cmhe

"Halb Neun" könnte auch 4:30 bedeuten...

Viel von dem ist angelernt, und nicht intuitiv. Vor allen wenn man es häufiger mit deutsch zweitsprachlern zu tun hat ist klare Kommunikation wichtig.

"Dreiviertel Neun" und "Viertel vor Neun" ist aber auch ein ziemlicher Unterschied, finde ich.

Wenn man Neun hört denkt man an Neun nicht Acht.

Jetzt hab ich in meinen Klassen Kinder sitzen, die z.B. nicht verstehen, was gemeint ist, wenn man ihnen sagt, dass man sich um "Halb 9" trifft - oder eben um "fünf nach halb 9". In den obskuren Regionen, die Zeitpunkte bzw. Zeiträume mit Bezeichnungen wie "Dreiviertel Sieben" angeben, wird das ganze noch offensichtlicher. Klar - für die reine Uhrzeit würde es reichen zu sagen "Es ist Zehn Uhr Fünfunddreißig" aber darum gehts nicht. Die Kommunikation wird beeinträchtigt und damit die Fähigkeit, sich auszutauschen.

Also als ein Ende dreißig jähriger, der noch mit analogen Uhren aufgewachsen ist, finde ich immer noch so Zeitangaben wie "Halb Neun" oder "Dreiviertel Sieben" verwirrend. Das Ziel von jeder Kommunikation ist es sich einfach und verständlich auszudrücken. Und daher finde ich das gerade solche, leicht missverständliche Zeitangaben vermieden werden sollen, und deren Nutzung in gewisserweise die Kommunikation einschränkt. Daher Frage ich bei solchen Zeitangaben gerne nochmal nach.

How does that site locates the origin (0,0)?

Shouldn't the origin be the center of mass of the position of all people or something?

I sort of doubt that the average opinion of all people, or at least a representative subset, is between "Die Grünen" and "Die Linke".

Well... It cannot even search databases without errors.

LLMs just produce plausible replies in natural languages very quickly and this is useful in certain situations. Sometimes it helps humans getting started with a task, but as it is now, it cannot replace them. As much as the capital class want it, and sink our money into it.

I guess you are joking? And mean "side-loading" as in injecting custom code via LD_PRELOAD and not the strange definition phone makers use for describing 'installing an app'.

You are seem to disagree with yourself... On the one hand you say I should ask them to make a case for their argument, but on the other I'm not allowed to ask for evidence.

But instead I need to provide a proof for... them not providing proof that their argument is not a non-sequitur? Did I get that right?

most people can get behind parental control. that is why bad actors are pushing for age verification everywhere nowadays.

Yes. And I would complain if there is a requirement to need third-party for-profit companies in order to verify peoples ages. Companies want data, and government want control. Both are bad in this case.

i think the issue many people have with that field is, that it enables bad actors to do things.

This needs to be proven. Currently it doesn't do anything. But there is work to integrate it with flathub, that would allow administrators e.g. parents, to limit access to certain apps. Maybe later there could be some kind of web interface, where a site that offers adult content, would ask the browser, and the browser would look into the account data and then respond if the logged in person is an adult or not. No third-party required, just the person that locally set the date of birth on an local account.

all the while, it does not really do the thing it is supposed to do: if i trust my kid with sudo, the field can easily be altered. if i do not trust my kid with sudo, it cannot install anything either way.

Many apps can be installed without root privileges, for instance via flatpak. And in the future it might prevent certain apps for kids.

with your last paragraph i (and probably most people) agree. but we already have those tools, right?

IDK... I think there are more tools available on Windows for that then on Linux... But I my parents never deployed those and I also never had the need for such tools.

But I guess, very often DNS block lists can be used to block adult content... But knowing the internet and adblockers based on DNS alone, that will often lead to many false negatives and positives. So I would argue that we don't really have anything like it right now for Linux Desktops.

Why do people so often invert the burden of proof?

If someone says "Picking your nose will cause brain-cancer in 40 years." Then they have the burden to proof that. Nobody has the burden to disprove that.

They made the accusation that this is a step to make this age fields mandatory, and controlled by third-party age verification services, so they have the burden to proof that there is way to do that.

I find it highly unlikely, because most people using Linux systems at home have admin privileges. Which makes this whole point moot, since they can fake whatever they like to the software running on top.

Maybe this is the issue. I have no problems with parents setting the age of the children in their account in order limit their access to certain content.

And there clearly exists a use-case for that.

My main issue is when it comes to third-party age/identity verification services. Age or identity verification in the hands of private for-profit companies is bad.

I'd rather give parents the tools to set individual restrictions locally on their devices, then pushing for a global internet based age filter.

You do know that this is a slippery slope argument, right?

You would have to demonstrate that there is an intention there to require third party services to validate the age of users using Linux... Or that there is an intention to do so by systemd and the broader open source developers.

I don't think it will be easily possible to lock out every Linux system from the internet that doesn't implement some kind of hardware DRM mechanism to make sure that the user cannot just change the date of birth with root permissions.

Every accusation of them is an admission of guilt.

So stop buying any US made hardware.