Did you read the article?

The contact lens is just the display, it still requires inductive power and external display source to really do anything. Plenty to “tear apart” and fit into existing equipment.

The lens itself becoming a complete device in its entirety is something I think we are decades, potentially centuries from tech which is that minituarized. Smart rings exist, but they’re still orders of magnitude simpler devices.

If you’re gonna be wearing a computer and battery on your temple anyway, why is sticking the display in your eyeball, the simplest solution here?

What sort of extreme environment would exclude other ways of having a hud?

In you eye is an extreme way to do it, considering divers, pilots, drivers, astronauts etc. already wear or are surrounded by equipment this would be more easily integrated into.

I’d like you to realize that “the USA who is the least likely country to implement these laws” is literally the opposite of current reality.

They are making some of the greatest efforts to make legally mandated user and age tracking a thing, as well as legally mandated user identity based content-gating.

…

So this is not a concern to you?

The fact that there are people in leadership positions that want this, and have reasons why they want this, is below note. And not worth opposing?

This will lead to infrastructure, that should not exist, existing.

That it can be avoided is not a solution. It should not be built in the first place.

Is your argument really “this won’t affect linux, so it doesn’t matter” ? At the very least, FOSS development by anyone in California will be a problem, as the law quite literally names “persons” as potentially liable.

The reality remains, the US is the most thirsty for this kind of thing. Not the least.

And they are already working on an even more overreaching version that will close loopholes in the current legalese.

Windows, and any other OS will be illegal in California unless it implements this.

Apple, for one, is headquartered in California.

So, the OS wont work until the user verifies their age somehow.

Moreover, even if an OS somehow could know the users age - that doesn’t automatically mean all other software that exists automatically reads it and responds to it as necessary. Does the law compel anyone making software to recognise this?

Did you not read my comment? Anyone writing software for an OS that implements this, can be sued (in California) if their application ignores the API signals from the OS and allows access to age-restricted content.

Or is your argument really “this won’t affect linux, so it doesn’t matter” ? At the very least, FOSS development by anyone in California will be a problem, as the law quite literally names “persons” as potentially liable.

The reality remains, the US is the most thirsty for this kind of thing. Not the least.

You may want to look into what the legal requirements actually are, and how it changes who is liable. It is outright draconian.

Essentially, it requires the OS to find out the age of the user, and then inform ALL software that is run by API. Any software that theoretically could use the data, and still allows a child to see something they should not have, will be liable.

You claimed that the US was the least likely to do this sort of thing…

Instead, despite the incompetence, they are clearly spearheading this globally along with the UK. Making it most decidedly the first place that will have to deal with this crap.

Not the last.

Not even two weeks later, California is making OS level age verification a thing.

Really, really well made mashed potates is heavenly.

Combine with the grease from some meat you’re serving it with… Yum.

Steel?

When is someone gonna innovate, and develop the tech to do this with TUNGSTEN?

That is a weird-ass way to title and write about a good thing.

I don’t think the upcoming games are coming to PS4.

The Forbidden West DLC was already PS5/PC exclusive.

Nice ragebait.

If you genuinely still think that was my point in its entirety, you are truly obtuse.

No.

I’m saying 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% ≠ 100%

For some people that’s close enough. For some of us it’s not.

Prove otherwise. I dare you. I’m done putting in effort explaining the obvius to you. Your turn.

Darn.

Was really hoping my PC would do for playing future Horizon (not Hunters Gathering) and GoW games.

Didn’t need a PS5, but I guess Sony doesn’t want my money anymore.

Too bad.

That’s squenix though, and they’ve stated FF will start prioritizing PC over console.

…

4

Explain to me how they couldn’t. Without simply stating “it’s encrypted”.

On the B2 plan you can use open source solutions like Kopia, and literally look at the code, to KNOW that data is encrypted on your system with keys only you have, before Backblaze ever sees it.

Explain to me, how the personal plan using their closed source application achieves the same.

Linking to a page where they say “it’s secure” is not sufficient. Elaborate. In detail. To at least an equal extent I already have.

He old man actually

…

Sure they can. How else do they enable providing access to the content without the user password?

The data is secured against unauthorized access, but unlike zero-knowledge setups where the chain of custody is fully within user control, the user is not the only one authorized. And even if you are supposed to be, you cannot ensure that you actually are.

OF-FUCKING-COURSE the physical drives, and network traffic are encrypted. That’s how you prevent unauthorized physical access or sniffing of data in-flight. That’s nothing special.

But encryption is not some kind of magic thing that just automatically means anyone who shouldn’t have access to the data, doesn’t.

For that to actually be the case, you need solid opsec and known chain of custody. Ways of doing things that means the data stays encrypted end-to-end.

The personal backup plan doesn’t have that.

With what?

That self hosting admins on lemmy probably care about their backups not being accessible to third parties?

I don’t think you can claim that they wouldn’t.

You can claim that YOU don’t mind. But that’s a sample size of one. And I’m not denying there are people who don’t care.

I just don’t think they’re the type to be self-hosting in the first place.

And that still doesn’t answer why the fuck you set out on this series of “well achuallys”?

It seems to me, you’re still looking for something to correct me on.