taco

Yes, it's possible to make such a system. However, limiting the requirement to such a system is more difficult, especially with the commercial options out there already that are based around an ID or other potentially sensitive info (e.g., credit history, mortgage records, etc.).

It's not what the OP is about, but check the requirements for various states in the US linky, and you'll see how many of them have identifying requirements built right into the law.

It's easier to oppose the concept generally than to argue specifics, especially if you're among those that believe identification is part of the purpose of these laws not an avoidable side effect.

I've always thought that requiring the sites in question to have easily identifiable metadata to assist with client-side blocking made more sense. Parents can block it on their kids' devices, and adult pervs can remain anonymous.

Seed your ass off.

They identify with a political group who's primary recognizable characteristics are publicly wearing an extremely identifiable bright red hat and actively mocking and trolling their perceived opponents even in completely fictitious situations.

This could also apply to a party built entirely around the Limp Bizkit song "Hot Dog," I believe.

I don't think an article writing for an audience that needs API defined is the place to get the finer details. Also, does it really matter? Keeping secrets out of the repo is pretty basic stuff, so there's a lack of fundamental information security awareness.

I'd bet all the monies that there's a bunch of unencrypted spreadsheets with enough data to steal millions of identities on some idiot's Google Drive or whatever, and a bunch of it's been shared with commercial LLMs without any of our consent. Our personal data's being handled less securely than the average corporate SharePoint site's plans for the next pizza party.

Almost like a 34-time convicted felon isn't the sort of person that's terribly hung upon on things like legality.

I'll admit I'm surprised. I really thought hard evidence of him being a pedo could come out and there'd suddenly be a wave of explanations justifying why fucking kids isn't so bad. The backlash starting without the evidence coming out yet gives me a tiny sliver of hope.

I meant actual data. You're refuting a claim backed by several cited studies in the OP.

It goes hand in hand with the devaluation of education and expertise.

Another excellent point of hypocrisy, in my experience. There's a massive (complete?) overlap between people I know who think "no child left behind" is a good thing (despite making high school diplomas, effectively, participation trophies) and people who think a high school diploma should be sufficient education qualifications for any job.

Have anything behind that? The paper we're discussing has 4 citations in agreement, so I'm not so sure that most people say the opposite.

I don't understand why Trump voters want to judge Trump on his words rather than his actions.

Because it's simpler. Actions are many and have complex chains of reactions leading to various outcomes.

Meanwhile, after the election he literally said "I'm going to fix everything now." Simple, easy, and something objectively positive. Like the other comment pointed out, this isn't a decision arrived at by thinking about things.

Of the people I know, this goes well with the self-centered worldview (e.g., things finally click once they're personally affected).

Participation trophies in sports are bad, because they're good at sports which makes them feel superior. Thinking shouldn't be competitive though, because they suck at it.

The more important detail is that it's 16 experienced developers. If there's going to be an advantage with AI development tools, it's going to most likely be seen with junior devs with a much wider gap between current and peak performance. This was my first thought reading the article, and it's called out in the study.