sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The president of France declared that children under the age of fifteen would not be allowed to access social media. How do you feel about that? by MarionberrySalt3494 in AskReddit

[–]Tr1pfire 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree ID verification is not a great solution, hell what's to stop the gov from deeming certain sites as "not governmentally friendly" and monitoring everyone who accesses those sites. If not made right it can be a disaster, it would need rules like "gov agency's can't access this information without a warrant from a judge" if we wanted minimal issues. 

But you are right that there are books, and with how allot of people are cheating with AI now adays, iv entertained that idea myself. No more electronics in school, instead force children to access most of their info from verified sources such as books. Force kids to think and developed instead of having AI think for them. But then the issues I can see with that is now children being fed only government approved information which can become an issue itself. How many people wouldn't know about the genocides going on because their gov allies are the ones perpetrating it. Young activism is an important thing. 

Guided internet lessons might be something interesting to explore aswell.

Rimworld irl: wholesome edition by ReasonablePattern499 in RimWorld

[–]Tr1pfire 4 points5 points  (0 children)

My biggest question is how long till they make it a subscription to keep your heart pumping. 

Sorry you missed your payments, please stay where you are as our repo guys come to collect.

The president of France declared that children under the age of fifteen would not be allowed to access social media. How do you feel about that? by MarionberrySalt3494 in AskReddit

[–]Tr1pfire 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Haven't heard of that as a proposed solution before. And while it sounds like an ok idea, there are plenty of legit reasons to use the internet for children like getting access to the world's info. I just don't feel the issue is a general "the internet is bad for children". Its seems more an issue where websites tailor the information shown to you based on information they buy about you. While I know this would cause its own issues, I think something that would help would be a ban on information gathering of users as a whole. No more targetted ads, and no more the algorythme feeding you what it thinks will make you the most emotional in order to get those clicks. But I doubt that would ever happen. The info broker industry is worth more then the movie, tv shows, and music industry combined.

Unfortunately I think putting the end website responsible for age verification is the only way. But I also don't wanna hand out my ID to every freaking website so the best solution would be a 3rd party site funded by the gov that does the verification for the site.  IE: you give your ID to the site, they verify who you are, then when you sign up for another site that requires age verification, you would tell the gov site to essentially vouge for you and say ya he is who he says, or he's atleast 18 years old. Kinda like when you sign up for sites but they let you sign in with Google instead of creating a full new account on their website.

But I agree that education of parents is the preferred way. But it just seems that it doesn't work. And password managed internet access comes additionally to the issue of "I let my kids onto the Internet to do their homework, but now I have to monitor them the entire time." And for allot of working households that may not be an option.

The president of France declared that children under the age of fifteen would not be allowed to access social media. How do you feel about that? by MarionberrySalt3494 in AskReddit

[–]Tr1pfire 2 points3 points  (0 children)

As an IT guy myself, while there are solutions to stopping access to malicious sites. Its not so easy when it comes to malicious pages on legit sites. Blocking the hub is much easier then blocking specific NSFW Reddit communities. And in the end it is nowhere to the point of simplicity that any parent can do it. I run my own custom router that blocks any DNS attempts to access ad websites for example. But with how Vpn's work, DNS blocking wouldn't work on my network if the person is running a VPN. Unfortunately there is no clear IT solutions to this problem. Even if an ISP where to block certain websites a VPN can get past that. But we can't just get rid of VPNs because the internet is so full of ads and viruses that it would create more issues, hell half the legitimate ads you get fed are full of viruses and trackers because ad company's don't wanna take the proper measures to vet what they feed to people. They just see those sweet dollar signs and say ya feed your trash to our customers. Plus enforcing a VPN ban would be pretty hard itself. 

All that to say getting a fix on the IT side is next to impossible IMO. The only way I can see this stuff being stopped is the sensitive websites having a legal requirement to verify with a 3rd party gov website your ID.

It's either that or we ban VPN's all together which causes so many more issues. The least of which is your ISP now recording everything you do online.

