I can see the slippery slope argument, however it overlooks the fact that countries/states are already willing to implement the non-privacy systems.
If these systems take off, it will give privacy advocates the ability to point at California's system and say "look, they have a system that is as effective as the strong assurance stuff but without the people sending you angry emails."
I see it as almost a "reverse slippry slope". A way for people to push for less strict verification.
This is perhaps a controversial statement from someone who is fed up with all this age verification stuff, but having the user age be set on account creation (without providing ID or anything dumb like that) doesn't seem that bad.
It just feels like a way to standardise parental controls. Instead of having to roll their own age verification stuff, software like Discord can rely on the UserAccountStorage value.
If it were possible to plug into a browser in a standard, privacy conscious way, it also reduces the need for third party parental control browser extensions, which I imagine can be a bit sketchy.
OSes collect and expose language and locale information anyway. What harm is age bands in addition to that?
I don't think those are sufficient. We could prove that a given binary can be produced from a given repo commit, but that doesn't actually ensure that the code itself is safe. Malicious code is malicious code even if it's reproducible.
Consider using Ventoy if you want to try out multiple distros. It just lets you put the isos into a folder on the flash drive rather than going through the whole imaging process each time.
I'd say dual booting would be best, as much as Windows will try to break it. Then you can stay in Linux as much as you can, only switching to Windows when you need to. And then, if you're like me, you get annoyed at Windows lacking features and find alternatives that work under Linux.
For distro selection, I'd recommend Linux Mint. It just works well out of the box and most instructions online that apply to Ubuntu should work with it.
I can't comment on the SSI issue and other people have probably commented about it more, but if I may ask another question:
What job do you want? What barriers do you foresee in the way to getting them?
I can't speak for every nd folk here, but I think a lot of us are employed or have been employed in the past. Once you get past the obnoxious hiring and job seeking process, there's no reason for autism or dyslexia to inherently block you from having a job.
I can see the slippery slope argument, however it overlooks the fact that countries/states are already willing to implement the non-privacy systems.
If these systems take off, it will give privacy advocates the ability to point at California's system and say "look, they have a system that is as effective as the strong assurance stuff but without the people sending you angry emails."
I see it as almost a "reverse slippry slope". A way for people to push for less strict verification.