I live in a small country of ~2mio pop, and we have approximately 6000 settlements with streets and street addresses and many different standards of numberings, depending on many reason, mostly historic.
Technically yes, a few thousand systems could be programmed into some google processing engine, but you'd have to manually classify every road to set the correct system, and even there, you'd never know what is a legit numbering scheme or what is an error.
For example, Cucumber street 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 on one side of the street and Cucumber street 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 on the other is a valid numbering scheme. If #3 splits his front yard and builds another house, you'd get "3a" on that side. If #6 buys #8, demolishes one or both buildings and builds a bigger one, that could become either a "6" or an "8", and the other would be missing. Then #7 is demolished and an apartment building is built there with 4 entrances to 4 separate building sections, so those would be numbered 7a, 7b, 7c and 7d, even though they're in the same building. #5, #7 and #9 are also a part of the same building (three entrances), but the building is older, the street was renamed and renumbered some time after, and each of the entrances got its own number. Then you come to #10, which is also a building with 4 entrances, but #10 goes towards Cucumber street, and the other three are facing the Lettuce street and are thus Lettuce street 6, 6a and 6b. Notice starting with the "6" here and "7a" above, well, that's because #6 lettuce street existed before the building was expanded, it kept the #6 number, but since there used to be a shed on Cucumber street #7, the new building starts with 7a.
Your "Cucumber street" is exactly like Germany works, as far as I can tell, including the even/odd split, and the a/b/c/d... when inserting new houses, or separate building sections. (I've seen as far as "h" in one extreme case, but I think after "d" becomes pretty uncommon.)
Anyway, if your little country is difficult for Google, they should probably skip it for now. Do New York first. Then L.A. Then Toronto. It doesn’t have to cover everything, just make things better for a meaningful number of people.
Russian IPs are used, because russia won't help the american authorities with investigations. If I was an american and hacking into <whatever american thing>, I'd use russian IPs too.
Which is fine for the attacker here. All they need is to hit the login endpoint from an IP that's geolocated to the US. They don't mind if it's possible to trace it to their Russian IP. And that's roughly all that the VPN service sees. I explicitly mentioned Monero because I believe that when used properly, it wouldn't add any extra information.
Yep, and those pirated copies are DRM free, work everywhere, no HDCP and other crap, no internet connection needed, so they're "better" in that way too (not just price-wise).
Totally possible that watermark identifies cinemas and showtimes uniquely, and that pirates are due for a lifetime of prosecution. Or that studios will shut down some cinemas, until it stops.
For 15 years you let paid options progress. Then fewer people pirate, then you catch the rest. At the beginning you don’t see it putting its clamps; then suddenly you don’t find piracy anywhere.
Yes, and those paid options were one subscription that had "everything". Then paid options broke up into 5 different subscriptions, some not allowing more than 2 devices, some having ads in paid plans, some not available in your country, some only having seasons 3 and 5 of the series, some having the series you wanted to watch but remove it half way through, some give you a "buy" button for the media, but then take the movies away after a few months, etc.
And people go back to piracy, because the user experience is better.
It was a lot closer when they still had a streaming + disk option, but even then, they were missing lots (and lots, and lots) of stuff. I think people don't realize how many tens of thousands (maybe into the hundreds, IDK, I wouldn't be surprised) of films there are, let alone how many hours of TV content.
This is like when people talk about how everything's on the Web, when it comes to books. 1) This is only even sort-of true if by "on the Web" you mean "piracy sites have an epub/pdf of it", and 2) even then, extremely not close to true, the time from "I'm going to deep-dive this topic" to "... and now I need to go to the library, and possibly a specific library, maybe on another continent" is often not long at all.
> "I'm going to deep-dive this topic" to "... and now I need to go to the library, and possibly a specific library, maybe on another continent"
I remember an history professor saying that for a subject he was working on he had to borrow a book from the library of Congress (through the library of his university), where the only publicly available copy in the US was. Of course it was an academic book, so it's not exactly a common situation.
