Panthenetrunner

I'm aware, I just think the bracket is too much information. Besides, laws can be changed and increasingly laws are broken with zero repercussions. What is to stop Microsoft from not "transmitting" the information yet still using it internally for targeted advertising? Honestly the raw date of birth isn't even needed for that. An age bracket would do fine and as far as I'm aware there are zero restrictions on Microsoft using that.

No, if your actually only interested in protecting kids, I think this is vast overkill. This is a mesure for surveillance and advertising and I think age brackets are more than sufficient for accomplishing that.

Respectfully I disagree. What I'm describing here is a checkmark. It's a flag that gets turned on presumably by a parent and turned off presumably when the kid comes of age or gets their own computer or whatever. There is no date attached. There's no personally identifiable information that your operating system is collecting and distributeing without your knowledge. At worst it'd allow people to be sorted into above and below certain ages, that's it.

I get that what's being proposed does not require verification (for now, way things are going I don't necessarily expect that to stick). But even if your assuming good intent on the part of these law makers and corporations I still believe entering a date is too much of an invasion of privacy. If this is something we have to do (which I don't believe it is but idiots seem to be forcing the issue) then it should be done with the least amout of data possible. That means a yea or nay on a binary checkbox.

I genuinely feel like there's an appriciable percentage of the population that don't even know that other operating systems exist. For whom Windows is "the computer" and for whom even Apple being a separate operating system is a difficult concept to grasp. If that's truely the state technical literacy is in with a sizable slice of the population, then it's quite the hurtle even explaining the basics of what Linux is. Let alone using it.

People responding to this are right about their actual intentions, but yeah. I think if you wanted to go about doing this the right way it would be an "I'm an adult" or a "this device is primarily used by a child" checkmark that could be locked down behind an administrative password.

That's it. That’s all you really need if your intention was actually just makeing sure kids couldn't wander into a part of the internet not made for them. Everything else, verification, that's just surveillance bullshit being bolted on top.

I feel like a big barrier is people anthropomorphizing the AI. It's not "ChatGPT generated this" it's "ChatGPT said this". I don't necessarily blame people for it, machine that speaks to you short circuits something in people's brains and it's not like we've got better language to talk about it. It's just that... people treat it as an opinion, not as software output. And so long as that's how people handle it, I just don't know if a "healthy" use of the technology is possible.

I'm fast coming to the conclusion that AI can indeed replace jobs. The thing is that the only job it can actually replace is that of a lazy middle manager. AI is great at responding to email if A:) you don't know what your talking about or B:) you don't respect the other person enough to waste the time formulating an actual response. AI in my experience is only really good at faking that there's someone on the other end. The fact that there's an entire management class it can convenienceingly impersonate is a pretty searing indictment as far as I'm concerned.

Just finished watching Black Lagoon, so... international smuggler? I guess?

Fucking incomprehensible. The fuck is this dude even saying? Hate it when my gradient gets recalibrated.

No idea if the OP was serious or not. Either way I applaud the in-depth definition of gooner-bait.