HN user
Yeah multiplayer is kinda problematic because of port forwarding and dynamic IP.
S&B or other engine-as-game solve that by using the platform account system and master server for discovery and NAT punch through.
Of course Roblox have more player, but does your child really need millions of players?
It's the same network effect with other megacorp, we could argue the same about X/Instagram/Mastodon, the question could be changed to: Do you want your children to be groomed to use closed source ecosystem from shady companies or do you prefer they gain experience in using relatively open ecosystem ?
Luanti let you make multiplayer games/mods too. For Minecraft there way to play outside of Microsoft sanctioned versions and servers.
With whom credit card, to whom mailbox, on whom device ?
Does Roblox sell them ? If no it's a non sequitur.
How much of a problem is the online availability of alcohol or cigarettes in the health of children ?
RpgMaker is really approachable for a 13yo.
There also Luanti, the new name of MineTest, which is closer to the Roblox experience (in the sense that there already a playable game there, and creating new stuff is closing to modding than to game making).
Easier than… not using age verification ?
It's not like it's a feature for you the end user, it doesn't solve any of your problems, on the contrary, it creates new ones.
You can (and should) be mad at the government and at Roblox at the same time.
Also, don't use Roblox, you can freely share games made with PICO-8, Löve, Godot, Rpgmaker, Game maker and the like, no need to go to the hell scape that is Roblox and its dark patern and locked down ecosystem.
Assuming you're not in an endless vacuum, the light will also become heat.
Their stance is of non-compliance and leaving EU market if Chat Control 2 get into law.
https://aboutsignal.com/news/the-end-of-private-conversation...
Are you sure about the mic ?
But how do you do it in a way that it isn’t a burden on the parents
Why should we aim to do that ? Who give internet-enables device to their children? In most cases, who give pay for their internet access?
So how to solve it. And „I don’t like the current approach“ without having a better idea is not a solution.
Defining the problem, and if it exist altogether should be a good start. I'm not even sure the problem is defined, even less it need a solution so badly that we should kill everyone privacy for it.
Moreover, what I observed is that urban professional class populations are usually way more in favor of wolves reintroduction than rural working class population.
Perhaps their reasons is an economic one (wolf attacks on livestock) and not an human safety one ?
Multiple proposal for this exist for decades[1][2]
The RTA one was even pushed by the porn industry and is already in place in majors websites[3]
[2] https://icra.org/webmasters/
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Sites_Advocatin...
Indeed but you are the one who claimed it was not a hard problem.
Am I ?
Well, they could trade identifying ones too or even stollen ID cards if you want to go this way.
They could also trade porn-filled thumb drive or old-school glossy paper magazine. There no way to prevent kid's exposure to stuff at a 100% success rate.
There no way to avoid exposure completely
For 15k you could run the best open source models (that would require 200k in hardware to run) 24/7 at 50 tps for like 5 years straight.
Is this assuming no price increase and no throttling ?
It could, of course, use a double-anonymous system like the French one.
Which isn't really anonymous or privacy preserving, despite it's funny name : https://broken-by-design.fr/posts/proto-authz-porn/
Supporting very old hardwares and supporting less than a decade old softwares are two very different things.
Oh yes, the Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse.
Better to wiretap everyone just in case. Why stop there ? After all there a chance any privacy could be used to conceal some terrorist plot, better to record every meat-space conversations too, let's not take any risk.
You don't have to donate to all of them, or even donate at all as long as enough people donate.
They tend to feature a call to donation instead of advertising, with prominent progress bar about how much they need this month/semester/year instead of advertising. Still visual crust, but much more palatable.
Donation.
Generally speaking, that's incorrect. That's like saying "I don't like cars, and don't see the value in cars, therefore the market for cars is fraudulent".
It's arguable that the car market is indeed fraudulent and the result of years of lobbying, destroying public transportation and car-centric architectures.
Vast majority of developers/studios don't use any DRM at all.
Having the game wishlisted is a signal of players waiting for a sale, or future patches/correction, or simply not bothering to cleanup wishlist, not a signal of someone is eager to pirate the game.
The number of pirated copies doesn't translate to missed sales.
Someone playing/watching/listening to something for free doesn't mean they would still do it if they had to pay for it.
Are in tension with one another. Clause 1 opens up for the idea that there exists valid "non-surveillance" record keeping, and that the distinction of such record keeping from surveillance requires determination of consent and purpose. Clause 2 then foregoes that determination and just presupposes the argument.
"Forcing" highlights the lack of consent, the distinction is still present.
In the current legal framework, government derives it's unilateral consent from the vote. If the law passes in a democratic system, then it is, by that very process, a consensual and valid purpose.
Absolutely not. Being voted in a parliament doesn't mean citizens consented to it.
Simple example: compulsory military enrollment vs voluntary military enrollment. Only one of them derive from consent, even if both derive from a law discussed in parliament.
Are you equaling mass surveillance to a doctor keeping track of your health for diagnostic accuracy purpose ?
Concerning the railway example, they only need to store how much I owe them, not my travels. Storing travel history on their end is already surveillance.
Data keeping purpose and consents are what make something surveillance or not. Forcing every citizen to use ID to access the web is surveillance plain and simple.
The problem is not about the data being correct or not, it's about its existence in the first place.
Why would you correct data about you very own surveillance ?
You don't have to replace the phone. You can go to some repair shop and get the battery replaced. It will be several times cheaper than a new phone.
Still way more expensive than swapping a battery pack, and this mean leaving your phone to a stranger for a few hours or maybe a day if the shop is really busy. Anything that add friction to changing battery will help sell new phone.
From an environmental point of view it doesn't matter if you do the repair yourself or you have it done by someone else.
The added cost and friction will de facto make it less repairable.
Which is the majority of the users[1], even more if you count that any user without age-check won't be able to access your game either.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1190869/roblox-games-use...