Wow, broken clock and all that.
Stopped clock, a broken clock may never be right.
A stopped clock is right specifically twice a day. Any broken clock is right eventually. the only way a clock can be never right is if it works properly and is only desynchronized.
If you rip the hands off a clock, it is broken, and it will never be right.
That’s not true. e.g. If a clock loses time as soon as it is started (given power, wound), a time x. Then every day it will be wrong. Now, after n days it will come back around to being correct again. But, if n >> the life of the clock, then no, it will never be correct.
I can think of a few other scenarios where it’s also true that it will never be correct.
But, if n >> the life of the clock, then no, it will never be correct.
After the life of the clock, it will be stopped, and thus right twice per day.
As you said, it may take a very long time to lap the clock, but once you stop drawing distinctions between “never” and “sufficiently infrequent”, you get into the question of acceptable precision. Most people would consider an analog, two-handed clock to be “correct” so long as it is accurate to the minute. That means the threshold of tolerance for a “slow” clock would be the loss of at least one minute per 12 hour period to remain “incorrect”. That means you’ll lap the clock, and it will be correct, every 720 cycles, or about once a year.
If it loses time faster, you’ll lap it faster. If it loses time slower, it will spend more consecutive cycles as “correct” within acceptable tolerance. It’s possible to devise a mechanism which alternates between running fast and slow to ensure that it is actually never correct, but that would have to be built as an accessory mechanism on top of a functioning desynchronized clock in order to ensure that it’s really never.
I’m convinced, the accuracy of the clock matters. Your point that within one minute is on time is fair and as you said converges quickly. Definitely quicker than the life cycle of a regular clock. I’m a convert now.
Oh, uh, I’m not sure what protocol is in this situation. We’re in uncharted Internet-discussion territory here.
Well, it’s about 15 years too late, but I guess better to have this discussion now than never.
It would also require that social media sites use “reasonable age verification methods” to verify users’ ages.
Please no :/
I can get behind the spirit of the bill, but I wouldn’t hold my breath when it comes to enforcement.
why
The spirit behind the bill is “We need more control over the children so we can indoctrinate them ourselves!”
Or just let them discover random fucking propaganda on their own and bad examples on social media and become an Andrew Tate jr by the age of 17 or some extremist little fucker, or just be an indecent human being if you don’t want such an extreme example.
This bill will do jack shit, but so are the parents who put smartphones in their kids hands as early as possible and let them browse the internet unsupervised.
Just to be clear I do not agree with the bill in this form and the whole “provide an ID” bullshit, but I really don’t think young children should be allowed on social media.
Florida has been banning books talking about racism and LGBT people from school library. I guarantee to you, this is not about preventing anyone from becoming extremist fuckers.
I know you are right and they are just using the “save our children” sentiment to manipulate people. On the other hand I just really-really hate social media and the younger generation should be better off without it.
This bill must be funded by VPN services because anyone who thinks teens won’t figure out a workaround has never tried to stop teens from anything. Disobeying is what they do on an evolutionary level.
Also using sites such as “This Person Doesn’t Exist” to generate am AI pic of a human could be used for profile pics.
They also may have run the numbers and decided that social media teaches more kids to accept people regardless of race, gender, sexuality or neurotypicality than it trains to be far-right xenophobic dogshit.
I can’t really think of any other reason they’d do this. They don’t do anything unless it’s in their self interest.
Good, the kids could use the tech experience
For once Florida is doing something good.
At least it would be if they weren’t simply doing this to prevent kids from becoming more informed.
I’d agree if the ban extended to news articles online.
It doesn’t.
Eh… yes and no. On the one hand, kids are undoubtedly addicted to social media, and their screen time should be limited for the sake of their mental health.
On the other hand, this is absolutely not going to limit most kids time on social media. They aren’t idiots, and some of them are (properly) tech savvy. Meaning a bunch of kids are going to find an easy workaround, and spread that info around.
And this is almost certainly going to result in an ID requirement similar to the laws requiring ID for porn sites in certain companies. And unlike PornHub, I don’t trust that Facebook, Twitter, Reddit or the others are going to actually have integrity when it comes to ID laws.
Solution: nobody should be on social media.
Lemmy is social media… any site we communicate through is social media, even old style forums are social media. Hell, even Stack Exchange could be considered social media. Should those be banned?