> For 15 years you let paid options progress. [...] then suddenly you don’t find piracy anywhere.
And then they completely ruined it with fragmentation. When all I need to watch everything I wanted to watch was three subscriptions (Netflix, Hulu, and HBO), I was totally fine with the ~$40/mo and reasonably-ok-UX offered.
But now it's a mess. I need subscriptions to 7 or 8 different services (which now each cost twice what they used to for an ad-free experience), and the experience is crap. Netflix no longer plays on my Linux/Firefox setup (same thing happened with HBO years ago), and their anti-password-sharing mis-features constantly trigger for me even though I don't share my Netflix password. The Android apps for most of them are glitchy and buggy, and Chromecast has somehow gotten less reliable over time.
The irony is that usually I would say more competition is a good thing. I suppose if we had lots of streaming services, but studios were required to license all their content under RAND terms to anyone who asks, we'd have real competition, and streamers would compete on the quality of their platform, lack of ads, etc., and not just on what titles they were lucky enough to be able to license.
I do agree that pirating became less popular for a while, but that golden age is over. The piracy scene seems stronger than ever these days.
> Netflix no longer plays on my Linux/Firefox setup […]
I know Netflix doesn't support anything beyond 720p or so on Linux, but that never bothered me. Otherwise it just works. Is your Firefox out of date?
> The piracy scene seems stronger than ever these days.
I hope so. A lot of damage was done. If it wasn't for archive.org a lot of older, regional stuff would not even be accessible. We need piracy if only for the collective digital archives.
I refuse to take out more than one subscription. We just hop services.
This would make it a lot harder... they can already do that with their own pills, after this, they would have to find an exact match for the men's pills and somehow replace them without the guy noticing, which would be realatively harder.
Considering we allow women to have abortions for arbitrary reasons, which include financial and any other non-medical, a paper abortion for men would make things a lot more equal.
If the man wants the child, and the woman doesn't, the man "loses" - the child gets aborted.
If the man does not want the child, and the woman does, the man "loses" - he is forced to pay child support.
I have brought this up to feminists who have tended to respond just like the above: "if men don't want the financial risk, then they shouldn't be having sex", but that is itself a sexist sentiment that indirectly and unintentionally conveys the idea that women should have the "right" to have sex without having to worry about the financial risks of raising a child (women can always elect to abort if an unwanted pregnancy occurs - well, at least until recently in some states that are a bit backwards on women's rights), but that men should not have that same right (men should either remain sexless or be forced, at gunpoint by the state if necessary, to bear the financial costs of siring a child - men have zero rights, zero say, zero influence, zero protection if an unwanted pregnancy occurs).
I believe everyone should have the same rights. Women should be able to have sex without having to worry about being coerced by the state to bear the financial costs of raising an unwanted child. Men should also be able to have sex without having to worry about being coerced by the state to bear the financial costs of raising an unwanted child.
The current situation creates a power imbalance where women who do want children can financially railroad their male sex partners who do not want children.
If it is not fair to force a woman to raise a child she does not want, why is it fair to force a man to pay for raising a child he does not want?
Telling men they can have EITHER financial security in this one area of their life OR sex - but not both - is not fair to men.
Imagine if the roles were reversed. Imagine a man telling a woman that if she doesn't want to risk a pregnancy, she shouldn't be having sex. He'd be eviscerated online, almost certainly fired immediately, probably doxxed and SWAT'ed or subject to other forms of harassment and threats - it is unthinkably offensive to even suggest that women must choose between the right to have sex and the right to be free from the risks of pregnancy, right?
So why the double standard? Why is it okay to give men this kind of ultimatum, but not women?
>You do the crime, you do the time. Don't want kids? Don't have sex.
If having sex with someone who isn't on the same page as you about having kids is a "crime", why are women (almost) always exonerated from the consequences while the men are (almost) always guilty and (almost) always forced to bear the consequences? Why the double standard?
And for what it's worth: I am firmly pro choice. The solution to inequality is ALWAYS to increase the rights of the "losing" side of the power imbalance, NEVER to take rights away from the "winning" side.
