I couldn't find the actual regulation. What counts as a "power bank"? I travel with a bunch of GoPro batteries, but they are smaller.

It's no regulation, per se. ICAO sets up rules and its up to member states to create regulation based on that.

Yeah, people keep making the comparison to cigarettes but to me this is wildly different.

Cigarettes directly cause physical harm and even death. Social media can sometimes, under certain circumstances, depending on who exactly you're interacting with on social media, indirectly contribute to emotional harm.

Cigarettes are also physically addictive. Your body actually becomes dependent on them and will throw a fit if you try to stop using them. Social media is only "addictive" in the loose sense that all fun, mentally engaging activities are.

I'm not saying social media is fine for kids and we shouldn't do anything to reduce their use of it (TV and video games can be equally unhealthy IMO). I'm not even necessarily against legislation on the subject. But there's a huge difference between fining a company for breaking a law, and fining them for making a perfectly legal product "too fun" because you let your kids spend all their time on it and that turned out to be unhealthy.

This type of civil litigation where the courts effectively create and enforce ex post facto laws based on their opinion about whether perfectly reasonable, 100% legal actions indirectly contribute to bad outcomes is not a great aspect of our legal system IMO.

There are different kinds of addiction. The difference is physical vs. mental.

The best example of this is heroin, which has both a severe physical and mental addiction component, and it's the mental addiction that makes relapse so common.

Mental addictions rewire the brain's chemistry, causing the user to seek and only find joy in the substance. This is a better comparison for social media (albeit not as destructive and instantaneously harmful as narcotics)

Everything you do or even just think about "rewires" your brain to some extent. The difference with addictive drugs is that they do so in a way that bypasses your brains' natural processes. The same cannot be said for "addiction" to games or social media, or other entertainment.

There can still be social ills associated with these forms of natural "addiction" (e.g. gambling), and I'm okay with regulating those ills, but I'm less okay with the courts doing so unilaterally based on their subjective opinions with no concrete law backing them up.

One could argue that the ultra processed food industry is doing exactly what the tobacco industry did wrt to making their food addictive.

There is a difference in creating a food that tastes good vs creating a food that tastes good, but instantly wants you to eat the whole bag.

Normally I don't see people walking down the street staring at their Doritos

addictiveness != enjoyment

Although to some extent they're correlated, sometimes the things that are most enjoyable you wouldn't describe as "addicting" and vice-versa.

Eating a nice full meal is more enjoyable than eating doritos on your couch, but you wouldn't describe it as addicting.

If anything, I find my experience of youtube today to be less enjoyable than in the past

That may be true for some twisted definition of "building". Most people would say the money is simply being wasted by bureaucrats, consultancies, etc.

According to the dictionary, you are wrong. Somebody who works for a wage is not the property of their employer.

Wage slavery doesn’t literally only refer to wages. I was referring to the political meaning. Not something you can go to the dictionary for.

You said “it is slavery”; it is not slavery.

Why not both?

It is utterly insane that 3 finger drag isn't the default or at least not buried 3 layers deep inside accessibility. Apple, what are you doing?

I didn’t use to be as buried before System Preferences became System Settings.

And quite a candidate it is.

I'm too afraid to turn it on.

If you handle minimal traffic loads it should be fine.

On a busy site, the incurred additional load cost can bite hard.

A lot of people will leave it off for the same reasons as DoH or DoT. =3

Really? You're not concerned that someone might do a very specific kind of on-path DNS cache corruption attack, in 4-5 places simultaneously around the world to defeat multipath lookups at CAs, in order to misissue a certificate for your domain, which they can then leverage in MITM attacks they're somehow able to launch to get random people to think they're looking at your website when they're looking at something else? And that risk doesn't outweigh the fairly strong likelihood that at some point after you enable DNSSEC something will happen to break that configuration and make your entire domain fall off the Internet for several days?

> make your entire domain fall off the Internet for several days

Yes, exactly.

> You're not concerned that someone might do ...

