halestock

Hm, that's more like digitally signing an image. I'm thinking about something like e.g. encoding/encrypting depth information from multiple images to create a composite that can't be duplicated without the source images.

This approach makes me wonder if the future is actually going to move towards visual cryptography.

Well this is certainly a step up from the "your computer has been infected with malware!" scammy ads.

Do you have any other apps that will give my computer more ram?

Pretty impressive to introduce 1400 CVEs in a project that's only ~7 months old.

Brand new account posting ai slop is my guess

A lot of engineer types forget that the law is not code, and reductionist arguments almost never actually work in practice because it's a human interpreting the law.

I also took the tour this year and I came away with the impression that he would have fit right in with today's "genius" entrepreneurs and CEOs for all the reasons you stated. He certainly had great ideas and was an excellent designer, but he was belligerent and bull headed and owes a lot of his success to luck and the people who surrounded him.

But this isn't about banning those things, it's about banning endless scrolling.

edit: I get that you're trying to provide counterexamples to be able to say "here's something that _could_ be construed as coercive/addictive design, so the law is going to end up banning those" - but that's the whole reason we have courts to interpret these laws. If you can reasonably conclude that a 100ms delay is helpful for user input - then it's probably not addictive design! That's the whole reason courts exist, because there is always going to be ambiguity; laws are not algorithms.

But we're not talking about banning addictive algorithms, we're talking about banning endless scrolling. You're trying to straw man by bringing in completely different examples.

Edit: rereading the article, they want to ban "psychologically exploitative features intended to maximize engagement that foreseeably lead to compulsive use." It seems like it's pretty straightforward to apply that logic to your hypotheticals.

Ok, but you're just talking about a completely different law. How is that comparable to what's being proposed?

Is your argument that unless we can make a law that is perfect and covers every conceivable use case of coercive design, then we shouldn't bother to make a law that covers any of them?

I'll bite, how's Seattle doing that?

This is all depressing but I had to laugh at "Tolliver Chevrolet"