I was diagnosed with sleep apnea over 10 years ago, after being confused waking up with entire upper bed soaking wet from sweat. Been on CPAP, moved me up to biPAP. When 1st diagnosed, doc said 49 events per hour. He said: "You would be dead in less than one year, if untreated". It's rather uncomfortable wearing the mask at night, my pressure must be set quite high, Now I vary between 6 and 10 events per hour. I want to try hypnosis. But with proper, managed treatment, I now have excellent VO2 Max, and I swim brutal workouts on a Master's swim team at 70+ yrs. Doc says a high percentage of older men diagnosed with sleep apnea just give up on treatment, the CPAP machine goes into the closet. The mask and the hose, the leaking seals, the awakenings, just too frustrating. You have to force yourself to comply, just like dealing with other parts of your body that fail or annoy you as you age.
Seems like all the A I hype is being promoted as moving us forward, as in "progress", but in reality, the part they don't talk about is how it will rather obviously be used for domestic mass surveillance, as in Palantir.
One has to look no further than the case of Mark Klein, AT&T engineer:
Actually. Meta is spending millions to push the age verification requirement off to the app store providers, such as Google and Apple. It's an attempt to shield Meta from liability, transfer it to the app providers.
Having clear laws about what's allowed and what isn't is a lot cheaper than getting repeatedly sued for hundreds of millions for not doing things there was never a clear legal requirement to do.
im not aware of any law that went through parliament that directly impacts installing apps. OSA has already hit and didn't impact app stores. Can you link me the relevant legislation or hansard debates?
>to push the age verification requirement off to the app store providers,
and makes more sense, Apple and Google have your credit card , or if you are a parent that bought soem phone for you child then at first boot up as a parent should be your job to setup a child account.
Even if they did, having a credit card is not proof of age.
> if you are a parent that bought soem phone for you child then at first boot up as a parent should be your job to setup a child account
Setting up a "child account" shouldn't involve setting some age field. Setting up a "child account" should involve restricting permissions.
Why leave it to the OS or a company to decide what is "age appropriate"? Leave it to the parent to decide what the child should or should not have access to. Extra bonus: that same "child account" can then also be used for other restricted purposes. Want a guest account which limits activity? Want an incognito account? Want a sandbox account? None of these should require setting some age.
This shit already happened years ago with consoles, i setup a choild account and the games were restrcited and other features also.
I am not paid by a trilion dollar company to decide if it should be a birthday input, or a dropdown where you select your political and religious conviction about what your child should see. Sony figured it out, if Apple pays me I will spend more time to write for them a UX flow so average people could sert the accpunts up and the rest could ask their priest, cousins or other person that can follow instructions to setup the account for them.
The giants shoudl have solved this decades ago and not wait for the fanatic religious to push for this as laws and get the goverments involved, now you will get 25 different laws about this.
> at first boot up as a parent should be your job to setup a child account.
Something I would be 100% OK with is some regulation that at first boot, you have to present information about what parental controls are available on the device and ask if you'd like them enabled.
I haven't set up a phone in a hot minute, I only do it once every few years, is this something they already do?
I'd imagine there's a lot of cases where a parent buys a new phone and hands down the old one to their kid without enabling safety features. I don't know if there's a good way to help with that - maybe something like, whenever you go to set a new password, prompt "hey is this for a kid?" and go through the safety features again?
Just spitballing, that last one may not be a good idea, not really sure.
Exactly, I did not seen such a screen, but this giants have the budget to hire UX experts to clearly design the initial setup to clearly ask if this device is for a child or if is for multiple users to make more accounts. Also to make happy the other guy that commented they could ask you if you do not want to sure adult content too and in that case set same flags int he system.
Seems such a simple solution rather then each appa nd website having to figure out a way to do it.
Did I miss this ? Missing from the discussion is that Iran's cluster munitions in each single missle have absolutely overwhelmed Israels defense and would likely do the same to US military as well. Also to consider, Iran's $20,000 drones versus our $1 million dollar interceptors.