I mean, now you've brought it up, I am concerned about it - but the level of concern is somewhere between "spontaneous combustion of myself leading to exploitation of my domain DNS because my bugger-i-ded.txt instructions are rubbish" and "cosmic rays hitting all the exact right bits at the exact right time to bugger my DNS deployment when I next do one which won't be for a while because even one a year is a fast pace for me to change something."

(Plus I'm perfectly capable of taking my sites and domains offline by incompetent flubbery as it is; I don't need -more- ways to fuck things up.)

It is not like some cheeky kids would just DDoS the signing authority itself, or hammer bleed the host TLS library yet again.

There are also good reasons many serious admins don't trust signing authorities. If you know... you know why... =3

Can't tell if sarcasm.

It's sarcasm.

Growth is what makes us rich enough to afford expensive environmental mitigation.

It hasn't worked with nuclear waste, has it?

It's not working for corals either. The rest of them will be dead in 10 or 15 years. And they are the ecosystem for 25% of the Ocean's species.

When is this expensive environmental mitigation going to turn the tide around?

> It hasn't worked with nuclear waste, has it?

You mean the nuclear waste that we banned companies from using as nuclear fuel for modern reactors? I think you will find that regulation actually stopped us from solving this problem.

> It's not working for corals either.

Imagine if we had much more nuclear power so we didn't produce enormous amounts of CO2! The corals would be in a much better position.

The "environmental movement" has been an anti-nuclear power movement that doesn't care about the environment since the beginning sadly. They've managed to harm the environment more than all nuclear accidents by several orders of magnitude.

> You mean the nuclear waste that we banned companies from using as nuclear fuel for modern reactors?

There is no need to ban this because it (and reprocessing in general) is economically idiotic. It would be like saying government bans prevent companies from setting money on fire.

Dry cask storage is a quite acceptable and economical way to deal with nuclear waste. The demand that something permanent be done immediately reflects a desire to use waste as a lever against nuclear energy. Nuclear fans would do well not to fall into this trap and think immediate reprocessing is necessary or desirable.

Sure, it's fine, but we've ALSO effectively banned research into reactor types that use "nuclear waste" as fuel. In Sweden it's not even effectively, we had laws on the books until quite recently that banned nuclear research.

> effectively banned

This simply isn't true. Not as much may have been invested in said research, but that's more a reflection of the lack of a business case for such things. They are not a magical panacea to all of nuclear's woes.

Your logic reminds me of people who confuse consumer preference with boycotts.

The lack of a business case is do to the regulatory environment. The nuclear regulatory agency that was set up to license new nuclear plants just didn't. For decades they stalled all applications. That's why the industry died.

Growth is also why we need expensive environmental mitigation.

On balance I still like growth and would rather have it than not. But let's be honest about it.

> Maybe it's NIMBY/Luditte BS to you, but people not wanting their resources to go help ensure some dork can have a chat-bot girlfriend seems normal to me.

Why would it be your business, or anyone else's, to stop someone from doing this?

> Why would it be your business, or anyone else's, to stop someone from doing this?

Because, in this country, we have “local government” wherein a bunch of people who live near each other have frequently banded together to make laws about the places they live. Surely this isn’t shocking news to you? Surely you’ve encountered this phenomenon before?

Why do you think you have a right to do anything you want, anywhere you want, no matter what?

That some group of people passed a foolish law does not make it any of their business. That would have to be argued separately.

That they live in the affected place makes it their business - I'm not clear why you think it's any of yours based on the thread of your arguments. Perhaps it's better to let people govern themselves and mind the laws where you live instead of whining that they won't do what you want them to in their own backyard?

Because these data centers are at best overstressing utility grids and elevating prices for everyone and at worse running dirty generators and poisoning entire communities, for a start.

Oh no, we couldn't possibly generate more power! Impossible! We're at our limit!

China has 100 reactors under construction - meanwhile in the West, folks like you exist.

In the West the new datacenters popping up are mostly powered by gas.

If the businesses that want data centers want to pay the full construction costs for the new power plants, great. Otherwise consumers are paying for them in the rates they pay to energy companies.

It should not be considered shocking or controversial that people already hit hard by corporate greed and other effects of late-stage capitalism don't want to pay higher utility rates to subsidize the data centers being built by megacorporations who want to take away even more of their jobs.