So? The same problem exists for having the OS broadcast the user's age range to all apps/services/websites: the service outside your jurisdiction doesn't have to actually restrict content based on age.
At least with the reverse system (services broadcast an age rating), you have some nice properties:
1. You can set it up so that if the service doesn't broadcast an age rating, access is denied.
2. You aren't leaking age information (even if it's just a range) to random websites outside your jurisdiction.
> instead of forcing platforms like Facebook to be less evil, we should give parents the ability to simply uninstall Facebook, and prevent it from being installed by the child.
Isn't that how parental controls already work?
There are problems, though:
1. The kids want to use Facebook. If parent A refuses to let their kid use Facebook, then kids B, C, D, E, F... all use Facebook and kid A becomes a social outcast. This actually happens. (Well, now it's other apps; kids don't use Facebook anymore.) This is similar to the mobile-phones-in-schools problem: if a parent doesn't let their kid bring a phone to school, and all the other parents do, that creates social isolation. When the school district bans the phones, it solves the problem for everyone. (So it's a collective action problem, really.)
2. Web browsers. Unless the parent is going to uninstall and disallow web browser use, the kid can still sign into whatever service they want using the web browser. I don't think parental controls block specific sites, and even if they do, there are ways around that, certainly.
I am very often the person who says that parents should actually parent their kids and not rely on the government to nanny them. But in this case I think there actually is value to the government making laws that make Facebook (etc.) less evil. And as a bonus, maybe they'll be forced to be less evil to adults too!
1. The current norm of social siloing apps was created by these tech companies in the first place. What regulators can do is discourage anti-competitive practices that lock users into specific software and hardware platforms. If there's plenty of competition for every kind of social app, and competition for OSes, and users could freely choose and move between them, then not having a particular app would not result in social isolation. This affects adults as well.
2. The OS has a firewall. But it's currently not user-controllable on your phone. Phone companies have decided you don't need that feature. But actually, they can easily implement a nice UI in the settings for the firewall and lock it behind a password, then parents would be able to use it to block individual websites. We can even make it possible to import/export site lists as a txt file so that you can download/share a curated block list that you or other parents made, to block many things at once. You could also do this for your entire home WiFi network in your WiFi router's settings, if your router's firmware has that feature.
And yeah, I agree that we should make the platforms less evil in general. But I think the way to do that is to give people the ability to easily ditch bad platforms and build new ones. Let the platforms actually compete, then the best will prevail. Right now, they don't prevail because of layers and layers of anti-competitive barriers. It would take great technical effort to regulate all the tricks these tech companies use, that's why I propose dealing with it at the root: make it so that all computer/phone hardware manufacturers must open-source their device drivers and firmware, and let the user lock/unlock the bootloader and install alternative OSes. If we do this, then the entire software ecosystem will fix itself over time along with all the downstream problems.
It's so much better. In the one case, the OS is leaking age information (even if just an age range) to every service it talks to. In the other case, the OS isn't telling anyone anything, and is just responding to the age rating that the app/service advertises.
I guess they're only sending this to people who use tools like OpenClaw. I don't, and haven't gotten an email. And I guess also won't get the free extra usage credit offer. Ah well.
Honestly it seems like the only thing Trump's base cares about is the price of gasoline. They don't give a shit about what's actually happening in the war.
Iran's regime is an radical Islamic theocracy that has "Death to America" as a matter of policy, supports every other radical Islamist militia in the entire Middle East region, and tried to build nukes after being told, repeatedly, not to build nukes.
I don't know about you, but the idea of a radical Islamic theocracy and a well known source of Middle East instability having nukes doesn't sit well with me. As far as reasons to invade countries go, this alone would make for a damn good one.
If a button existed that magically turned Iran into a secular-ish democracy(-ish) like Turkey then, yes, I would expect the President of the United States to press it.
No such button exists, and it's increasingly clear that this war will leave the entire world far worse off while further entrenching the current Iranian regime.
"Far worse off" how exactly? "Entrenching" how exactly?
Iranian regime wasn't doing that well even when it wasn't actively bombed. And "rally around the flag" only goes so far in a country that has been killing protestors by the thousands.
I don't see this war ruining Iran's regime overnight as is. But if it comes up with a sustained effort to pressure Iran, or a ground operation to topple the regime directly, it well might.
> "Far worse off" how exactly? "Entrenching" how exactly?
Hardliners and the IRGC have significantly more power than before, and however few moderates that remain have much less political capital and are at much greater risk of being purged.
If Iran doesn't win significant concessions tayt the sucker-punch attacks will never be repeated again[1], they are guaranteed to sprint towards the minimum viable nuke.
1. Bibi will refuse, obviously, and Americas capacity to leash him is questionable.
Here's an idea I heard put forth because Iran is asking for a great power guarantee against future incidents like this.
Have China the guarantor, build military bases, and put them under their nuclear deterrence umbrella. Iran can be assured they won't be bombed, the West can be assured they won't have nukes. (in theory, I largely assume the CCP will not aid in their construction or let them have nukes under such an arrangement).
Thing is, all the little countries are looking at what happened to Ukraine (who gave up their nukes), Iran (who has not gotten them yet), and North Korea (who has them). Their looking and thinking, if I had nukes, I probably wouldn't be the target of regime change.