Cluster munitions are great against infantry in open field; less so against population centres equipped with advance warning systems. As it stands, they fail to even cause the damage worth offsetting by firing interceptors. The damage these inflict on Israel is not unsustainable, and they don't do much to create deterrence.
Given a choice of conventional 500-800 kg warhead or cluster munitions warhead, I think that the nations in the current conflict would prefer being on the receiving end of cluster munitions (as a less bad option) every time.
>The damage these inflict on Israel is not unsustainable, and they don't do much to create deterrence.
Has there been a study on this? What is the GDP loss of having however many Israelis go to bunkers due to incoming ballistics instead of working ?
If a trash cluster missile that costs 100k USD to build causes 1mio USD worth of GDP to not be produced (numbers completely made up) then it's very worth it.
No idea about studies or GDP; just observing that the losses inflicted by Iran on Israel in June 2025 did nothing to deter Israel from going on offence again eight months later.
Ballistic missiles do not cost only 100k USD to build. They are very unlikely to ever be that cheap. Rocketry requires enough precision to not explode on the launcher. Ballistic missiles with conventional munitions are only useful for point targets. Cluster munitions like Iran uses are an admission that they aren't targeting specific systems, aren't expecting to penetrate defenses, or other reasons why they would waste a ballistic missile on the modern equivalent of the Paris Gun.
Harassment weapons don't do much. None of the harassment campaigns done by the Nazis for example really amounted to anything.
Modern Shaheds can be possibly built at a scale to affect that, but we really haven't seen it happen yet. That would be something like thousands launched in a single wave against a single city or installation. But they still lack the precision and warhead to be targeted meaningfully.
You need WW2 industrial scale manufacturing lines worth of Shaheds to get beyond harassment. You need to be producing hundreds a day or more. That kind of industry is nearly impossible to protect from your adversary so unlikely to take shape.
> None of the harassment campaigns done by the Nazis for example really amounted to anything.
I hate to say it, but the aerial bombing campaign against Germany in WW2 was not terribly effective. The Germans were quick to decentralize the factories, and burning down houses did not impair the war effort much.
What did work was bombing the oil infrastructure. Germany ran out of gas.
What also worked was using the B-17 fleet as bait for the Luftwaffe. The Luftwaffe could not help but rise to defend the country, and then they were shot down by P-51s and P-47s and Spits. The goal was to erase the Luftwaffe, and it worked. (Even though German warplane production increased, the pilots were dead and irreplaceable.)
Depends, blanketing Ben Gurion (or any airbase) with parked aircraft on the tarmac with carpet munition is a really bad day.
But yes, against protected targets cluster munitions do not achieve much.
If you have relatively few low-precision missiles, using single warheads means you are risking achieving NO damage (easier to intercept, a good chance that it will hit nothing), with a cluster munition you are guaranteeing at least some damage.
I think Iranians are mixing both types of warheads.
Tarmacs are really hard to hit exactly, especially so when you fire from 1500 miles away. Each angular second turns into a big miss. Also, the launch goes towards the area where GPS denial is assumed. This denial can come in many forms.
There were reports about three small aircraft being damaged in Ben Gurion, one of them caught a fire. I guess three millionaires will have nothing to fly until they collect their insurance money.
There is no point in trying to argue that such an attack is extremely difficult, it already happened, and an attack on Prince Sultan Air Base near Riyadh damaged/destroyed E-3 Awacs and several tankers (see e.g. https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/iran-war-middle-east-news-u...).
It is not 1500miles away from Iran, but neither is Ben Gurion (Ben Gurion is cca 200-300km further away from the closest point in Iran that Prince Sultan).
You could counter multipayload missiles by hitting the missile earlier in its trajectory before the payloads deploy, that was the plan for MIRV nukes but it requires usually forward interceptors or perhaps energy weapons we don't yet have.
Israel seems to be using Arrow 3s for this exact effect. If we are to believe the news, the Arrow 3s hit bomblet arme missiles attacking Dimona ( after the one that got through)
Linberg's assumptions are fake. Just look at Germany silencing free speech, and the whole of the EU attempting to control free speech in the digital realm, which the US has.
reply