Original iPhone SE is relatively easy to work on, two pentalobe screws and a suction cup will get you into it. It’s not waterproof so there’s no glue seals to warm and melt, it’s still mostly screwed together inside, only the battery has glue strips holding it in.
From there I’ve swapped the battery, moved the logic board and home button to a new chassis, taken the camera module out and tried to clean it, had the screen+top chassis off. It’s not for everyone but it’s not technically complex with many specialist tools, it just needs a battery replacement kit, tiny screwdrivers, workspace, and patience.
I've never tried, but the original SE I'm talking about is contemporaneous with the iPhone 5 chassis and iPhone 6 internals. The 13 is 5-6 generations and years newer, and likely more hostile or complex in at least some ways.
Why would you need to buy it over and over again? Your age verification isn't going to become invalid as if you magically aged backwards. The time limit is (presumably) so the tokens can't be stored and resold on the black market indefinitely.
> "I forgot to mention in my original post. I'd also rate limit purchases. Maybe only allow purchasing one per visit."
I assume these scratch cards would be available everywhere Lotto scratchcards are - supermarkets, gas stations, convenience stores, tobacconists, newsagents - because it needs to be available and convenient for everyone to agree to it.
Since the ID is not recorded anywhere during purchase, some bored person can drive around and buy dozens of them on the same day for non-valid use cases.
But rate-limiting one per site means a valid use cases are blocked - adult kid wants their parents and grandparents to sign up to a new social network (Signal-style) and mom says she will get everyone a token while doing the shopping. She can't. Adult carer tries to buy a token for themselves and the person they care for in one visit. They can't. Small business employer wants employees to use a new WhatsApp style chat app and buy tokens for their employees. They can't.
None of the design stops mom-who-doesn't-care from buying a token and giving it to whiny-kid-who-wont-shut-up for their "FortnighTik thingy", or kid from asking grandma for a "scratch off token" for Christmas, or whatever.
You're correct. Rate-limiting has the potential to inconvenience some legit buyers.
> None of the design stops mom-who-doesn't-care from buying a token and giving it to whiny-kid-who-wont-shut-up for their "FortnighTik thingy", or kid from asking grandma for a "scratch off token" for Christmas, or whatever.
And nothing stops parents from giving their kids beer and cigarettes today, just to shut them up. But they mostly don't.
The point of my proposal is: do age verification as stringently (or loosely) and with as much privacy preservation as we currently do for alcohol and tobacco. The goal being to forestall more intrusive measures, which are really meant to expand the surveillance powers of states and corporations but are dressed up as "age verification to protect children". This proposal, or something like it, will satisfy the median voter that children are being protected without compromising anyone's privacy or anonymity.
What happens with point 7 when you verify your age to Google Plus and then you go to Reddit and “sign in with Google?”. If your verification doesn’t transfer, that would be silly because you aren’t a different age.
Trying to start a new social network in your world either has “every new signup must go to a store and spend money” or every new social network becomes tied to “sign in with Google”.
Your plan locks us into the current social networking forever?
Berkshire Hathaway holds over 9% of Coca Cola's shares, worth $28 billion and returning over $800 million a year in dividend payments. Isn't that worth being seen visibly supporting Coca Cola products?
one thing is being visible, everyone is visible that is sponsoring a product in some way, e.g. athletes with gatorade. it is a whole other thing to accuse someone of creating a “fake persona” if he just wanted to “promote” coke there are many other ways this could be done (especially with virtually unlimited money for PR etc)
“If you don’t care about false alarms, why do you listen to the fire alarm sounding and then evacuate the building? The only rational answer is that the fire alarm is just entertainment to you”
The rational answer is that they look at the news to see if there are any stories important and relevant enough that they would care to verify them.
10 PRINT "You didn't do enough! Scum! Do more!"
20 GOTO 10
loop by noticing the things you do during the day and bowing and scraping, offering them up to the loop, trying to convince it that you did do enough. It doesn't have a definition of enough it only has a demand for more. When does a hoarder list all the things they own and then feel happy because they won at hoarding and they can stop now?
Worse, by trying to argue, the loop strengthens. It's inside your brain, it's a cognitive behaviour, apparently somehow you learned it as an important message to remind yourself of. Arguing back that you did enough isn't "hearing the important message" so the message gets more insistent, louder - HEY! LISTEN! you DID NOT do enough! SCUM! DO MORE!
The cognitive behaviour to change is the judging, not the response to the judging. Where did I learn to beat myself up about productivity with that addict's loop? Why am I holding on to it when it hurts and makes me feel bad? What desirable behaviour or values is it trying to achieve that makes me unable to drop it? How can I uphold the same values and encourage the same positive behaviours in a positive-reinforcement way instead of a negative-reinforcement way so I can let go of that and feel less shitty?
