Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)I
Posts
12
Comments
708
Joined
9 mo. ago

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • By that logic U16s could then just access whatever unrestricted if they don’t sign in?

    Age-restricted results will be blurred by default unless you are logged in and meet the minimum age requirement. Those sites that are age-restricted will also require age assurance (porn, for example).

    Also can you still access the connected email or need to get a new one if you don’t verify?

    I'm not sure how Google will choose to implement it. Maybe age assurance won't be required at all unless you try to disable the new restrictions. In the case of app stores, for example, no age assurance will be required unless you want to search for R18+ apps.

    More information:

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • Only if they are signed into a Google account.

  • Bit of a different flavor between the two. Aliens movies are horror. Riddick is action with some scary scenes.

    Pitch Black is not really "Riddick", though. It is very different to the later films and much more horror.

  • An obvious pick is Adolescence. It was overhyped but still very good with some incredible performances.

  • I doubt people want to use Google Surveys?

    CryptPad can do forms.

  • I definitely think the narrower aspect ratio plays its part. The film feels quite claustrophobic as a result.

  • This community is usually pretty good, so yes it can get a lot better.

  • Was Cooper Howard a character in the games or was the entire role written for this show?

  • This thread is awful quality for this community, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised considering the article that started it is PC Gamer ragebait. Gamers are always looking for their next moment to rise up.

  • Mullvad stopped doing it because it can't be done anonymously.

    Where did Mullvad give this as the reason? There was no mention of anonymity in their announcement post. It was a decision driven by legal issues and the blacklisting of their IPs.

    Why are we removing forwarded ports?

    Port forwarding in general has added value if you are wanting to allow a friend or family to access a service running behind our VPN. This could be a legitimate website, a game server, or even access to your self-hosted server.

    Unfortunately port forwarding also allows avenues for abuse, which in some cases can result in a far worse experience for the majority of our users. Regrettably individuals have frequently used this feature to host undesirable content and malicious services from ports that are forwarded from our VPN servers. This has led to law enforcement contacting us, our IPs getting blacklisted, and hosting providers cancelling us.

    The result is that it affects the majority of our users negatively, because they cannot use our service without having services being blocked.

    The abuse vector of port forwarding has caught up with us, and today we announce the discontinuation of support for port forwarding. This means that if you are a user of forwarded ports, you will not be able to add or modify the ports you have in use.

    We have removed the ability to add port forwards on all accounts.

  • Mullvad is half the price if you want the flexibility of a monthly plan. I actually pay the same as a Proton customer but I think they either gave me a permanent loyalty discount or I'm on grandfathered monthly pricing because as a new customer you have to pay twice as much.

  • Yeah it's not gonna do much for the iPad kids being raised by YouTube, unfortunately.

  • It’s pretty depressing to see how many people have been ignoring the genuine harm that can occur using social media.

    I feel like most people agree that it can be harmful. The problem is more that they don't understand enough about how social media works to realise that it's a structural design problem with the technology itself and one that can only start to be addressed through government regulation. To a lot of people it becomes solely a personal responsibility problem. If a child has an addiction it's solely the parent's fault for allowing their child to become addicted. If an adult has an addiction then it's solely their own fault for letting themselves get addicted. When it gets framed as an individual problem rather than a structural one, it's easy to oppose any and all legislation on the basis of "well none of us have a problem so why do we have to pay for a solution/be punished?". It's difficult to understand how easily psychological manipulation can occur if you don't understand the techniques being used.

    Another, related, problem in this particular case is that a lot of people still seem to think the main problems are the more sensational things like child predators or violent content. Whilst those are very real and serious concerns, they are pretty extreme examples and getting fixated on them makes it very easy to ignore the more insidious effects of social media usage on developing brains. I guess that's one of my main problems with the current implementation; it’s based around account ownership and some platforms like YouTube still use an algorithm and build a shadow profile with recommendations based on what you've viewed even if you're logged out. For some of these platforms, the current legislation is going to do little to combat addiction (beyond signalling to parents that this stuff is bad, which is definitely important).

  • The ban doesn't really affect Gen Z, they are a lot older than you think. It's only the tail end of that generation who will have to wait a few years.

  • There's absolutely no way this goes anywhere considering they can't even vote for another 3 years.

  • Probably Gillard within my lifetime. Frankly, there haven't been any impressive PMs so she wins by being least worst. Albanese could overtake her, though he is far from exciting me.

    Howard was by far the worst and most destructive, although it feels like we're constantly discovering new information about how fucked Morrison was so maybe he'll end up being worse for me.

  • A consensus was quickly clear: "Please bring back the previous format," one person surmised on social media.

    "It's awful, the most useful features are gone and it's not user-friendly. A waste of taxpayer money," another added.

    Others said the timing was poor: "Why change it on a day of severe weather?"

    There were some fans, including one who posted: "I like the new site. The front page is much cleaner". But they were few and far between.

    What a time we live in, when social media vibes are enough to determine a "consensus" of an entire population. Have we still not worked out that the loudest people are almost always the miserable ones? People who are happy/content don't tend to waste their lives screaming online about how happy and content they are.

  • I don't think so. Here's an example of it being used to mean "restricted to a certain age". I apologise for the confusion if I'm wrong, I am talking about the same thing as you.