Let's assign one or ideally two adults to each underage child, who are aware of the childs real age and can intervene and prevent the child from installing discord (and any other social media) in the first place or confiscate the equipment if the child breaks the rules. They could also regulate many other thing in the childs life, not just social network use.
> confiscate the equipment if the child breaks the rules.
Even you acknowledge this plan is flawed and that the child can break the rules. And it's not that difficult. After all, confiscating the equipment assumes that they know about the equipment and that they can legally seize the equipment. Third parties are involved, and doing what you suggests would land these adults in prison.
I know you thought you were being smart with your suggestion that maybe parents should be parents, but really you just highlighted your ignorance.
The goal of these laws are to prevent children from accessing content. If some adults get caught in the crossfire, they don't care.
Now, I'm not defending these laws or saying anything about them. What I am saying is that your "suggestion" is flawed from the point of view of those proposing these laws.
These are not 20 something college students with jobs and rented apartments, doing stuff without their parents knowing.
These are kids younger than 13, they don't have jobs, they live with their parents, no internet/data planes outside of control of their parents, no nothing.
The goal of these laws is to get ID checks on social networks for everyone, so the governments know who the "loud ones" (against whatever political cause) are. Using small kids as a reason to do so is a typical modus operandi to achieve that.
Yes, those "one or two adults" I meantioned should be the parents, and yes, parents can legally confiscate their kids phones if they're doing something stupid online. They can also check what the kid is doing online.
If a 12yo kid (or younger) can somehow obtain money and a phone and keep it hidden from their parents, that kid will also be able to avoid such checks by vpn-ing (or using a proxy) to some non-UK country, where those checks won't be mandatory. This again is solved by the parents actually parenting, again... it's kids younger than 13, at that age, parents can and should have total control of their child.
It has to be acknowledged that some things, like social media and pornography, are harmful to children. "Maintain the status quo" isn't an attractive response to that. ID laws are not a perfect solution, maybe not even a good one.
You undermine your whole point by pretending VPNs are going to make the whole thing moot. Why do you care when you won't be affected because you can just use a VPN? Why does pornhub make such a fuss when their users can just use a VPN? Because in reality, introducing that much friction will stop a lot of people.
ID laws are the end goal, the children and porn are just an excuse to get ID laws, which would give the governments a lot more control over the internet and social networks. Just imagin someone like Trump/Ursula requesting full list of names of everyone criticizing them on eg reddit (because reddit has porn, and you'd have to show your ID to be able to use reddit, because of your reasons). This is objectively bad for the people and for the internet.
Parenting is a good solution, not just giving the kids tablets so they stay quiet. Yes, kids are curious, kids will still find porn, ID laws or not, but parents should teach them and limit their access, not IDs on discord.
And of course porhub is making a fuss, are you, an (assuming an) adult going to go to your telco with your ID and say "hi, i'm John, i want to watch porn and jerk off, but you need to see my ID first"? Or will you find some other alternatives, where pornhub doesn't earn that money?
So? They equally persist in the face of endless laws, I don't see how it follows that piling more laws on top is a better idea than deferring this to parents.
Parenting was the answer to kids not wearing their seatbelt, and getting maimed and killed by very survivable accidents. Simply teach your kids to wear their seatbelt. Yet seatbelt laws reduced fatality (8%) and serious injury (9%) in kids. It follows that "piling" such a law "on top", one that people decried as unconstitutional, was a better idea than deferring to the parents.
> It has to be acknowledged that some things, like social media and pornography, are harmful to children.
It only "has to be acknowledged" if it's true. The "evidence" for either of those, but especially social media (as if that were even a single well defined thing to begin with) is pretty damned shakey. Nobody "has to acknowledge" your personal prejudices.
>These are kids younger than 13, they don't have jobs, they live with their parents, no internet/data planes outside of control of their parents, no nothing.
