Gambling has been legal in those place, often limited in space, and/or in advertisements. In my country, betting is fully legal, but gambling ads can't be showed on TV to people under 18 (or is it 16?) since at least 2000. The law didn't target internet advertisement until more recently though.

And to be honest, i think lootboxes and "gambling" with fake (but real. but fake) money like on Roblox is worse.

[edit[ But it is absolutely a _moral_ debate. That's basically the only debate that is relevant.

Browsing history? Search history? Age?

Also 'product interaction' is an euphemism to say "if you're sick, we'll sell this information for around 80€" (I think it's close to 200$ for Americans but I don't have any contact in this industry overseas). If you have a cancer and suddenly you see an increase in ads for pseudo-medicine and other scams whose only goal is to extract all the money you have left, and if lucky, your famil's money too, that's from 'product interaction'.

So exactly how do you suppose they sync your browsing history and bookmarks between devices if they don’t store the information? And your browsing history is e2e encrypted by keys on your device. Apple doesn’t have access to your browsing history.

You can give Apple any age you want to. It’s not like it checks.

And I have no idea about the other topics you are going off on and what they have to do with Apple..

I don't have link on that, but the main difficulty with OCR isn't the OCR part (not anymore at least), it's the "clean up" part, and serifs are a pain in the ass, especially on sightly crumpled paper. My use case was an ERP plugin that digitalized and read to receipt to autofill reimbursement demands, and since most receipt use sans-serif fonts, it was mostly fine, but some jokers use serifed font (mostly on receipts you get when using cash, not credit card receipts) and the error rate jumped from like 1% to 13% (not sure about the 1%, it might be a story i told myself to make me feel better, it was a decade ago, before i pivoted to network from AI. I always take the best decision it seems)

I think sadly, this is a lost battle in public opinion. And the gambling of digital assets on Roblox and other casino-like website is also starting to get public attention, and will turn public opinion further.

The CNIL gave up 3 years ago, and gave guidelines, you can read about it here [0]. At the time it read like "How well, we tried, we said it is incompatible with privacy and the GDPR multiple times, we insist one more time that giving tools to parents is the only privacy-safe solution despite obvious problems, but since your fucking law will pass, so the best we can do is to draw guidelines, and present solutions and how to implement them correctly".

I think the EFF should do the same. That's just how it is. Define solutions you'll agree with. Fight the fight on chat control and other stuff where the public opinion can be changed, this is too late, and honestly, if it's done well,it might be fine.

If the first implementation is correct, we will have to fight to maintain the statu quo, which in a conservative society, is the easiest, especially when no other solution have been tested. If it's not, we will have to fight to make it correct, then fight to maintain it, and both are harder. the EFF should reluctantly agree and draft the technical solution themselves.

[0] https://www.cnil.fr/en/online-age-verification-balancing-pri...

The issue is using civil infrastructure as weapon, that could arguably be an act of terror. As pagers are rarely used in non-criminal settings, i guess this is somewhat okay in my opinion, but the callousness and overall reactions (proudness, smugness) of israelis and most of the west on this near-terror attack is in my opinion another proof of a lack of empathy that is starting to be pervasive in our societies.

I know people talk about the "entitlement epidemic", but entitlement is just another name from narcissism, in essence a lack of empathy. Which seems to be more and more socially acceptable and even rewarded (with internet points mostly), like your comment show (i'm not jumping on you, you are tamer than many, so i think it's a better exemple for my point than more violent ones).

And since that's the example we show our kids today, i'm now officially more worried about our society ability to handle social media than climate change.

Pagers are used by more then just criminals(see doctors) and targeting random criminals as opposed to millitants wouldn't be justifiable. But these particular pager that were wired up were specifically intended only for Hezbollah internal use and were sold to Hezbollah by Israel through a third party front.

Even if the risk was linear/exponential with threshold at 12 for everyone, including infants and elderly, the 30% average reduction is likely mostly done by smoothing the peaks (since you probably have a base level of PM2.5). So you would have more than a 30% reduction in days in which you are exposed to above-threshold PM2.5

Btw, it's a very legitimate remark, please don't down vote the parent. (Sorry about meta commentary I try to avoid)

To maintain? Way less, even high speed track are less expensive than highways (especially per traveller)

Since GDP growth in the US is dependant on medical care and on new car sales, it probably decreased it on the short term.

A sudden decrease in car crash would probably decrease the GDP the year it happen, then the fact that less people are dying or disabled would probably increase it in the long run. It will probably have the same effect here.

So about ionising radiation: UNSCEAR recommendation is to act as if no threshold effect exist at low doses for indeterministic effects (even though effectively we act as if a 100mSv threshold exists), but the medical literature isn't as clear cut. Precautionary principle should be respected in any cases.

The most recent epidemiology studies (studies on _very_ large cohort) do seems to favour a linear model without threshold (or, if the threshold exists, it is so low ambient radiation is enough to go past it), so I think you're right, but I wanted to nitpick because you wrote it like it was settled science and it's not yet, so I had to look up the PM 2.5 stuff too.

Thanks for investigating and adding detail, very helpful info.

It hurts homeless more, that's a fact (although most,big cold city homeless couchsurf rather than sleep in their car in my experience, but it might be different in the US). But if you take 'poor people' as in the bottom 20% of earners, they probably don't drive, because car are expensive.

Do I understand correctly -- you are saying this NYC congestion price hurts the homeless more? As in, people who are homeless in NYC are regularly driving cars into and back out of lower Manhattan?