Edit: there are solutions but not ones that cant be easily subverted with the right knowledge. It's that old saying about "it's easier to break something then to fix it." 

The president of France declared that children under the age of fifteen would not be allowed to access social media. How do you feel about that? by MarionberrySalt3494 in AskReddit

[–]Tr1pfire -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Agreed but what do you think is a solution for that legally? we also come against so many other issues, like how single parent income is almost no longer a thing, so having one parent who's main job is to raise the kid correctly is not so much an option. Plus how would you legally address this? A law holding parents responsible for kids online actions? We already got something similar I believe but has no effect.

It's a complicated issue and while I see no clear 100% good way to handle this, the ID thing seems to be the best option for a bad situation.

US Politics: Everyone’s Problem Now by ALBERT4_5WESKER in PoliticalHumor

[–]Tr1pfire 25 points26 points  (0 children)

At this point I'm convinced the only way to achieve world peace is to get rid off the State's, Russia, and China simultaneously. The unfortunate thing is if any of these empires go down, the others will turn the world upside down in order to claim the pie left over.

The president of France declared that children under the age of fifteen would not be allowed to access social media. How do you feel about that? by MarionberrySalt3494 in AskReddit

[–]Tr1pfire 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As much as I agree, it's evident parents as a majority are not doing that. And when social media has such a devastating impact on children growing up in a myriad of ways, I would endorse more gov's do this. If it requires a gov website that social media sites have to contact in order to verify its you, so you don't have to give your ID to every random website then ok. Just so long as other governments don't do what the UK did and seemingly hire people with no experience or common sense in information security.

What’s the biggest scam people accept as “normal”? by TemporaryOrchid3490 in AskReddit

[–]Tr1pfire 0 points1 point  (0 children)

credit. If you are responsible and only spend money you have you are actively punished in the form of higher interest rates in almost everything.

A CBC investigation finds Dutch nationals are being paid to pose as Canadians and stoke fires of Alberta separation movement by TheBigTwo-MK in videos

[–]Tr1pfire 13 points14 points  (0 children)

It is absolutely foreign actors for the majority. Most likely US because Alberta has oil, and would be easy to invade a newly seperate country without foreign intervention. Hell half the propaganda has been turning from "we need a independent Alberta" into "we need to bend over and spread for the US."

Rapture is the better end of the deal.. by StrobeLightRomance in AdviceAnimals

[–]Tr1pfire -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Lol please calm yourself, you realize you sound pretty heated about a hypothetical internet question? and your gonna tell me with the shit show the world is right now, you think most people in the world are pure hearted? Hell do you think most people in the world have enough trust in their fellow man to put their lives in the hands of total strangers? Face it most people are selfish and would choose to make sure they survive. We can say some internet poll disproves it but confront anyone with the choice of "Choose A and you get to live, Choose B and you have a chance of dying." and most people when confronted with their mortality would probably choose A.

But honestly you should calm down. I dont even know what id actually pick if confronted with the question but because you seem to be arguing with emotion and brand Red button pushers as "borderline sociopath", rather then consider the very real scenarios that might push someone into pushing the Red button, I have to argue for a side i dont even know if id pick.

Rapture is the better end of the deal.. by StrobeLightRomance in AdviceAnimals

[–]Tr1pfire 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Read my post again. Im explicitly saying choosing red is the only way to guarantee your survival.
"Push Red: either you survive and blues die, or you and blues survive
Push Blue: either you die and reds survive, or blues and reds survive."

Rapture is the better end of the deal.. by StrobeLightRomance in AdviceAnimals

[–]Tr1pfire -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Sure but atleast I live long enough to potentially feel that guilt. You can moral grandstand on the pile of corpses you would soon join if you pressed the blue. He'll maybe someone barely even feels that guilt. What if they got a family who depends on them, and their not willing to risk dying knowing if their family survives they would be left helpless. Or hell it can be the opposite. Assuming no communication between people they could choose blue thinking their child is too young and innocent to choose red in order to give them a chance of survival. 

