As do many people, but there are plenty others who will see this as being punished for doing the right thing, and will be less inclined to do so going forward

Maybe, but I am more optimistic about that.

France, like many other EU countries, already has laws that forbid to sell porn and alcohol to minors in the real world.
I will never understand why Internet should have not the same restrictions.

And what would be the point of doing it right in future.

I do the right thing because it is the right thing and not because I expect something in return. Then I may contest the law because it is stupid or I can follow it to the letter to show how stupid it is.

In the end people that do the right thing will continue, like parents who don’t give a damn will continue to don’t give a damn about it.

True, but in my opinion social media are not seen as dangerous by a large part of the population, so nobody think that they should teach kids to protect themselves from them.

Personally, I’m of the view that a blanket ban is simply not going to work, and comes with all the same problems of the online safety act, mostly that the government, or the companies they employ to verify ages, simply cannot be trusted with that information.

Government already has your informations, problem are the companies. But in the end I think that the only viable option to have some sort of decent check is that the company try to verify the age with the government, which only answer yes|no.

If control needs to be implemented, it should be in having mandatory parental control options, but ultimately I believe it to be the job of the parents to utilise them, not the government.

Parental control failed time and again. In the end the problem are not the kids who follow what the parents say, but the others. And nowadays it seems that parents, first and foremost, are more than happy to let social media to keep their kid occupied.

On the other hand everyone think that social media are dangerous for the children so something need to be done.

I am afraid that you cannot have children protection without some sort of control

When people say this, I always think about how we ID for alcohol. If it’s the parents responsibility, they should never let their kid be able to go to the store to buy alcohol in the first place. The store shouldn’t have to ID people. Except most people don’t make this argument. I suppose if you agree with that statement, then you’d be consistent.

One could argue that kids can go to shops that sell also alcohol, but I can get the logic.
Problem is that a parent cannot check on their kids 24/7, so maybe having a check other than the parent could be a good idea.
Stores should absolutely check for ID since there is no way for them to verify that the parents did their job.

No, but it would be fun to sue everyone with Smart Glasses since they have not your permission to film you.

When you play stupid games…

Except Ukraine is not in EU.

The point of the article with the Marchetti constant is: You probably don’t go that far because you absolutely, objectively need to. Instead, you probably go that far because you have half an hour time to commute (which is the time budget of most people), and can use a car. The fact that you use a car probably causes you to go a farther distance.

Well, if we consider work not necessary, he is right. But I have my doubts that what he wrote in the 1930’s still hold. Too many things have changed.
The point Marchetti do about the fact that you arrange your life around the workplace now seems to be not that true anymore. At the time, to change jobs were not a so common thing, people often worked in the same place all their working life, so it would made sense to arrange everythig else around it.
Today I would say that it is the opposite, people find a place where they can live and then try to arrange everything else around it, since it is relatively easier to change work than to find another home.

Proof: People who voluntarily don’t use cars see much less need to commute such distances.

People who voluntarily don’t use cars only show that they are lucky enough to not need to.

Wait to see that they discover that you don’t need a 3d printer to build a 3d printer…

The problem with this is that you need to alter the model printed. One thing is to print some yellow dots on a paper, another thing is to print some 3d marker in a model that you know nothing about with the risk to print a defective piece.

And anyway it should be done at the slicer level, the printer still only know that it need to rotate that motor for x steps, nothing else, it has no way to know what the next instruction would be.

But lets not put all the blame on voters either.

Why not ? Governments are elected by voters.

They believe in a free market so they should be able to at least make good decisions on their own. Instead they keep pumping money into China while essentially begging their own government for money.

Then voters could have voted for different people, maybe using the brain instead oof voting for people asking to close the nuclear plants without a plan B if not some vague promises that renewable energy will replace them. (as an example).

In the end people get the government they elected and the consequences of their vote.

Since the service Bambu Studio connects to isn’t required to run the software, their claim that keeping the service proprietary doesn’t violate the AGPL might be valid after all.

I think you misread something. The point seems to be that to be able to use your printer you need to connect to their cloud in any case. And this happened after a firmare update.

It’s like setting up a website with a user login, and if someone puts in “admin” in the username field without a password, the system says “sounds good” and lets you in. And then the website owners getting mad that someone hacked their system.

Blatant incompetence. I can’t believe they’re using their stupidity as an argument.

You are right, but technically speaking it would be a crime anyway. It is not that if you leave your door open then entering without permissione is not a crime.
While Bambu Labs obviously is trying to implement some sort of subscribtion model, and they are doing it in a bad faith way, for shitty as the authentication model is it is not an authorization to enter freely.

I hope when he gives his lecture, the students egg him on.

It would be a lot more impressive if everyone just stand up and walk away.

Probably to try to get some money in sponsorship. Or because they think these are the really smart guys.

I have literally in the thousands of installations I’ve done, literally never once put any genuine information in there. Who does? Why would anyone?

Private user ? Probably nobody, I agree. Commercial users ? Probably everyone, it is somewhat mandated.

Why would they need money? And exchange for their upkeep labor to get to live in luxury with their families the rest of the time.

Because not everything could be done this way. There is only so much you can do with this kind of “barter”.