Yeah, that's Garmin's thing. They are selling top of the line, marine/aviation grade, safety critical equipment. $2,000 is almost low for what they normally sell, like radar systems and chart plotters for boats, or glass cockpits for aircraft. They are mostly competing with Raytheon and BAE systems for niche applications. Stuff you would find in F-16 fighter jets except better somehow.
Essentially, Garmin is the product you buy when money is no object. Either because you are obscenely wealthy, or because you are trusting their product with your life and the lives of your passengers. They have some consumer grade stuff too that is usually trickling down from their obscenely expensive other businesses.
I read the comments. Despite clearly explaining that he was supporting artists, people just said "no you're lying" and baselessly accused him of piracy.
Anyway OP seems like a great person. And if he did like pirating, cool! You are free to live your life how you see fit :)
>a stand-off has been engineered between UK censorship measures nobody asked for, and the constitutional rights of all Americans.
This is probably my favorite line in the entire piece. Some heads up in the UK Bureaucracy created this regulation out of the desire to protect children, and now they are being pitted against the constitutional rights of United States citizens.
Truly incredible work from the UK government. I imagine the United States will not be happy..
>Some heads up in the UK Bureaucracy created this regulation out of the desire to protect children
More likely: Ofcom is seeing traditional media dying, so the bureaucrats needed to come up with something to remain relevant and employed.
Ofcom is supposed to be funded by fees charged to the companies that it regulates. There are no hints of social media having to pay them yet, but in the future?
Think of all the work that OSA is creating: age verification companies, regulation compliance consultants, certifications, etc.
Once private companies in the US figure out how much profit they can make off this, they surely will follow..
These laws weren't created by Ofcom. They were passed as primary legislation by the previous government (and enthusiatically implemented by the current one).
While you are correct in the literal sense, I think the point is still valid. The powers that be decided they need to expand Ofcom's scope. For them this is one of the many ways they exert control and thus are interested in maintaining or expanding Ofcom.
Already underway in several states. Bills in Texas and Utah have already been approved, with several other states entertaining such proposals, although none have moved out of committee as yet.
It's all so tiresome.
If this were really about protecting the children they could've solved the matter with the equivalent of a mandate on device manufacturers and website operators to respect a DO-NOT-SERVICE-I-AM-A-CHILD (or whatever) header in HTTP. Hell, if it were really about protecting children, parents would get access to dumbed down versions of the kind of tools corporate IT has for managing business phones ... so they can lock them down, limit how they're used, right down to what apps can be installed.... but that would deprive advertisers of a golden ticket for knowing what views are legit, put parents back in control, and actually work... so can't have that. :D
I imagine they would counterargument your proposal along the lines of: "the most endangered children cannot rely on their families to protect them online"
If that is so then that is a problem to be solved by the local equivalent of child protective services by removing them to a safe environment, not by imposing tyranny on everyone else. See how easy it is to dismantle statist arguments if you just stand your ground?
I have this happen all the time in healthcare. I had someone from a specialist office call me and immediately ask me for my date of birth. Their surprise when I said no was incredible. But I agree with you, if THEY are the ones calling, they need to prove their identity.
I've got one that their phone robot says it's a message from my doctor's office, does not identify the office. Almost dismissed it as garbage, then realized it could be related to an upcoming appointment. And it's not even really right--unspecified doctor of mine would be my PCP, not the specialist.
Unfortunately, the medical world is caught between a rock and a hard place in this case. Can't give any info to anybody but the patient--which means they can't identify themselves when they call as the practice name directly reveals their specialty, or the doctor (google will reveal their area of practice.) And the office that's doing this is an area where some patients would want it confidential.
I think maybe it could be resolved by having the medical world go to a correct horse battery staple model--on first contact you're given a set of random words that will be used as an identifier for future contacts. Each patient gets different words so all anyone else can infer is that it's a medical provider.
I much prefer the places that go with don't leave a message/leave a brief message/leave a detailed message. No need to add security to situations that don't need it.
I side with Occam's razor here, and with another commenter in this thread. People are construing entire conspiracy theories to explain fake replies when asked for system prompt, lying in Github repos, etc.
And we’re in a comment thread about a study that concluded:
>LLMs 1) express stigma toward those with mental health conditions and 2) respond inappropriately to certain common (and critical) conditions in naturalistic therapy settings
So if you overheard somebody say “I don’t do that stuff because it’s addictive and people go crazy on it” you would probably assume that they were talking about a substance. Or at the very least you would not assume that they were talking about seeing a therapist.
reply