IMO there really needs to be a way to mark all variables non-null by default at package or at least a file level. Otherwise there will be a strong safety argument for always using T! syntax on almost every variable and this will just be a lot of noise.
> Providing a mechanism in the language to assert that all types in a certain context are implicitly null-restricted, without requiring the programmer to use explicit ! symbols.
i don’t think it will be that bad. we have a standard in our projects today that all java variables in code we own are not null. if you would like to have a nullable variable, you must annotate it with @Null
this is only an issue at the boundaries of our code where we interact with libraries. i imagine that will be the case with this new syntax as well
With good tooling compiler error vs lint error is a distinction that matters about as much in practice as parse error vs type error—your editor and CI pipelines will yell at you either way.
"software is a force multiplier" well maybe that's the point. I am a superstitious b*tch but maybe the Universe doesn't want our force to be multiplied any more!!!!
I've been trading for 4 years on the side mostly on intuition. I like to think one can emotionally program the powerful computer that is the unconscious mind to serve the distributed monster of global finance for profit. Sometimes I even do tarot. Seems to kinda work LoL what could possibly go wrong????
true but as engineers we should sometimes sacrifice and live in the future a bit to maximize opportunity and in the future hardware will adapt to software as it always has
Basic age verification is pretty easy, no? I’m not sure about the details but this seems like a pretty low bar for a site like this. Not that I’m advocating it be required but just that if it were me I would not make something like this without at least making the best possible attempt at age verification.
Why wouldn't something based on unlinkable blind signatures work? Basically site issues a token to user, user gets token unlinkably blindly signed by some recognized age verification entity (government agency, bank) that already has their personal information, user returns signed token to site, site verifies it was signed by the recognized age verification entity.
What is the "best possible attempt"? There's was a checkbox added (possibly after this suit was filed) that was a "I'm over 18 and understand I'm meeting random people". That's something every teen already clicks past constantly to see increasingly large swathes of the internet. Any actual "verification" seems quite difficult beyond just relying on self-attestation.
> What is the "best possible attempt"? There's was a checkbox added (possibly after this suit was filed)
It was after the suit was filed (prior to the suit, AIUI, Omegle had an over-18 warning (with no confirmation) on the Unmoderated chat option, and a stated policy that users had to be 18+ or 13+ with parents permission.
Also, it may not have been because of this suit, there is at least one other suit that was found not to be barred by Section 230 (this one avoided S230 immunity because it is a product liability suit, not one contingent on their role as a publisher; the other one I've seen, IIRC, was found to raise a triable question of fact regarding whether Omegle's behavior was within the category of knowing involvement in trafficking that brought it out of S230 protection.)
It’s because the cops can show up and demand ID from everyone inside, they have to make sure everyone has one.
In this case, they have no obligation to ensure everyone has ID on their person.
Can you sue a bar you used fake ID to get into?
My real question wasn’t if there are kids on the system or not, but why are they allowed to sue when they themselves and nobody else have lied about the age verification question?
Yes, kids can and have sued because they got served alcohol while underage - even if they asked for it. The whole premise is as minor they couldn’t understand the consequences, and weren’t fully responsible for their actions.
And establishments get shut down all the time for it.
Your link from an ID verification company says “it depends” wrt fake id liability. I suppose there are sane places and crazy places in the world, for a limited time at least
Only if they ask for ID, check it, and it looks so good no one could tell it was fake. That’s about as far from checkbox in a random website pop up as we can get though, right?
In your new example:
- is there a regulatory reason that it is illegal for them to serve someone named Bob? Or is there a real risk/harm that people named Bob would suffer that they know about and is predictable?
- did they do any of the checks they are legally required to do to prevent someone named Bob from accessing the service and therefore suffering that injury? Or make a good faith effort to not just injure any Bob’s, at a minimum?
If they didn’t, then yet a Bob could sue if he managed to get through and get injured.
This is a really important question for sure and I want to protect the rights of journalists, but in this instance the reporter from the BBC sat in front of Leif's house for 7 hours, fully aware that Leif was there and didn't want to speak to him, and then when he briefly emerged, accused him of not protecting children. It feels more like entrapment and harassment than reporting. It also feels like the type of theater the BBC knows they can get away with because the topic is child abuse and we seem to lose all restraint as a society when this topic comes up.
wow I’ve never heard it put like that but that’s exactly it! I definitely have the second type of reaction. It really feels like short-term hypomania (have some experience with that too).