I didn’t say they should be banned. People just shouldn’t be on them. It’s bad for mental health. It’s like smoking but for your brain.
Eh… social media isn’t harmful on its own in moderation. It’s companies that game the system against their users to feedback loop rage and hate that’s the real issue.
Though the addiction is real af, I do admit that.
what a fucking dogshit state. not that social media is good for anyone, but restricting kids from one of their main forms of communication / news / outlet to the world is just designed to be obnoxious.
even best case scenario, active malice aside, these people somehow have zero memory of what it was like to be a kid; having to wake up for school at 6am and do endless homework for no material benefit, and now this
Question: How old are you?
Social media wasn’t known until I was 16(?) and I’m a millennial. So no these people did not grow up with social media as most politicians are older than me.
It’s insane you think kids today need social media like they need exercise, fun and oxygen.
I would suggest that it didn’t happen in its most well known form until we were older (MySpace launched just after I graduated high school), but it did exist. Communities and message boards were a thing before MySpace and Facebook.
Kids today so need a sense of community. And we have enshittified the outside so much that they aren’t likely to get that spending time in public. How far will this spread? Social media isn’t just Instagram, or xitter, or the like. It’s also things like steam, or video game forums, or anything with a chat feature. Kids make meaningful connections with others this way. Not all social media is bad.
How many afterschool clubs still exist? How many group activities are catered around school (but not school) these days that aren’t sports? Where is the place that is for kids in our communities?
Banning Social Media FOR KIDS. Is just a quick means to spy on what ADULTS are getting up to on the Internet. Right now if you don’t want to ID yourself to go see cat pics/videos on Instagram/TikTok, you can just sign up for an account and go searching for cat pics/videos. With this bill, if you want to go find cat pics/videos on Instagram/TikTok in the state of Florida, you’ll have to submit a government ID to verify that you’re not a kid, and I’d believe for about as long as I can breathe water that the linking of my real identity/government ID with a social media account will have no negative real world outcomes.
Cybersecurity is something that almost nobody takes seriously. I used to say that nobody takes it seriously until they’re hurt by their poor cyber hygiene, but these days the insurance policies pay the same either way so companies/people still do the bare minimum and call it a day.
I’d much rather pay a VPN provider to be out of that jurisdiction than ever give anyone anything that concretely ties my online persona to my actual identity and it’s just incredible that lawmakers so fundamentally misunderstand how this all works that they don’t know it’s that easy.
Is this based on a gov ID? I didn’t see that in the article.
How else do you think they’d do age verification? It’s the same way they do it for porn sites, you upload you DL/passport/ID to verify your age. The difference here is that now these
data brokersocial media companies now have a hard link to your identity instead of a pretty strong inference, and are able to shore up their advertising profiles in an unprecedented way.
Can’t go on the Internet, can’t go in public restrooms… Land of freedom.
Internet too dangerous. Florida, just ban it entirely, just to be extra safe.
Why don’t they just tax the websites you access? VPNs would go crazy
First Amendment violation
Sounds totally enforceable!
No one should be banned from equal internet access for any reason. 🤦🤦🤦
See, this is why I hate DeSantis and the right wing. They crow about freedom of speech from one end and shit crap like this out of the other.
It’s because they’re lying.
I’m sure you know that the words that come out of their mouth are worthless because of actions like this but for some reason, millions of people politely accept it.
They’re never going to admit out loud “We just use freedom of speech to shame people out of deplatforming far-right extremists, we don’t actually believe in it” or “We know the second amendment will never be used to overthrow a tyrant and we fully intend to be tyrants. We support it because it brings in $16 million a year in bribes and gains us millions of supporters who will tolerate literally anything except domestic abusers not having guns”.
Every abuser has an excuse and it’s never “I just really enjoy abusing people”.
This is very obviously unenforceable
Yep. It’s a direct violation of freedom of speech fair one thing.
At least not without major violations to privacy.
It’s a feature
Sure it is. Platforms could for example close online sign ups and make people go to a physical location to open an account. Just like with banks. This of course will not pass but the issue is not that you can’t enforce age limit. Banks do it. Online banks also do it. The issue is that enforcing this would kill the platforms.
Ive never once had to walk into a bank in my life and I’ve used 6 online banks in my lifetime lol
How did they verify your age?
My social security number I would imagine.
