I didn’t. But I also can’t say I’ve been paying attention.

Honestly? It’ll probably be an amalgamation of different tech to do it. That’s at least part of the reason I’m not sure it should work. Using identity to certify age or age gate products in this way when so much data is being collected already about users kind of doesn’t make sense in and of itself. It either leads to a database of data that’s dangerous to store, or it leads to government entities using such services to spy on people. Or both.

If the data that’s already out there about me being collected by data brokers can’t prove what age I am (and it absolutely can even when it’s anonymized) then I suspect no other system by itself will work. Because really what were talking about here is four things.

1. Linking access to age verification.
2. Linking identity to age verification.
3. Anonymizing that data so the service/or anyone with access can’t store it or use it for anything other than age verification.
4. Verifying that the person who device/token/certificate/verified medium is linked to is the person using the device.

So, say you were to use the block chain method. And say the device was verified. How would I verify it’s me using the device (me being the person who certified their age via block chain or some other method). What prevents me from unlocking the device and handing it to my kid? What prevents my kid from using the device without my knowledge (circumventing the password etc).

That’s at least part of the reason Roblox want to use facial recognition to verify users. But how often are we doing that check? Once isn’t enough. It’s not a hard barrier to cross. And say it’s twice, three times. Once a week. Say you use AI generated pictures to bypass that. Then Roblox or the service they contract with for verification has to maintain a database and compare pictures to each other etc.

Databases can be hacked. That information can be stolen. And linked to driver’s licenses, used for reverse image searches etc. If you or your child has ever posted a picture to the internet etc that can be used against you or your kid. It could be used to verify further accounts outside your control etc.

Following this to it’s logical conclusion you’d need to use a combination of things. Something you have (yubikee or some kind of authenticator, ID, credit card). There’s nothing stopping a person from selling this with the account credentials.

Something you know (password, passphrase etc). The account credentials to be sold.

Something you can’t change about yourself (iris scan, fingerprint, voice clip, etc). The dangerous to store information that when leaked or breached would cause damage to the life of the user in question.

Someone somewhere is going to need to keep a record of that to prove you are you which means it can’t by design be anonymous. And it means that there’s a database and it there that’s dangerous to the users but had to be maintained for the purpose of authentication. And that’s why this doesn’t work.

There’s nothing to stop them selling that email address with cert.

GiGo.

Generative AI LLM’S? No. GiGo Counters? Yes.

This is likely the fault of the pill manufacturer who the pharmacy is at the mercy of.

People who live in third world countries like the US who don’t have Internet at home/internet isn’t available to them because it’s not profitable for the company providing for that area.

And before you say phone, you have to have service to receive or make a phone call. There are places in this country that don’t have either.

I think the reason it’s sold so many copies is because it’s been on perpetual sale everywhere. People were majorly against buying it and that dampened some people’s interest initially but when the game is $5, a lot of people will buy it just because it’s cheap.

It’s crazy that I only own two of these games and they couldn’t be more different. Animal Crossing and Cyberpunk 2077.

I use reader mode pretty often on news websites. That’s the main use case for me.

Mostly this is for sites I click on links to that do paywall banners honestly. That’s what I use it for. Most of the places I go to I could exclude or whitelist and be fine.

I should do this. This is an amazing idea.

We have a wireless Android Auto dongle. And it takes an age to auto connect. Not to mention the problems with it still wanting us to pull over and put the car in park to switch, something I thought would be circumvented when I bought it but somehow is not. Usually it’s the person in the passenger seat trying to change something and not being able to. I’m not advocating for distracted driving. I’m pointing out that someone else in the vehicle who’s not driving can’t interact to change certain things even though it’s perfectly safe for them to do so.

It’s a Honda. But that’s exactly the point I’m trying to make here. With both car play and Android Auto I have issues but they’re down to how the manufacturer chose to implement each. Car manufacturers deliberately hamstrung these features and still didn’t get what they wanted.

I have equally bad experiences with both Android Auto and Apple Carplay. I don’t really want either and am fine with what I’ve got (only 1/3 of the cars I own even has Carplay/Android Auto). I mostly dislike how it’s been implemented with “safety controls” that require the phone to be plugged into the infotainment center in some cars and the requirement that I only connect it while at a stop with the car in park. If someone is driving with me and they want to change to their phone I have to pull over and that’s stupid.

The infotainment centers themselves with their stupid touch screens and lack of buttons are where my real problems start, and the end with the tracking BS and telemetry data. You can keep the new cars. I don’t want them.

No. No. I think you misunderstood. I’m not saying people should have ill will toward her. I’m saying that the ill will is an expected part of how society functions when a person gets notoriety for doing something wrong.

If she had been outed by the papers in a less public way, people she doesn’t know who we’re were not affected by her actions would still be judging her.

Most people would judge the average person who got caught cheating if they knew about it.

She had to know going into her relation with a married man that there was the potential to get caught. She had to know it would be unlikely to receive anything but vitriol from people who’ve been cheated on. She went along with it anyway.

There’s a possibility that because of the power dynamic between her and a man who was her boss, she was taken advantage of. That’s why I brought up and compared her to Monica Lewinsky. However I don’t have energy to waste on worrying about what ifs.

I don’t follow the story and didn’t even really remember her until this post popped up. I can’t even tell you what her name is without googling it. I’d wager most people are equally ambivalent. It’s most likely a very loud minority of people who remember and are giving her shit about this.

If she were a celebrity would we feel the same?

Because really what it comes down to is she knowingly helped a high profile person cheat and got caught. I’m not saying she deserves it. I’m not saying it’s a good thing. To me this is on par with the whole Monica Lewinsky thing.

I personally bear this woman no ill will. But I also don’t really think we should be expected to have empathy for something she did to herself because she couldn’t think ahead to what the potential repercussions of her actions were.

Here’s the thing. She knew. And while it’s none of my business, if you’re going to cheat, you gotta be prepared to be caught and shamed. Humans being what they are.

Emily’s not a snitch so it’s fine.

Can I ask what you’re planning to use block chain for? To verify each account? Or to federate instances?