You stumbled onto the pain point. The problem isn’t the intention but the execution. The EU historically has done a better job at nailing the execution of this type of regulation.
If it slows down innovation is debatable but even so there’s still a solid principle behind it, a small speed reduction can grant a huge efficiency gain. It’s usually a worthwhile compromise. You don’t run tour engine only in the red zone because that’s where it makes the most power.
In that same sentence I mentioned the slowing down of innovation, not cars.
The government gets to decide for the people because that’s what a democratic majority wants. If you don’t want it go full anarchist. Just don’t come crying to the government to protect you when you inevitably take it on the chin.
For example would you want laws that ban giving people the mother of all beatings in the street? Or just tax it really high? Someone might just have some money burning a hole in their pocket and an intense desire to teach a lesson in regulations. Everyone has some strong opinions about their own freedom until someone else’s freedom punches them in the teeth and then they’re little lambs lining up to ask for regulations.
> doesn't mean that your neighbours need to vote on what underwear you are wearing.
You’ll be happy to find out that they in fact don’t. They only vote for representatives which then decide on important topics especially if they have impact on the wider population. Enjoy your freedom to pick your underwear while respecting all the fuel and speed related regulations.
Apple has no chance to claim their batteries can have 80% capacity after 1000 cycles seeing how they never achieved this so far. Lying about it puts them in a world of mass recalls and fraud investigations.
Depends on how "cycle" is defined - I'm sure they can finagle it so "any charge added to the battery" counts as a cycle.
As a datapoint my iPhone reports 522 cycles and 89% max - from march 2024. I do use the "limit charging to 80%" feature which I suspect may become mandatory before 2027 ...
> You complete one charge cycle when you’ve used (discharged) an amount that represents 100% of your battery’s capacity* — but not necessarily all from one charge. For instance, you might use 75% of your battery’s capacity one day, then recharge it fully overnight. If you use 25% the next day, you will have discharged a total of 100%, and the two days will add up to one charge cycle. It could take several days to complete a cycle.
I don’t think “a cycle” is up for redefining. I hope these terms are defined in the law.
But that supports my assumption that realistically the batteries don’t last 1000 cycles even when charged conservatively. The last 9% will go faster than the first 11%, the battery already has lower capacity and needs to be charged even more often.
On the other hand if I only get to 1000 cycles by charging up to 80% then I’m not getting 100% of the battery, am I?
Dieselgate was caught by some dudes with an emissions measuring device. It’s not that extreme to get a number of iPhone batteries, test them to 1000 cycles and see if statistically they still retain 80% capacity. If they don’t Apple could be looking at replacing everyone’s batteries.
The obvious solution is underrating - just like a 1 TB SSD actually has more than 1TB of "raw storage" available internally. What is a 100% battery today will be sold as an 80% capacity tomorrow, with 20% "overage" available for wear.
That’s fine as long as the battery ends up having 80% real capacity after 1000 cycles and maybe Apple is also transparent about how.
A bigger issue which I don’t know if the law covers is with the other battery specs. An 80% battery that can’t handle any spikes (low power mode) is useless.
Well, Apple was already fined for decreasing the CPU frequency (to avoid spikes on aged batteries), so that's not really an option. (Even though at the time they wasn't doing it out of malice at all, they actually tried to keep old phones usable - their marketing team messed up there big time)
The easiest is to just require it be replaced under warranty - if the battery has to be usable to 1000 cycles, and it is at 80% and 999 cycles but doesn't "work" it's a warranty replacement.
But that then brings in a "how many years" question.
VW engine specs said some things about emissions. It’s fine to have unrealistic specs if there are no consequences. The f there’s a law about it they’re far more exposed to people catching a lie or at least an unrealistic estimate.
You keep using the term “secure” that it sounds like you think education is like a prison sentence. You’re not doing this for security but for safety. A stair gate or drawer child-proofing lock are by no means secure but you use them anyway for the child’s safety.
You can’t just leave every dangerous thing out in the open because you “view it as a pain to deal with” storing them safely and then blame everyone else for the situation that follows.