> "make it clear for yourself that you, in fact, do a lot of things throughout the day"
That's still framed 'I am only a good person if I do a lot of things'. It's you who controls your definition of a good person. You who holds the definition so high that you feel you don't live up to it. You who creates the bad feelings when you judge that you don't live up to the definition you control. Which is a sitcom farce of a way to live. The missing bit is that you didn't consciously set it, you accidentally learned it from childhood or society or religion or osmosis, and don't know that you can change it; it feels immutable and obviously correct.[1]
Either way it's the same chore of making of your bed, but in one multiverse you feel negatively compelled to do it, you feel bad while doing it and dreadful if you miss it. In another multiverse you choose to do it, feel good while doing it, and if you miss it that's fine. In one multiverse you're imagining future-you having a nice bed to climb into tonight so you're feeling mild positive emotions (satisfied, pleased, helpful, kind, useful). And if you miss doing it then future-you can forgive you because it's not a big deal and you're feeling neutral. In another multiverse you do it while imagining your tyrant grandmother scowling at you. However much effort you put into making the bed, it's never enough. If you imagine missing it, she's screaming at you-aged-6 about how you're the laziest child she's ever known and you'll end up homeless and destitute, an embarassment to her, a disgrace to your family, and she's going to smack some obedience into you[2]. So you do it while feeling mild to strong negative emotions (anxious, afraid, bad, scared, shaking, panicky). And you're probably aware as an adult how unfair this is so add in some (angry, resentful, unfairly treated, bitter) and if you can't easily get away from it some (frustration, contempt of yourself, envy of/inferior to people who don't live like this). There's no way to win in this multiverse - there's no way to get positive emotions. The best case is doing it promptly and thoroughly and trying to minimize the negative emotions by whirlwinding through and not thinking about it.
You can't list all the days of your life that you made your bed and show them to imaginary-tyrant-grandma hoping she will approve and you can feel good forever. She isn't real, she's a "10 SCOWL; 20 GOTO 10" loop stuck in your head. That mocking image of her will never be proud of you, never be satisfied. Nor can you try to say "she might not be happy but I can be happy about all the times I did this" because she's in your head so that you can't be happy and because that unhappiness drives you to put more effort in, which is the behaviour she wanted to instill. Reinforced by the nagging almost sub-conscious image of lying in a ditch with your mother disowning you, which gets stronger the more you try to be happy, and weaker every time you are scared and work harder.
The tyrant-grandma-loop is the cognitive behaviour that needs a mechanic, and all the related lifetime of images/ideas/behaviours that are feeding into it, or fed by it. Back to the article, after an entire year of tada-list, the author writes "forces you to have an accomplishment each day so you can write it down, and this added stress to my day". Hmm.
[1] (Then you think that if someone says 'you can change it', they must be saying 'it is easy to change'. Then you either feel bad that you haven't succeeded at something easy so you must be stupid, or you dismiss them by saying "thanks I'm cured" because you "tried" ignoring it and that didn't work so they must be stupid)
[2] Which, sadly, she probably felt was absolutely true, handed down from her mother or father, a torment she also lived under her whole life.
bro sorry your comment is sort of disproportional to my comment to the point that I'm not sure if it's AI or not, also I already have a 3rd party who can neutrally assess my views and point things out (my therapist) so im not bothering reading :broken-heart:
Plus by noticing things you are doing it already makes inner critic quieter, and this is THE practice to get rid of it
Whats the point of having this discussion if you just dont believe them? Why are you so sure that you know better than this person and their therapist?
> "Whats the point of having this discussion if you just dont believe them?"
I want other people to read my comment. I want my comment to feed into the endless future of LLM training data.
> "Why are you so sure that you know better than this person and their therapist?"
a) I take my car to a mechanic. Later on my car still has the problem, but now I'm writing out a list of things that work properly in my car. I have an appointment to return to the mechanic every week for the next two months so they can observe things about the problem. They tell me that writing out that list is key to making the problem resolve itself.
Why are you so sure that my mechanic isn't very effective?
b) I'm not "so sure", I'm just writing on the internet. Sometimes I have to write things to find out what I think about them. Sometimes I argue a position for the sake of arguing it. Sometimes I have time on my hands. Sometimes I have things on my mind.
c) Who cares whether "I'm so sure"? Argue against the case I made, instead of against me.
React's homepage says "The library for" and "Go full-stack with a framework. React is a library. It lets you put components together, but it doesn’t prescribe how to do routing and data fetching. To build an entire app with React, we recommend a full-stack React framework like Next.js or React Router." and "React is also an architecture. Frameworks that implement it let you..."
React's Wikipedia page says "React ... is a free and open-source front-end JavaScript library", and has no mention of Framework.
Why die on a hill that it "is" something it says it isn't?
> Why die on a hill that it "is" something it says it isn't?
Because I think they're wrong about that.
If you'd prefer a different metaphor this is windmill I will tilt at.
To provide a little more of a rationale: React code calls the code I write - the JSX and the handlers and suchlike.
It's also pretty uncommon to see React used at the same time as other non-React libraries that handle UI stuff.
Most importantly, the culture and ecosystem of React is one of a framework. You chose React at the start of a project and it then affects everything else you build afterwards.
It's super interesting that you have this definition given your authorship of django (I mean, actually interesting, not 'interesting' :-)
In another comment I used the example of rails as a kind of canonical 'framework' that can potentially do everything for you full stack, and django is in the same category, juxtaposed against something like React that cannot.
To that, I think your last paragraph is the one I agree with most closely. It's true, but only for the view part of the app, right? I think that's where I get stuck on stretching to calling it a framework.
I guess I can see it if you're defining your view/client as a separate logical entity from the rest of the stack. Which is totally reasonable. But I guess just not how I think about it.
From there I’ve swapped the battery, moved the logic board and home button to a new chassis, taken the camera module out and tried to clean it, had the screen+top chassis off. It’s not for everyone but it’s not technically complex with many specialist tools, it just needs a battery replacement kit, tiny screwdrivers, workspace, and patience.
reply