It’s already available and parents are not utilizing it.

The parents have determined that it’s not needed. They’ve determined that trying to strictly regulate exactly what Little Johnny can and can’t see online does him far more harm than porn ever could. This hyper-authoritarian nonsense needs to die in a fire.

Pretty sure the nuclear plant will provide significantly more heat. I mean, those giant cooling towers are specifically designed to unload heat into the atmosphere.

Shit.

There is no indication that they can actually acquire the clear text of an E2EE communicatiom. without one of the ends being complicit in the process. There is no evidence of the fraud you refer to.

That doesn’t mean they are telling the truth, merely that they haven’t been proven to have lied. They could release their source code tomorrow. That code could prove you are correct and they are liars. That code could prove that they are correct, and you were wrong.

We don’t have to resort to unfounded claims to justify criticism here. Proving their claims to be unverifiable is more damning than failing to prove they are committing fraud.

Technically true.

However, doing so would be perpetrating a fraud. If they denied the capability you’re talking about in response to a warrant or subpoena, someone would be in contempt.

I don’t know if any corpo actually cares about such things, but I know that if you or I were to do this, we’d quickly find ourselves broke and possibly in prison.

That means there’s a software switch that dumps a plaintext copy of a supposedly encrypted message when flipped.

Kinda, sorta, but no, not really. What’s happening is that the recipient is decrypting the message. When you report the message, you include a cleartext copy with your report.

The “switch” you are talking about is in the same app that is doing the decryption. For the bad actor to toggle that “switch”, they would have to control the app.

That’s a little disingenuous…

1. You receive an encrypted message.
2. You decrypt the message.
3. You report the message.
4. You forward the decrypted message.

When you send a message, no E2EE scheme can prevent your recipient from forwarding the decrypted message to a third party.

deleted by creator

The problem comes when a public school’s IT department is deciding whether to go with a FOSS option, or a commercial OS. As the IT team has full control over the FOSS OS, the school will be held liable as the OS provider. They will select a commercial OS to avoid liability under these idiot laws.

Flavor causes cancer.

You aren’t understanding my point.

My point is that you can continue to import and sell the exact same physical device, just with a little change in marketing, and possibly software.

My point is this: Once you have acquired the device, there is fuck all the FCC can do about you converting your “ham radio” back into a consumer-grade router.

This only applies to routers.

It’s not widely known outside the ham radio community, but part of the 2.4GHz wifi band overlaps the 13cm amateur radio band. If you turn off 5GHz wifi and lock the 2.4GHz AP to Channel 1, it qualifies as a ham radio, and can be sold as a ham radio instead of an AP/Router. You do need a ham radio license to operate it as a Ham AP, but you do not need a license to buy a Ham AP.

If the end user wants to turn on 5GHz after the fact, there is not a damn thing the FCC can do about it.

The UK uses single phase to the house. This is provided via one 240v hot and a neutral. Their final distribution transformer bonds one side of the output coil to ground and use it as a neutral, which makes the other side of the coil 240v relative to that ground.

The US uses split phase to the house. This is 240v provided via two opposing 120v hots and a common neutral. Their final distribution transformer is almost identical to the UK version: end to end, they have a 240v output. The difference is that instead of bonding one end of the output coil to ground and using it as a neutral for the other end, they instead bond the center of the output coil to ground and use that as a common neutral for both ends.

Not just solar - most grid-scale generators have this problem. “Black start” is the search term you want to look for, and Practical Engineering has a good video on the subject.

Basically, only a relative few grid generators are actually capable of black starts. The rest need the grid to be already functioning before they can tie in and start producing.

Ohio does something like that. We have separate contracts with a heavily regulated grid operator for distributing power, and our choice of generation companies for providing power.

The grid operator does our metering and billing, but forwards our generation charge to the provider we select.

Are you saying that electrical power should only be provided by government entities?

Should you be allowed to plug in a solar panel and provide power back to the grid?

Are you a government entity?

If you think you should be allowed to backfeed your own meter, you are calling for the grid to be operated as some sort of market. A regulated market, sure. But a market nonetheless.

The “natural monopoly” of electrical power is only on the distribution, not the generation of that power. It is reasonable for various generators to compete against each other to meet grid demand.

You should be able to push power back onto the grid. You should not be limited only to taking it off the grid. If you can put more on than you remove, you should be compensated for your generation at the market rate.

The designated subject for your personal protest is the richest person within 20 miles of you.

Worse, they’ve grown up on a steady diet of media telling them that “if you say the wrong thing” to a girl, “she’s going to accuse you of something,”

There’s a big problem with the premise of this argument.

The article accepts this “steady diet of media” as fact, but implies that it only affects “guys”.

If there is, indeed, a “steady diet of media” saying this to a guy, then that same “steady diet of media” is saying the same thing to a girl: “If a guy says something wrong, it is reasonable and/or expected for a girl to accuse him of something”. Girls are hearing the exact same message that guys are hearing.

If that “steady diet” actually exists, then the guy’s concerns of accusations are valid, and he should be praised for ensuring he doesn’t “say the wrong thing”.

Suppose Microsoft adds this capability to Windows, and you edit the registry to disable it. How is that any different?

By allowing the end user to change it instead of locking it down, they are not making a good faith effort to comply, and they lose their liability protection. To maintain their immunity, at the very least they will need to prohibit Californians from disabling the feature.

Canonical is prohibited from adding comparable terms.

I can see the argument for something like iOS.

How is iOS any different from Windows here?

Let’s say you own a computer store in California, you sell Windows laptops, and you setup your preinstalled Windows image with the registry edit made, because customers don’t like the silly age prompt. How are you not the OS Provider?

Again, to maintain their immunity under this law, they would have to prohibit me from doing this in their licensing agreement. My violation is what protects Microsoft. I would, indeed, be the OS provider in that scenario.

But in the scenario you describe, I’m not the end user.

Neither Canonical nor I can include the same restrictive terms in our OS offerings. We can simply inform our users that the OS is not California compliant. Our users become their own OS Providers as soon as they decide to use them in California.