Our realities might be different but in my reality if you put 0 (zero) effort to keep some critical things safely away from your child because it’s too much of a hassle to do it, or they’ll get around that anyway, etc. then you’re failing your children.
You make it sound like you put no effort in understanding my comment and just followed up with whatever supported your view.
If you have anything on your phone that should be off limits to your child but make no effort to ensure that (give them the phone, no passwords, no supervision) because it’s too inconvenient you are failing the child. Can I put it in simpler words?
> What do you have on your phone that's dangerous?
I hope you were asking hypothetically.
For one, the phone itself since staring into a small screen at god knows what because supervising them is a chore is bad for anything you can imagine, from eyes, to posture, to brain development. But also a browser that can access anything on the internet (modern Goatse, Rotten, Ogrish, other wholesome sites like that). My credit card numbers. All my passwords. Hardcore porn. Facebook and TikTok. The app that delivers booze to my doorstep. 50 shades of grey (the book and the movie). X (Twitter), I left the worst for last. If you really think a completely open internet connected phone is perfectly safe for a kid at the very least you’re in the wrong conversation.
It doesn’t matter, the discussion is about age verification for things that a child should be kept away from, whatever that is. If you’re trying to protect the kids from anything, especially legitimate concerns, then you can’t expect some mechanism to magically do all that parenting for you. It can help but not be the parent when the parent thinks it’s too inconvenient to actually do some parenting.
I don't like the idea of a central authority determining what "my child should be kept away from" and then implementing Orwellian surveillance laws to enforce it. "For the sake of the children".
Seeing something scary, disturbing, or sexual on the internet as a child does not result in a maladjusted adult. These laws are about one thing and one thing only - furthering the global surveillance network.
Everything else is a smokescreen. Pretending that a phone or any Internet-connected terminal is something that should be kept secured and away from children is a parenting decision, not a policy one, and any attempt to justify it as a policy decision is toxic nonsense at best and astroturfing for the surveillance state at worst.
| 'I don't like the idea of a central authority determining what "my child should be kept away from" and then implementing Orwellian surveillance laws to enforce it.'
Well thank God this about a double-blind way to verify your age and not that.
The surrounding context is that. Why else would you participate with a government in an age verification system?
Maybe your argument is that it's not a surveillance state because it is implemented with a 0 knowledge proof. Sure, the age verification is, but that is only part of the system we are talking about. The rest of the system is the demand that every adult play keep-away with their verification, and every host on the internet (that can be adequately threatened) play, too.
The only way for this to be anything else is if every participant can individually decide what should and should not be kept away from children. Such a premise is fundamentally incompatible.
On top of the pretty bad article, HN finds the “can’t win” scenario again. There’s no age verification scheme that will survive “collusion”, that’s when the adult allows the minor to use validated credentials, devices, etc. And whatever more intrusive age verification schemes we come up with will also fail this but add the intrusiveness to ruffle even more HN feathers. We can have the constant face, fingerprint and DNA scan for as long as the sensitive apps is used. Everything gets stored on a central server for safety so your kid can’t hack the device and replace the reference sample. /s
> "Let’s say I downloaded the app, proved that I am over 18, then my nephew can take my phone, unlock my app and use it to prove he is over 18."
Love the magic step in the middle, unlock my app. Ask for passcode or faceid to “unlock your app”. That’s a lot of legwork the adult has to do so the child can “trick” the system.
Some people will forever be shocked that if they leave on the table an open booze or medicine bottle, loaded gun, etc. a child can just take them and misuse them. The blame is unmistakably with bottle and gun manufacturers, right?
Put a modicum of effort to protect the sensitive apps or supervise the child when you share your device. They can do a lot of damage even with age appropriate apps. Wanna see how quickly your kid will tell everyone on the net how much money you have (via proxies), where you live, and when you go on vacation? Or tell someone the credit card number they swiped from your pocket if the other person makes it sound like a game?
Your government does have various authorities over what you put in your cupboards though. like, you can't just put a gun in there (actually I don't know where you live but that's true for most countries). You can't just get in a car.
Anyway, ultimately it's best effort. No security is flawless, but if it stops 99% or more of cases it's better than 0%.
