is a judge going to think the same way if insurance doesn't pay and you take them to court though, in the event of a breach, etc.
After all it's perfectly possible to do interior work in your house that isn't up to code, but if it burns down in a fire, the insurance company will investigate and may not pay out if they find out.
in this case I'd be more worried about being in court trying to explain why we knowingly used an inferior approach (forced password changes) when we knew the newer approach resulted in higher security... that is a vastly different analogy than being "out of code". additionally, noting the deviation from the old, less secure standard up front (in our HITRUST submissions) and with our customers (in their vendor questionnaires) provides evidence that we are going above and beyond vs. shirking a duty.
> I would think in 15 years someone will try and succeed to create a "destination gas station", like a cool restaurant, that people will go out of their route to visit.
This has already happened in the U.S. Southeast. It's called "Bucc-ee's". They're very large gas stations with 50+ pumps. They have a squirrel for a mascot and sometimes if you go there's someone dressed up as the mascot there.
Inside, it's not a traditional restaurant but they're well known for selling barbecue (e.g. brisket). They also have large sections of the inner store dedicated to selling lots of rustic and outdoor type things that you'd traditionally get at a department store--things like grills, tents, etc.
Apples and oranges - and also I don't know if anyone is really supporting IP maximalism.
IP maximalism is requiring DRM tech in every computer and media-capable device that won't play anything without checking into a central server and also making it illegal to reverse or break that DRM. IP maximalism is extending the current bonkers time interval of copyright (over 100 years) to forever. If AI concerns manage to get this down to a reasonable, modern timeframe it'll be awesome.
Record companies in the 90s tied the noose around their own necks, which is just as well because they're very useless now except for supporting geriatric bands. They should have started selling mp3s for 99 cents in 1997 and maybe they would have made a couple of dollars before their slide into irrelevance.
The specific thing people don't want, which a few weirdos keep pushing, is AI-generated stuff passed off as new creative material. It's fine for fun and games, but no one wants a streaming service of AI-generated music, even if you can't tell it's AI generated. And the minute you think you have that cracked - that an AI can create music/art as good as a human and that humans can't tell, the humans will start making bad music/art in rebellion, and it'll be the cool new thing, and the armies of 10Kw GPUs will be wasting their energy on stuff an 1Mhz 8-bit machine could do in the 80s.
In the U.S. people under 18 are allowed to own and shoot firearms, typically rifles. It's silly to allow that that and then complain about a tiny box that shows videos.
Parents are responsible for their children. If a parent doesn't feed their kid, they go to jail. If a parent harms or allows harm through negligence to children, the parent is the one who suffers the consequences and has the child taken away.
If a parent is giving a child a phone and allowing them to use a harmful product, the parent is at fault and should suffer the consequences. Not the rest of us. I don't know why I should have my access to anything restricted because of bad parents. Parents choose to be parents and have and/or keep children and that is their business. Bad parents should suffer consequences and one of those can be no longer being allowed to be a parent.
It's one thing if a provider is specifically trying to get children on its platform - and if a company advertises its services in public places, it's again on the parent to be in control there. Social media companies aren't holding a gun to children's heads trying to get them to join. Kids wanting to do stuff because other kids think it is cool has always existed and that happens when children are not supervised or disciplined. Kids not doing what they are supposed to be doing of their own choice is a parental failure.
Someone under 18 shouldn't be able to purchase a cell phone, and if a parent wants to get them a cell phone, then the parent should accept responsibility for everything on that phone.
The addiction argument is tired. Anything pleasurable can be addictive. If you want people addicted to less things, design society where everyday life is less boring (getting rid of 2 hour commutes and having more parks would be a good start).
So should we let people under 18 legally buy cigarettes, alcohol and marijuana? We definitely shouldn't monitor kids school attendance either. The parents should be the ones who regulate all those things right?
You probably don't have kids because if you did you would know that around age 13 you stop being able to just force them to not do things, you have to start to reason and compromise with them more. Without societal rules there will be many kids who drink, smoke, use social media and barely attend school. Those kids have bad parents but to a 13-17 year old they have "cool" parents, and now every other kids is gonna wonder why their parents are so lame.
You can't just raise a kid in a silo, and if you don't ban certain things at a higher level the other parents get to have a massive influence on your kids expectations.
People under 18 shouldn't be able to legally buy anything unsupervised except certain necessities such as clothes, food, etc. For the same reason they cannot legally enter into contracts.
> you have to start to reason and compromise with them more.
Ok, but if you catch 13 year old about to hurt someone, I hope you are pulling them away and not merely reasoning with them. If you can't keep a phone out of your 13 year old's hands, you failed as a parent or your child deserves to be institutionalized. You're still responsible.
If we are not going to have a communal model of childrearing, e.g. if we insist the optimum situation is that individual parents/families completely fund their own pregnancies, feeding children, educating children, etc., then the parents should own keeping the children out of trouble as well.
> Those kids have bad parents but to a 13-17 year old they have "cool" parents, and now every other kids is gonna wonder why their parents are so lame.
Part of controlling children is not caring about every opinion they have, such as this one.
If this is the case, why do we pass any special child protection laws that override what a parent decides is best for their child (and in a way that punishes those involved beyond just the parents)?
As to if any such law is appropriate or not, that would seem to be a question of how much harm is caused and if the law is aimed at preventing the harm. Many things are addictive, but only some of those cause enough harm to justify a ban to protect children.
100 percent agree. These politicians are trying to explain how dangerous TikTok is to our children while allowing general citizenry to own AR-15s. The hypocrisy is unreal.
> If you want people addicted to less things, design society where everyday life is less boring
I think society has never been so entertaining. I feel like we should instead learn to embrace the boredom. Life is supposed to be boring most of the time. It is healthy.
After all it's perfectly possible to do interior work in your house that isn't up to code, but if it burns down in a fire, the insurance company will investigate and may not pay out if they find out.