Just one team working on Teams, and they are doing their best to make it worse.

I for one encourage them, it apparently needs to be even worse before my work will consider changing

You can mostly solve the solar issue by building more solar, it generates power in virtually any weather, maybe less but then you just build more to account for it. And when it’s not sunny it’s normally windy.

Also grids normally span multiple areas, you don’t build all your solar in the same spot, you spread it around so it’s sunny somewhere.

Batteries or even pumped hydro also solve the problem of power being generated at a different time than needed.

Outside of the US, solar capacity is being added at speed because it has become so cheap.

I don’t know if airbags are connected enough to coordinate with each other, but you kind of expect they should err on the side of going off if unsure rather than not going off!

Just looked up the recall, apparently 100 million airbags recalled starting from 2013. It seems to have resulted in the bankruptcy of the company!

It might be a little early to be related to your crash if it was just a few years back. Hopefully you’re doing ok now!

BYD is very popular everywhere, it just overtook Tesla as the biggest EV manufacturer.

Personally I avoided BYD due to the whole China data sovereignty thing, but from what I hear their cars are solid.

Modern airbags only go off if you crash in a direction that they can help, e.g. if you slide sideways into a pole, you’d only expect curtain airbags to go off, not the one in your steering wheel. Airbags are dangerous so you only want them to go off when they aren’t going to make things worse.

Though by the way you italicised “none”, perhaps the car is full of airbags all over and they still didn’t go off?

I also seem to remember a massive recall from a decade back because the world’s biggest airbag manufacturer found many of their airbags didn’t go off properly.

I have the mid range one but I believe the top model has AWD and so you get a lot more go from a standing start.

I also have a 2024 Ariya! Also love it, only had it less than 6 months (bought an ex-demo car for about 60% of the price of a new one).

Nissan have been making Leafs for years, built in Japan, we got the 63kWh mid-range model. It’s not a huge SUV but big enough we can easily fit three kids in the back and they have leg room. Has all the bells and whistles, like adaptive cruise control, steering assist, auto wipers, auto-lock/unlock, bluetooth, beepy things when you get too close, uses Lidar not cameras like tesla, but also have cameras so you have the overhead 360 view. All sorts of beeps and barps for various warnings but you can turn off anything you don’t like.

I’d say the most unusual part is that there’s no separation of driver and front passenger footwell, just one giant gap. After reading about it online I did what others do and bought a baskety container thing and velcroed it to the floor so now there is so much storage for all the books and jerseys and whatever, on top of the two glove boxes.

Comes with free updates to the satnav maps that you can also do yourself (I ended up using my wife’s Windows computer as I didn’t get their software working on Linux, maybe someone else has had better luck).

There are things I don’t like but overall, a solid car, no regrets. If you have more money they also sell a higher spec AWD version with a bigger battery. We get about 300km range on our 63kWh version by the time we fill it with stuff and 5 people.

TBH this sounds to me like something specifically intended to not be an Australian-like solution, which they could have copied.

I am not sure what’s required of a bare bones Linux install (general computing device) that has access to a package manager (application store)!

Yeah perhaps. Or that “account” doesn’t really need to bw what we think of as an account.

Could it be covered, but they would still have to ask? It says if it wasn’t done at setup it has to ask, so perhaps an account-less OS would still be expected to ask for an age and provide it when asked?

Nah I don’t think it does. You don’t really get that because the intent of a law is important in court cases.

Mobile phones are specifically covered:

(g) “Operating system provider” means a person or entity that develops, licenses, or controls the operating system software on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device.

Windows doesn’t ask at install, and also this law requires them to ask for already set up accounts too.

This will make it a lot more visible.

Nah it seems it doesn’t apply to physical devices (except general computing devices as mentioned elsewhere)

(f) This title does not apply to any of the following:

(1) A broadband internet access service, as defined in Section 3100.

(2) A telecommunications service, as defined in Section 153 of Title 47 of the United States Code.

(3) The delivery or use of a physical product.

(3) seems to imply the OS that runs your switch or gas pump isn’t included. But I see nothing in the law that clarifies servers or any CLI only interface, or even any OS that doesn’t have accounts.

Where do you quote “reasonable” from? The only part of the law with that word is referring to a different, already existing law (or the bit about reasonable technical limitations causing the wrong signals sent in the API).

Ok I did it, I read the full text of the law, and you’re right.

The existence of Linux or anything not big tech and the broad range of options within seems to be ignored. Does a CLI only OS need to provide a GUI for its “accessible interface”?

On a different note, I did see the last point here:

(f) This title does not apply to any of the following:

(1) A broadband internet access service, as defined in Section 3100.

(2) A telecommunications service, as defined in Section 153 of Title 47 of the United States Code.

(3) The delivery or use of a physical product.

(3) seems to imply the OS that runs your microwave isn’t included.

I think the next bit from the article I didn’t quote explains that:

“(2) Provide a developer who has requested a signal with respect to a particular user with a digital signal via a reasonably consistent real-time application programming interface that identifies, at a minimum, which of the following categories pertains to the user.” The categories are broken into four sections: users under 13 years of age, over 13 years of age under 16, at least 16 years of age and under 18, and “at least 18 years of age.”

I think the idea is that you would say that under 16s can’t use social media. Then you’d enforce this not with the horrendous Australian strategy of having everyone IDed, but instead you would enforce it by having an API that websites and apps could use that would tell them the age of the user.

So basically:

• Parent sets up device for kid and sets their age.
• Kid tries to download Facebook app
• Gets denied because they are under age
• Kid tries to go to facebook website instead
• Website sends request to browser for user’s age, browser asks Windows (or whatever OS) for age and provides this age back to Facebook
• Facebook denies access because user is under age

Windows might already have parental controls within Windows, but it’s the ability for apps and websites to know the age (or in this case age range) that is the important part.

I much prefer this than handing over ID.

Sorry but I don’t think the article text backs up the title?

The claim is that they have to enforce age verification, but the quoted law says:

Provide an accessible interface at account setup that requires an account holder to indicate the birth date, age, or both, of the user of that device for the purpose of providing a signal regarding the user’s age bracket to applications available in a covered application store.

Doesn’t this just mean it needs to ask for an age at setup, so e.g. parents can set it up with an age and they can automatically be restricted?

I don’t see anywhere actual verification is required, if you’re setting it up yourself then just lie?

Honestly, this sounds like my preferred path if we are gonna do anything.

Even better than a coin flip is asking this what to do then doing the opposite!

So posts in communities only go to instances where there is a subscriber. If you make a new community, people on other instances won’t see it until someone on their instance searches it up and subscribes.

For new communities, two things to do are to submit on https://lemmy-federate.com/ which will automatically federate it to instances that have signed up for it (I’ve just done this for you), and to post it in new community sharing communities so people know about it and can subscribe, e.g. https://lemmy.world/c/newcommunities

All good, glad you got it sorted!

Bots are supposed to be marked as bots on their profiles. Lemmy has the option in your settings to hide bots. But it will hide all bots, not just those ones.

You might need to visit lemmy on a website instead of an app if you can’t find the setting in your app.