No, because that's a public store. The government can go to the store. They can't go to my cupboards without a warrant. The same goes for my computer, and its connection to another computer.
I replied to the content of the article and HN comments, not what you think I should have replied to. If anything you even failed to notice that I expect parents to do some of the parenting and not expect an app to magically do it all for them.
The government already defines what misuse is both for children and adults, defines responsibility for a lot of things even in your cupboard, and has been doing so for as governments have been a thing. And I don’t think you understand what “thought crime” is.
You won’t hear me say this too often but next time use an LLM to write your comments, any LLM will do, can only get better.
Why would I want to write better? This is a comment on a website.
You replied to a subset of the topic, and that's the point I was making. I felt the conversation needed relevant details from outside that subset, so I provided them.
I was terse in my comment, because that's how I like comments: short and to the point. That makes them much easier to skim through.
The government doesn't enforce its rules by going through my cupboards. It doesn't put a lock on them. Instead, it tells me what the rules and consequences are, placing both authority and responsibility for the cupboards themselves into my hands.
This is the primary change we are taking about: allowing the government to introduce its own code (lock) into my private digital interactions. Why are you so intent on focusing the conversation on the mechanics of that lock? Is it really so unreasonable for me to ask you to think about the rest of the topic?
> Neither party apparently knew he was negotiating with the other.
I don’t buy it that two of the largest manufacturers of DRAM in the world, from the same country, didn’t know this. Even of you ignore each company’s intelligence teams, that’s also the job of the country’s internal intelligence services, to make sure they know what all companies are doing and then make it so they have the best leverage to gain as much as possible. Both companies would have known “somehow” and played hardball.
How would the country’s internal intelligence services know what’s happening? Yes, by spying. That’s literally their job and they have assets in every critical area in a country. Every institution, every major industry player, they are monitored to a degree by the internal intelligence in every country in the world. There are more nefarious reasons to do this but the ostensible one is that if it’s of strategic importance the country needs to know everything there is to know.
The companies also do a lot of spying themselves, every bit of info could give them an edge.
More than that, sometimes one side doesn’t want to accept something because everything they know about it says it’s wrong. Then they’re faced with evidence and reason prevails.
I usually have very strong opinions but try to hold on to them very loosely. It happened that I was convinced with evidence that I am right and refused to accept any alternative until new evidence slapped me in the face. At that point knowledge and discussion made me accept something I had previously thought preposterous, sometimes to the point of outright dismissing any conversation, this is how preposterous the proposition sounded at first sight.
What I want to say is that if you don’t know your audience, if you don’t know for sure your attempts are fruitless, it’s always worth a shot to use your knowledge in a discussion and let the other party digest that and see if it that moves the needle.
If your support was contingent on them being on a specific social media network, a low quality one at that, then your support was more posturing than actual support. Better to know who your real allies are and not rely on all the “I’d help but I forgot my wallet in my other social network” posers.
Even human eyes have some areas, outside the fovea centralis, that are very sensitive to motion even in low light. In the dark you will see motion out of the corner of your eye but you will only see pitch black if you stare in that direction.
The other part you mention is more interesting, I noticed it too. That must be a mechanism in the brain rather than the eye. It’s like the cat keeps a “snapshot” of that place to compare against next time it comes by. This might also explain why they take the same route all the time, maybe it gives them a good reference against the old snapshots.
>> If you pay attention to cats, you figure out they are fuzzy little “difference engines.”
> That must be a mechanism in the brain rather than the eye
Check out "A Thousand Brains: A New Theory of Intelligence" [1] by Jeff Hawkins [2], of PalmPilot fame. This theory postulates, in part, and with evidence, that brains are continuously comparing sensory input and movement context with learned models. I found the book to be mind-blowing, so to speak ...
The name comes from the CDs being manufactured by pressing into a master mold to create the pits. Replicated (mass manufactured) audio CDs are pressed not written with a laser like duplicated ones (CD-R/RW).
If it slows down innovation is debatable but even so there’s still a solid principle behind it, a small speed reduction can grant a huge efficiency gain. It’s usually a worthwhile compromise. You don’t run tour engine only in the red zone because that’s where it makes the most power.
reply