I think "diner" should be a protected term that has to meet certain criteria, like Kentucky Strait Bourbon.
A diner should only be able to legally call itself a diner if it's open 24/7, has a glass case showing slices of its desserts, offers breakfast, lunch and dinner all day, and if you order spaghetti, your server yells back to the kitchen for "a mile of rope".
First, tobacco and alcohol companies absolutely are regulated. Second, traditionally the age gate for cigarettes and booze is for the seller to look at your ID just to verify your age, then forget you. The process was not to establish your identity and follow you around forever, tracking and selling your behavioral data, which is a way these Internet based age gates have been implemented, and the logical conclusion of these age gates given how the Internet works. Third, even if you are coming from the angle that the age verification process for cigarettes and alcohol are bad, it's easier to prevent a bad system from being codified into law than to repeal it after the fact.
Being licensed to drive is a bit of a different situation as you do have to demonstrate some kind of proficiency, but even still, the government practically has to keep track of this in some way and presumably, that way doesn't involve selling your personal info (if it did, there likely would be the same backlash).
Are they obligated to still sell the liquor if you refuse the scan? The cashier specifically told me last time they're required to scan it if I want to buy that.
Yes, there's no law requiring it. It's just corporate BS. They want to scan your license, that's it. Some cashiers will push back because that's what they've been told to do, but if you ask for a manager they'll admit it's not a requirement.
I know it's not required by law to scan it, but it might be a store policy, in which case I don't think there's a law disallowing that kind of store policy. They'll tell you to shop elsewhere, and every big store does it.
The only law involved is the one that penalizes them harshly if anyone underage manages to buy liquor. If fake IDs are less likely to pass that scan, maybe that's why they do it.
I'm sure it's CYA for the stores, but then they're holding copies of your license and doing who knows what else with it. I've been seeing more of it getting rolled out, but so far I just present my license if they ask for it, but don't relinquish it and tell them I don't want it scanned. So far it's never been a hard line. I did it yesterday and the cashier just shrugged and I paid.
> traditionally the age gate for cigarettes and booze is for the seller to look at your ID just to verify your age, then forget you. The process was not to establish your identity and follow you around forever, tracking and selling your behavioral data, which is a way these Internet based age gates have been implemented
I think that's a bit of a strawman, there exist solutions to this problem that decouple who reads the ID from the party that needs information about it, e.g. being above a certain age. Maybe it matters here how it's implemented, can that be regulated?
Please take a beat to think about how this would be implemented (it looks like it's not decided at this time) before reflexively saying "good" because the marketing sounds nice. This is how the US got swindled into accepting the PATRIOT act, et al.
There are problems with social media, yes. However, these problems exist for children and adults. A reasonable way to tackle this issue would be to make social media safer for everyone, not just to exclude kids. These problems are not solved with an age check, and if the age check requires handing over PII, that introduces additional problems. We have to wonder what the motivation here is, and if we aren't heading towards giving up freedom for perceived security.
I think the user needs the ability to set how their data feed works and not be dependent on the hyper addictive algorithmic feed. And parents need to be able to set that for their kids. 90% of the stuff I see in Facebook is garbage that I don't care for.
These companies need to do what's best for shareholders, which means do the most addicting and damaging thing. Besides that, we have almost 20 years of evidence of attempting to fix it.
Where it's gotten us is that social media is a tool for the president to broadcast threats of genocide to millions of people. Banning or restricting that kind of platform is not the same as the PATRIOT act.
Yep. While. Below the age of 16 can be potent, some of the most impacted people I have ever meet were well over that age when social media came along. This is not an age thing, it is the very core of those businesses.
There are problems with cigarettes, yes. However, these problems exist for children _and_ adults. A reasonable way to tackle this issue would be to make cigarettes safer for everyone, not just to exclude kids. These problems are not solved with an age check ...
You may or may not be acting as an apologist for the sleaziest, worst industry on earth here, but you certainly sound like it, even if it is unintentional. As this is hacker news, P(makes money working for sleazy, terrible companies) is high so you'll have to accept this obvious interpretation.
Look, I actually kind of agree with you, but social media _already has all the PII_ to an extent unparalleled in history. Come on. "We have to wonder what the motivation here is"?
You aren't following the news - adult smoking is being outlawed in the UK as we speak - so, your analogy is against you position but supports the person you're criticizing.
More importantly, smoking is a well defined activity but "social media" is anything but - using your analogy, "social media" can be everything from milk to veges to plain water - all of which you want to ban because they're all sold in the same stores where cigarettes are sold. In other words - starve the kids.
Further, school and legacy media can be more toxic than a well designed social media site for kids - vague bans leave the door open to legacy toxicity while closing it to web-based media that could counter the bad sources.
It's far better to focus on toxicity, identify what is "smoking" and what not, regardless of where the "tobacco" might be hidden. After some consensus is achieved, go after the providers, the same way the tobacco companies were sued onto oblivion.
Why do so many people go after the kids instead of after the providers? Too chicken to take on the big ones?
Do age checks really work for cigs? I had no issues getting em when I was a kid.
I feel like it's more the marketing campaign making them seem "uncool" and unhealthy that is responsible for the decline in smokers.
That's changing now of course, smoking is becoming cool again thanks to the bans and legislation. The UK's new total ban on smoking will literally create more young smokers lol.
"Easily in the pre-AI era" is different from "easier" & "easier" wasn't the claim.
To answer your question, relative ease is a function, in part, of one's skills & resources, so, it's certainly a reasonable claim to make, but will be different person to person.
Authorities also presented the AI image during a press briefing on the runaway wolf, local media reported. ... Authorities did not specify if the man had intentionally sent the photo to authorities during their search or simply shared it online.
With the info presented in the article, it sounds like the cops jumped to conclusions, got publicly embarrassed and are now going after him to either save face or get revenge (depending on how credulous you are of LEO).
I like the idea of a no bypass brewer, like the ceado hoop. It's somewhat more efficient with coffee and more consistent, plus it doesn't benefit from any specific type of kettle or any type of technique. You just pour the water and wait. The shape prevents it from fitting on every mug/carafe, and that's annoying.
I've been eying a hario switch to try something new. The chemex gets marks from me for design & size when I need to make a big pot for guests.
A lot of the appeal of the older models, besides the brand name, is the beautiful design. It's like a functional work of art. As a brand that stood the test of time, LM's are also easy to restore too.
Yeah, you can get a cheaper machine, but it's not going to look as cool (this is subjective of course).
Italian design from some of these eras is unmatched. A new LMLM is beautiful, but even the budget home espresso machines from Gaggia used to take it more seriously. A Gaggia classic pro [0] that you can buy today looks clean but boring, but previous era Gaggia Baby [1] would look amazing on any countertop or even as an objet d'art. The lines of the Gaggia Espresso [2] are reminiscent of a Ferrari Testarossa.
To add a data point, I've reduced my meat consumption from "whenever I can" to "once a day" to "normally once a day, but some days none at all". It's really not that big a deal. I have no idea what this is doing to the environment, but I can confirm that I'm saving some scratch (bacon is expensive!), my hunger and tastebuds are just as sated, and my routine bloodwork has improved somewhat.
It's the shotgun approach. The people writing checks only need a few bets to pan out. I think it's more enticing for investors, especially if they're true believers in AI, if it means fewer workers to share equity with, pay benefits to, etc...
A diner should only be able to legally call itself a diner if it's open 24/7, has a glass case showing slices of its desserts, offers breakfast, lunch and dinner all day, and if you order spaghetti, your server yells back to the kitchen for "a mile of rope".
reply