this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2026
92 points (94.2% liked)
Linux
64383 readers
451 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
A "good faith effort to comply" with a bad faith law is to pipe /dev/yes to the API.
Also showing lawmakers how easy it is means even more laws down the pipeline to really make development disgusting because "it worked before, right?"
They are building the framework piece by piece. First the API is "Honour Based" then it goes to "Prove It". For once it looks like baby steps instead of full blown head in a toilet of fresh shit like usual. Build your off line libraries, soon the only way to win will be not to play
I mean.. there's nothing stopping anyone from setting their age to 100 years old. It's not like they are adding any sort of identification check, from what I gather.
Yeah, once everyone gets comfortable with being asked their age, then it'll go to requiring a 'realistic' age instead of accepting someone born 1/1/1900, then it'll move to requiring proof of your age
Imho, that's a slippery slope argument. Like arguing that communities should have no moderation at all (not even when it's fair) because it opens the door for unfair moderation too...
One might as well argue slippery slopes in the opposite direction, the more you reject parental-control methods that you can control, the more incentive they'll have to instead promote methods where you'll have no control. So you can equally say that rejecting this method will make their case stronger for proposals that would, progressively, give you less and less capacity for control (or in particular, capacity to actively be disobedient against).
For now