pseudalopex

You thought WikiMedia Foundation were like a union how?

Linux Foundation are a business league. Many Linux maintainers work for Linux Foundation members.

Most non phone computers do not have a SIM. And some countries allow to buy a SIM without identification.

You did not know governments demanded records? Or infiltrated networks?

And governments investigated high electricity users as suspected marijuana growers. Would governments ignore high identifier use?

Stores collect not required customer information often.

> If that was considered the real problem, we would be fighting against surveillance capitalism.

You don't?

> Instead we cheer for LLM companies who made it an order of magnitude worse.

You do?

> Let's be honest, the only time we care about being tracked is to access porn, for some reason.

You do?

> And if we're being honest, we are already tracked when doing it.

You are?

> This is covered by allowing for single-use credentials.

They said There are proposed mitigations like issuing multiple sets of credentials or rotating them, but we're not going to get an infinite number of keypairs for every website or session in the secure enclave in practice.

> Basically, the wallet requests a batch of single-use eIDs that all use different device key-pairs.

The comments you replied to omitted mass surveillance. But the article and 1st comment included it. The government would know what wallet requested each single use identifier.

We discuss age requirements in the physical world not much because the physical world allows age checks without mass surveillance.

Your point was what? No one should be allowed more privacy than you wanted?

> I suspect most people who complain about getting stuff reverted on Wikipedia are mostly editing controversial pages.

This could be true. But I saw it in histories of not controversial pages also. Some people feel they own articles they contributed to. Wikipedia made a policy against this because it was a problem.[1]

> You notice they almost never actually link to the reverts they are complaining about.

I noticed they said it was years before nearly always if they said when. And to find revisions of forgotten date in Wikipedia required more time than most people would spend for a comment. And anecdotal evidence changed beliefs rarely.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content

> I think just the fact that it was the first thing on offer that wasn't the thing they were already using.

It was not.

The law will take effect next year. And it would not cover web sites. Another bill would expand the law.

Most people don't care how many billion dollar companies anyone creates in my experience.

A sensible system would require no trust. You could trust no provider would collude or be hacked ever. But to prevent governments to demand records requires records not exist.

< age verification is illegal in California

What law?

This could be true. But law enforcers lied how they found evidence in other cases.[1] They could have lied in Tor cases.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

> The harms are not something I tend to find actively discussed on HN;

Define actively. They are discussed often. In discussions of age restrictions especially.

But 1 since 8 years. The Anxious Generation.

An article I read said kratom, 7-OH, tianeptine.

Send it to hn@ycombinator.com.[1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

AMD said it was a feature of PRO marked CPUs always.

Seneca wrote slaves and free men were equal essentially. The Torah said foreigners should be treated as natives.

You lacked the idea of begging the question seemingly.

> Life expectancy didn't change that much, what changed is infant mortality.

Life expectancy means at birth commonly. Life expectancy changed because infant and child mortality changed.

This article was self published seemingly. And book titles are negotiated by authors and publishers commonly.

Watterson said It was only my head that burst into flames.[1]

[1] https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/53216/mental-floss-exclu...

The TechCrunch article said Apple turned over the real account information. And the older article said this was in response to a request. Not a warrant. Hide My Email hid nothing from the Trump administration in this case.

Part of the law was broad. Part of the law was narrow. How did you establish the broad part was intended broad and the narrow part was not intended narrow?

The proposed law would require disclosure. Not legal penalty for no hire before the projected date.

Employers can reject candidates for employment gaps. They can do this without allowing candidates to explain. Or they can decide to reject an explanation. Candidates should have equivalent information. And equivalent choice.

> The actual way to improve it is to reform the laws that cause companies to list jobs they have no true intention of filling as a requirement for complying with some other law.

The evidence this is the real problem is what?

Many web sites and apps do not use Sign in with Apple. And they could block the domain for account creation with email without blocking the domain for account creation with Sign in with Apple. This would not make sense unless Apple changed what personal information Sign in with Apple provided probably. But they could.