Why would China agree to that? It's an insane proposition for them. "You have to put bases in a country where you have no strategic reason to do so, and in addition, you agree that if that country is attacked then you have to nuke the US, guaranteeing your own destruction."
They want a base in the Middle East and they have many reasons to be there, oil being one of them, they actually get it from there. As Trump says (today), the US does not have any need for their oil, so in that sense China has more reason to be there.
Mutually Assured Destruction has worked for 75 years, China is aggressively expanding their stockpiles. Would the US or Israel risk a war with China over Iran if they get the assurances from the Chinese they will keep Iran on a tight leash?
> Why would China agree to that?
Ultimately the aim to displace the US as the world hegemon. Having bases across the world is what hegemons do.
That's a lovely thing to say, but if your existence is being threatened by an aggressor, I wouldn't blame you for throwing out the rulebook.
In my view, if someone invades your territory and starts attacking you, you have no obligation to follow any sort of "principles" or "rules" when it comes to how you fight back. Anything you need to do to the attackers in order to defend yourself and your people is, by definition, morally defensible.
(Do note that I said "need". Doing arbitrary messed-up things that don't actually further the goal of driving back the attackers is not ok.)
Why do it, then? I'm not trying to be inflammatory or ask loaded questions here, I'm genuinely curious (as someone who, as you note, has almost no connection to the Americans who fight in wars; I have friends who are vets, but have been out of the military for years), and I just don't understand.
I absolutely believe you when you say that none of y'all want to commit war crimes, fire on civilian infra, bomb schools, etc. And yet that's happening right now, in Iran, and the soldiers continue to follow orders and carry out this travesty. I get that refusing an order is not something any soldier will do lightly, but when a school gets hit in Iran, do the soldiers conducting that strike not know what they're attacking beforehand?
Even if they don't, do they never find out? Do they not see that some large N% of targets that have been hit have ended up being civilian targets? When they're ordered to fire on a new target, do they not question whether or not it's a civilian target, given past history?
I ask these questions from near-complete ignorance; I really do not know how this works, or what kind of information any officer or soldier has when they're about to follow the orders they've been given. But it just seems insane to me that people continue to follow these orders, assuming they know how many civilians have been killed through previous actions. I just cannot imagine being in their position, and actually trusting that my superior officers were ordering me to do things that will later turn out to be morally defensible. (If any of this war is morally defensible, which I don't think it is.)
I don't have a good answer for you. I expected the upper and middle officer corps to conduct themselves with honor and they aren't.
I'm going to bet that pilots aren't briefed to hit a school, they get a target package that says this is a legit target, an IRGC command post or something. There are multiple layers of detachment between the person picking coordinates, entering them into a JDAM, and the pilot releasing that weapon so who is ultimately responsible (and this is by design, everyone can tell themselves a story right now to sleep at night.)
But you do know what you hit, in the version of the military that I was in there would have been a detailed investigation into the chain of failures that led to striking a school with children in it. I'm sure it weighs heavily on the every person involved in that decision. Cold comfort for the parents of those kids, but something like that leaves a life long scar on the people responsible.
And they have DOD lawyers (with backup from the DOJ) saying the whole thing, and specific targets, are legal. Along with that, much of the most Sr leadership (of both combat forces, and legal) have been fired and replaced with MAGA loyalists.
I guess it makes some amount of sense that information isn't always distributed in huge amounts of detail, outside of the specifics on what they need to do.
I hope that those detailed investigations are still happening.
There have been so many crimes and zero accountability. I frankly wouldn't know where to start, but maybe a good example is "collateral murder", which Assange has been persecuted for revealing for the better part of the past two decades.
We want them to. At the same time that we sit at our keyboards and philosophize about how soldiers should refuse to carry out unlawful orders, we [collectively] do not really want them spending all that much time pondering it. The most obvious cases, sure, but in general we want them to do what they are told, and do it quickly. That is why there are lawyers in the field to make fast judgements.
The better solution is to try and not routinely find ourselves in the position of the country being led by criminals.
I think the author is missing the point. Markdown is easy for humans to read, write, and modify. Yes, parsers can be complicated. Few people need to write parsers, so that's ok, if unfortunate for those parser authors. Orders of magnitude more people need to read, write, and modify the documents themselves, and the fact that it's easy to do so is a huge strength.
HTML is terrible when you consider these properties. It's not easy to read, and is annoying to write and modify. Ditto for any other XML-based markup language, or even something like RST. LaTeX is right out.
Ultimately the author seems to suggest plain text should be what people use? That misses the point. Plain text is great for a lot of things, but if you're going to generate HTML (or something else) from it, you need something that at least has some structure. Markdown hits a nice sweet spot where it has enough structure such that you can reasonably generate rich-text document formats from it, but not so much that non-technical users can't work their heads around the format.
Wow that's lovely. Wish we could do that on HN for a bit.
(Yes, I know, I can install an extension or something to hide LLM/AI submissions. I don't want to, and that's not the same thing, and won't have the same effect.)
I use LLMs, I think they are useful, but oh my sweet jesus I am so tired of reading and hearing about them everywhere.
At least with the reverse system (services broadcast an age rating), you have some nice properties:
1. You can set it up so that if the service doesn't broadcast an age rating, access is denied.
2. You aren't leaking age information (even if it's just a range) to random websites outside your jurisdiction.
reply