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.

If you’re open to it, I’ve seen maintainers go to “maintenance mode”.

Write it high in the readme so people see it, and write what it means: basically that you’re not accepting PRs, you’re not developing new features, but you will do bug fixes and basic maintenance (dependency updates, etc).

If big tech are the issue, then try this robots.txt (yes on github…): https://github.com/ai-robots-txt/ai.robots.txt

My issue is with the scrapers pretending to be something they aren’t. Tens of thousands of requests, spread over IPs, mostly from China and Singapore but increasingly from South America.

Yeah that’s a pretty good argument for it.

Why group it into language instead of say a ‘web’ directory or ‘android’/‘mobile’?

I’m just curious, I am more of a ‘throw everything in one directory and home I remember what I’m looking for’ sort of organiser.

Multiple people in this topic say they organise in directories for different programming languages, something I have never considered and I find it to be an odd way of organising for some reason I can’t explain.

Where do you put a project with a Javascript frontend and a Python backend?

Ah thanks!

Don’t forget the Breezy live wallpaper, where it shows a wallpaper based on the current weather.

On my wife’s phone it has tabs along the bottom. On mine it has the same options in the hamburger menu at the top left. I have no idea why they are different 😅

Ooh I think I know how to pronounce that one!

Install an extension to hide it, I just tried this and it works for me: https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/545/hide-top-bar/

You can install extensions by searching for it in the GNOME extensions manager. Once installed, you can edit the settings in the same place (I found I had to move off the window to another application before hiding was applied).

Also tab to autocomplete.

The command line looks like a lot of typing, but with ctrl+r and tab I barely type anything.