all. They earned this.
Tell me you don't have teenagers without telling me you don't have teenagers. I'd love kids to do what they're told. That would absolutely solve this but as we all know, they don't.
The people do want this crap. If you have kids of a certain age, you know kids that have had near misses with grooming on Roblox, or have seen the comments from men on child Tiktok accounts. It's a stupid amount of exposure that we just didn't have to deal with as kids.
People just don't understand the problems implementing AVS.
I'd be much much happier submitting details or a face scan to a .gov.uk service than all these rando verification services.
It'd be hilarious to see the EU demand interop on features like Events, Groups, Marketplace.