A friendly reminder that cars are still highly destructive, whether powered by petrol, battery, or hydrogen, and whether driven by a human or automation. The only real environmentally, economically, and socially responsible solution is to drastically reduce the amount of trips made by car, by introducing road diets and modal filters, by having mixed-use medium or higher density zoning, by building high quality safe separated bike paths, and good quality, frequent, affordable public transport.

Also, keep your pets on your property. If there’s no way to keep them from leaving your yard, keep them inside. It’s better for them (they live longer on average, even if you control for the increased likelihood of getting run over) and for the environment.

what implies that it wouldn’t?

If the advice is “don’t do this, let them do it”, and the advice can go both ways, it kinda doesn’t work as advice.

You realise the exact same advice could be applied in reverse, right? If the relationship’s gonna work, both people need to be interested in continuing it.

The contacts app has a field for “first name” and one for “last name”. I fill out the data that the forms give me. So yes, my parents are under their real names.

Yup, sounds great to me. I could see a world in which it becomes a bad thing because they try to enforce it by pulling a Google and blocking users from installing extensions that aren’t through their official add-on store, but as it is, it’s hard to see any reasonable criticism.

Feathers more likely than keratinous hair.

There is no movie in Ba Sing Se.

Title appears to be claiming otherwise, which is what I think the parent comment was taking issue with.

Including when they get private corporations to censor by the implication of consequences. Jawboning.

The fact that they haven’t gone for this approach that delivers age verification without disclosing ID, when it’s a common and well known pattern in IT services, very strongly suggests that age verification was never the goal.

I don’t agree. It certainly makes it possible that it isn’t the goal. But I genuinely believe that, at least here in Australia (where our recent age-gating law is not about porn, but about social media platforms, with an age limit of 16), the reason behind the laws being designed as they are is (1) optics: despite what those of us here say, keeping young children off of harmful social media algorithms is very politically popular and they wanted to pass a bill that banned it as quickly as they could. No time for serious discussion about methods. And (2) a complete lack of knowledge. Because they wanted the optics, they passed the bill extremely quickly and without a serious amount of consultation. And I don’t trust that even if they had done consultation, they would have known who is more reliable to listen to, the actual experts and privacy advocates, or the big AI companies with big money promising facial recognition will somehow solve this. Because politicians are, by and large, really fucking stupid at technology.

What is it they say? Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity?