>>108443532No, the power of open source is when you work for Microsoft for free
>>108443532The power of infiltration and subversion
/g/ fork when?
>>108443532he's right tho
>>108443601is github owned by microsoft?
>>108443532doesn't Unix already have optional fields for things like Full Name, organization, address etc...an optional birth date field is pretty neat.parents can configure user accounts for their children and desktop environments can use it to implement things like parental control.desktop environments an also choose to expose this data to apps using an xdg portal so apps can selectively display content based on whether the user is an adult or not. the xdg portal doesn't even have to share the age itself. just a boolean value of adult or not.and since it's a portal you can control which apps have access to that. (assuming the program is sandboxed obviously)desu, a lot of the confusion about this comes from some people calling this "age verification" while it should more accurately called "parental control".why are neets malding about this? is it a failure to understand the technical side of this? or are they just accepting sensationalist slop from people like jewnduke without investigating things themselves.OS level parental control is actually better. because it eliminates the need for online age verification that some online services want to implement. if parents can configure a child account for their kids. and websites and apps can ask the os for the age verification. then not every app an website will have to implement age verification themselves.
>>108443706parental control has existed since about the year 1970 where accounts can be limited to what they can do. even windows can do this.that can make sense on a computer where the system can be controlledthe internet isnt like that, the internet is the wild west. politicians have tried and failed countless times to drive solutions to problems they dont understand surrounding online access rather than simply force parents to parent.its annoying to see (especially onions) programmers bend over and eat ass to implement half baked shit that doesnt make sense and wont work.if it was a good idea it would have been done before.>>108443706>just a boolean value of adult or not.even you dont understand the problem correctly. different jurisdictions and different applications have different age limits so a boolean is completely useless.
>>108443766>even you dont understand the problem correctly. different jurisdictions and different applications have different age limits so a boolean is completely useless.well easy. the application can ask the os if they meet their desired age limit. the OS do the math and answer true or false. easily done through dbus.it's an easy problem to solve. if implemented correctly.>parental control existed since the 1970s.yes. it sucked mostly. at least on linux. gnome has a half backed parental control implementation which sucks.
>>108443639he's not. it's a case of the sorites paradox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox)if removing a grain of sand doesnt impact the heap, then how do we define at what point it does?in the context of privacy, it is thus better to not remove any grain of sandideally you could allow that tho happen if it was well thought-out and wasn't a choice driven by any external entity, which is not the case here>>108443706>can use it to implement things like parental controlunless you live under a rock you'll know that most parental control systems dont need the fucking age of the childgnome added the basics of an implementation it in the last release and it certainly didnt need this bullshit birth dateyou start to understand what's happening when you consider that meta would use this to do targeted advertisement (which the law forbids to children) using age brackets>>108443790>>ask the os if they meet their desired age limit>what is a binary search
>>108443867>>ask the os if they meet their desired age limit>what is a binary searcha correct implementation would limit the times an app is allowed to ask for age verification so a binary search isn't possible.a portal will only ask you once "do you want to let this app know if you are an adult or not" using a portal dialog. you accept. then the app can ask once for the age verification. if it needs to ask again. then the portal will prompt you again to verify. if an app keeps asking for age verification to try doing a binary search. you will know it.
>>108443888my brother in christ there are like 3 age brackets how many steps of binary search do you think are required
another day another autistic screech about software
>>108443658were you in a coma?
>>108443601Post the nigger report issue
>>108443925I don't know anything about this stuff
>>108443914not many. but you can choose if you want to share that. you are asked each time the program wants to verify your age.that's my point.
>>108443923you got nothing to hide friendo? give me name, age, bank email, bank password, cock size, bodycount and address pleasei need it to protect the children
>>108443934https://news.microsoft.com/about/
>>108443941except the program isnt legally allowed to run if it doesnt get an answer from youwelp>>108443946they pulled the EEE on itnow it's time for linux and us stupid nerds :(
>>108443532It is still government sanctioned code on my machine.I dislike it out of principle.
>>108443954yeah, if it asks more than once. then eh. it's a malicious program and you should uninstall (too late if it wasn't installed as a sandboxed app)
>>108443954Microsoft has been at war with us Linux nerds since the begining of time. The only thing that changed is they managed to somehow convince the normoids that they are pro-Linux now so they could pull an impressively long EEE cycle.Microsoft has always been the number one enemy.
>>108443532>im just applying lube IFF someone wants to use it
>>108443532He's about to see if the power of my wicca curses is real.
>>108444068lmao just noticed he used the 'if and only if' wrongmany such cases
>>108444070Just be careful in case he's wise to the arts
He walled hard
>>108443532someone should send a patch to add a field : size_of_muh_dick, it's just an optional field, they have no reason to reject it.
>>108443532he's right though.
>>108443532I like how retards on every board do not link anything. like how retarded are you OP?
>>108443532Do you have a reading comprehension? He answered the query and unlike you is employed.
>>108443532>we're not actually doing the genocide >we're just building the gas chamber >we're just leaving the choice up to the other parts of the reich this is incredibly rich coming from poettering, considering his background.
>dude we just add bloat for no reason just in caselollmao
>>108446383actually genious>>108446390i already replied to this kind of comment here >>108443867 you motherflipper>>108446407well excuse me princesshttps://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/41179>>108446413found harry pottering
>>108443532is he wrong?
>>108447045yes.
Compliance cucks cannot say no. I must comply. No is never an option. I must to it for the corporations, government and the epstein class, they know best.
>>108443532But why is it in SystemD? Shouldn't this be in the kernel together with the user accounts?
>>108447301Thats the next step
>>108443930Like a fool I didn't take a screenshot, but I was there when it happenedhttps://desuarchive.org/g/thread/108203018/