Yes they do. If all that is preventing them from having a job is depending upon their parents to stop that behavior, there are enough parents who aren't going to intervene that I will reasonably be able to staff my coal mine. Sure, the parents should do a better job, but history shows us that many don't (be it choice or be it other factors). So are we willing for the kids of those parents to effectively be treated as adults by everyone else or are we going to keep laws that protect kids even when parents aren't doing so?
> The goal of these laws is to get ID checks on social networks for everyone
The UK government is nowhere near competent enough to be that stealthy.
Also, it already has this ability already. Identifying a person on social media is pretty simple, All it takes is a request to the media company, and to the ISP/phone provider.
> If a 12yo kid (or younger) can somehow obtain money and a phone and keep it hidden from their parents,
Then you have bigger fucking problems. If a 12yo can do that, in your home and not let on, then you've raised a fucking super spy.
> parents can and should have total control of their child.
Like how? constantly check their phones? that's just invasion of privacy, your kid's never going to trust you. Does the average parent know how to do that, will they enforce non-disappearing messages?
Allowing kids to be social, safe and not utter little shits online is fucking hard. I'm really not sure how we can make sure kids aren't being manipulated by fucking tiktok rage bait. (I mean adults are too, but thats a different problem)
And also apply it equally to ecommerce and homebanking.
Lets see how happy the voters are when they have to start walking to their Bank again every week, can't order their latest temu toxic waste product anymore and their GDP drops in half.
The same people who want to make encryption a crime (like Trump 45[0]) are using signal to discuss sensitive information without an audit trail. It's absolutely rules for thee.
Same with Chat Control. LEO and EU Mps would be exempted from being surveilled because their lives and communications need to be private since they are very important but yours, god no!
And people wonder why democracy is out of style. With democrats such as these, you don't need tyrants.
They probably have been doing that before, but it wasn't reported as much. Usually western spying was kept quiet (both political "real" spying and also data collection on "normal people") if it was done by western governments (and companies), and only mentioned if china/russia/iran/... did it.
Now the EU-US diplomacy is not as good anymore, and media is reporting about the US spying too... sadly EU is incapable of creating a facebook-like social network, or else we'd be reusing the "tiktok is a chinese spying app" playbook on facebook(/google/...) over here too.
Pookleblinky (PBUH) was prophetic about the lack of an American trickster archetype. So prescient that the populace ended up electing some f***ed up Protestant version of one.
There used to be a "checkinstall" tool, so you'd ./configure, make, and instead of "make install" use "checkinstall" - this would make some fakeroot magic, install the package and create a deb package for it, that could be apt-get removed later.
And iirc, automake uses /usr/local by default (if you didn't specify the --prefix).
I live in a small country of ~2mio pop, and we have approximately 6000 settlements with streets and street addresses and many different standards of numberings, depending on many reason, mostly historic.
Technically yes, a few thousand systems could be programmed into some google processing engine, but you'd have to manually classify every road to set the correct system, and even there, you'd never know what is a legit numbering scheme or what is an error.
For example, Cucumber street 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 on one side of the street and Cucumber street 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 on the other is a valid numbering scheme. If #3 splits his front yard and builds another house, you'd get "3a" on that side. If #6 buys #8, demolishes one or both buildings and builds a bigger one, that could become either a "6" or an "8", and the other would be missing. Then #7 is demolished and an apartment building is built there with 4 entrances to 4 separate building sections, so those would be numbered 7a, 7b, 7c and 7d, even though they're in the same building. #5, #7 and #9 are also a part of the same building (three entrances), but the building is older, the street was renamed and renumbered some time after, and each of the entrances got its own number. Then you come to #10, which is also a building with 4 entrances, but #10 goes towards Cucumber street, and the other three are facing the Lettuce street and are thus Lettuce street 6, 6a and 6b. Notice starting with the "6" here and "7a" above, well, that's because #6 lettuce street existed before the building was expanded, it kept the #6 number, but since there used to be a shed on Cucumber street #7, the new building starts with 7a.
Good luck writing a general model for that.
reply