There’s nothing inherently wrong with e-ID, it can be mighty useful, especially when implemented thoughtfully. The real problem is when it’s imposed despite widespread societal opposition and refusal (which obviously is not the issue here, but is in other countries).
I agree that it can be useful, but I fear that in the future, we will have many more online platforms that require an ID than we currently do.
In the past, things like age verification required users to upload a scan or photo, and someone had to verify it. Because that was too much work for the platform operators, they didn't do it (or only with the banner "Are you over 18?").
With the e-ID instead, this will be much simpler to implement. And I expect it to become much more widespread in the future.
Even though I am for the eID I do share your worry but I don‘t think it‘s hopeless. Both politically and socially there are avenues to combat such over-identification. Still, most uses will probably more private than sharing copies of your ID so I am not sure what the gain for companies will be as it might just limit the customer base without much data gained. That does not seem in the interest of those companies. It‘s easier for the government to enforce certain checks, which is also not ideal but still there are avenues to fight this if it happens.
Quite a few actually do require ID-scan-through-email (which is horrible). Or, they simply delegate to a third party video ident service, often in another country (because cheaper).
How exactly is the status quo not much worse than "I give you a cryptographic hash proving that I am over 18, but nothing else, and without the state knowing that this transaction happened"?
The status quo is that companies which are required by law to have this information (banks, telecommunication providers etc) do require an ID scan (and often video identification as well).
All the others don't really care and just let you register with whatever name and birthdate you want, because the ID scan method is too cumbersome and expensive to them.
I expect those to move to eID, effectively requiring people to have an eID, with no way to provide false information.
The inherently wrong part about it is that it is extremely easy to revoke at the push of a button, vs a physical card that must be physically confiscated.
Sure: importing migrants with no end in sight while shutting down any convo over what the limit should be; there is no limit and you're racist if you disagree.
And it's not a principled position on open borders nor open migration but instead part of a double standard. These same people probably cheer on the protests in Mexico City against white gringos in Condesa.
That's how I'd summarize the far left position. The far right one is probably that migrants are bad. And I suppose the middle position is that there's a problem when immigration rate outpaces cultural assimilation.
Is unlimited immigration really popular among the far left? Sounds more like a libertarian position to me.
After some quick googling I can't find any groups that support that.
I did find a poll that shows 64% of Americans support creating some path for undocumented immigrants to get legal status. I'm not sure you could call 64% a far left position though.
Here's a NYTimes article from 2020 https://archive.md/uJl8t and another from 2025 https://archive.md/5az0U.
No one wants the "open borders" label but there was and still remains many who see migrants as the source of their personal salvation.
Excellent! Thank you for finding that, my Google fu isn't as strong as it used to be.
I'm still not sure that's representative of the far left. Like I said, the more right wing libertarian position is probably the same, though for different reasons.
> Is unlimited immigration really popular among the far left?
That this is being memory-holed, much like the ill-conceived bilingual education initiatives of the 90s, is actually a good sign, as it's proof that we're winning.
Git solved this by pushing the syncing burden onto people. It’s no surprise, merge conflicts are famously tricky and always cause headaches. But for apps, syncing really ought to be handled by the machine.
If you want local-first, conflict resolution is something you're unlikely to be able to avoid. The other option is to say "whoops" and arbitrarily throw away a change when there is a conflict due to a spotty wifi or some such.
Fortunately, a lot of what chafes with git are UX issues more than anything else. Its abstractions are leaky, and its default settings are outright bad. It's very much a tool built by and for kernel developers with all that entails.
The principle itself has a lot of redeemable qualities, and could be applied to other similar syncing problems without most of the sharp edges that come with the particular implementation seen in git.
I think Gemini is one of the best example of an LLM that is in some cases the best and in some cases truly the worst.
I once asked it to read a postcard written by my late grandfather in Polish, as I was struggling to decipher it.
It incorrectly identified the text as Romanian and kept insisting on that, even after I corrected it:
"I understand you are insistent that the language is Polish. However, I have carefully analyzed the text again, and the linguistic evidence confirms it is Romanian. Because the vocabulary and alphabet are not Polish, I cannot read it as such."
Eventually, after I continued to insist that it was indeed Polish, it got offended and told me it would not try again, accusing me of attempting to mislead it.
as soon as an LLM makes a significant mistake in a chat (in this case, when it identified the text as Romanian), throw away the chat (or delete/edit the LLMs response if your chat system allows this). The context is poisoned at this point.
>Eventually, after I continued to insist that it was indeed Polish, it got offended and told me it would not try again, accusing me of attempting to mislead it.
I once had Claude tell me to never talk to it again after it got upset when I kept giving it peer reviewed papers explaining why it was wrong. I must have hit the tumbler dataset since I was told I was sealioning it, which took me back a while.
I find that surprising, actually. Gemini is VERY good with Sanskrit and a few other Indian languages. I would expect it to have completely mastered European languages.
In my case, my “generalism” is mostly driven by ADHD, it happens when my brain gets bored with one subject. I don't think it's conscious in any way. I tend to go through phases: I’ll get into a topic, then switch to another, then another. After a few months, I circle back to the first subject, picking up where I left off (minus whatever I’ve forgotten). And the cycle repeats.
This is the other side of it. "Online everyone complains about X," but everyone is 200 randos online, hardly conclusive. If anything its more like the yelp effect. The people who are most likely to complain and celebrate online are the small vocal slice. Not even online really. The vast majority of people just dont give a damn so long as youtube, calls, and texting works (if its a phone), or whatever are probably the most common 3-4 activities most users do.
I introduced my mother to Suno, a tool for music generation, and now she creates hundreds of little songs for herself and her friends. It may not be great art, but it’s something she always wanted to do. She never found the time to learn an instrument, and now she finally gets to express herself in a way she loves.
Just an additional data point.
Given that comment said “in the order of 10 thousand” and that he gave a single number and not a number for a particular day, I think we can assume that daily is a daily average.
Do Shaheds fly at high altitudes? Are we talking about Shahed-136 here? I thought flying low was one of their main advantages! I don't think Anvil can reach high altitudes. I mean it's a battery-powered quadcopter.
We're speculating based on very little information here. At least you didn't spell it "Shaheed".
Hiii not sure who you are, so not sure how much weight your endorsement carries. That being said, the shooter has been identified as a very right wing person. I’m not trying to silence anyone, but they did, of their own accord and apropos of nothing, commit to deleting their account if their ridiculously early conclusion was wrong.
Really I’d like it to be a learning opportunity, even though people like this seem to be incapable of learning lessons (will update here when they jump to conclusions without evidence on the next one) or of following principles (I don’t need to update, there’s no way they will follow with their commitment to delete their account). The lesson is to wait for some facts to come in before jumping to extreme conclusions.
He seems to have been identified as antifa, actually? It's his parents who are the right-wing people. At this point it's hard to be very sure if anything, of course.
I'm not clear what you mean when you say "he identified as antifa" because it sounds like you're saying he identified as some member of some club called antifa. I've noticed that USA politicians often use this mythical "antifa" entity as a scapegoat and I fear you might have fallen into this usage pattern inadvertently?
As an anti fascist that uses to run black lives matter protests, whoever these antifa folks are they never invited me to their club!
reply