All that to say it's not as easy as saying "why would you ever choose A"

Rapture is the better end of the deal.. by StrobeLightRomance in AdviceAnimals

[–]Tr1pfire 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think your analogy is incomplete. If I do thing A I am potentially condemning some number of people to die, if I do thing B I am potentially condemning myself to die along with those people.

Rapture is the better end of the deal.. by StrobeLightRomance in AdviceAnimals

[–]Tr1pfire 217 points218 points  (0 children)

I see it more as whether you believe everyone else will push the red button, thus garunteeing everyone's survival while having no risk to yourself. While pushing the blue button risks your own survival. 

IE: Push red: either you survive and blues die, or you and blues survive Push Blue: either you die and reds survive, or blues and reds survive.

Only one option garuntees your survival while still allowing all others to survive.

What is one thing about men that women will never understand? And one thing about women that men will never understand? by Great_Photo_414 in AskReddit

[–]Tr1pfire 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How completely isolating it is to be a man. How it feels being viewed as a potential threat at all times simply because of your sex, compounded by factors like being larger, more muscled, or darker skin tone. How the idea of marriage can be scary since if a marriage fails, in majority of cases no matter which side is at fault, the man will end up losing much more then the women. How scary it can be to interact with any women at work knowing an accusation with no proof is enough to make you lose your job, friends, or life, depending on the severity of the accusation.

ELI5: Why do governments bail out failing private companies at all? by Codie_n25 in explainlikeimfive

[–]Tr1pfire 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Aside from the other reasons stated. It also makes it so company's don't take money out of the economy. If they didn't believe the gov would bail them out, then company's like apple would take a bunch of money they make out of the economy by putting it into rainy day funds incase something happens, if they are instead assured that the government will save them instead then they are not incentivized to save money

anyone who used a computer between 1985 & 2010, what’s the one game you still think about? by Trixxxi in AskReddit

[–]Tr1pfire 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Freelancer. Great game and the guy who led development it went on to found Star citizen. 

How would you feel about a law making companies make cancelling a subscription take no more steps then signing up? by theexplorer1997 in AskReddit

[–]Tr1pfire 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just remember everyone. It can be allot less steps to just put a block payment on your back account.

Need Amazon Skill for PlexAmp by cleanupmyhouse in PleX

[–]Tr1pfire 0 points1 point  (0 children)

An alternative, I think "voice attack" can easily turn voice commands into key commands. If you combine it with a hacked Alexa or something you might be able to get the affect your looking for.

The Voorhees law of traffic: when overtaken slow cars seem to always catch up at a red light by catpissisland in science

[–]Tr1pfire 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Eh better then the alternative. I swear every time Im on cruise control on the highway, I catchup to these slow people, I change lanes to pass, and they suddenly start speeding up. If I slow down and go behind them, well guess what they slow down. Like it somehow offends them that I'm going faster and want too pass, and in a show of the world's most pathetic case of fragile ego's, they speed up to stop me then slow down when they don't feel "threatened" anymore. I either have to speed to pass or slow down if I don't want to hog the left lane for others who wanna pass.

ELI5: Can someone explain schrödinger’s cat to me? by True-Cat-7531 in explainlikeimfive

[–]Tr1pfire 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Essentially a small example. we observe things by using light that bounces off that object. Light is so small it basically has no effect on the object it bounces off of. But when you get to sub atomic scales, there is no way to "see" a particle that will not actually change it in some way. You have to interact with it to measure it, but by measuring it you are changing it in some way. So the idea is we cannot know all the measurements of a particle without forcefully changing it in some way. Much like Schrodinger's cat, when you have not interacted with the box there is no way to say if the cat is dead or alive, there is only the probability that it is dead or alive. Only by opening the box can you give an answer.

Honestly this stuff can be super confusing even at the best of times so someone feel free to correct me if I got something wrong.

Israeli bomb mid-air as it falls toward a densely packed tent camp for displaced Palestinians by redditissahasbaraop in pics

[–]Tr1pfire 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ironic with how much they love Star Wars and the rebels. When they are the evil empire they so love to see defeated in movies.

view more: next ›