Of course they do. Only fools expected anything else.
Does else anyone remember the "age verification" on '80s video games? Some of them were hilarious. I think it was Leisure Suit Larry that asked multiple choice history questions that I guess were meant to be impossible for fifth graders to guess. I was the local history nerd, so I remember getting calls from classmates, like "we're trying to get into a game; when was JFK assassinated?" If I didn't know I'd ask my dad, who never knew he was contributing to the delinquency of (other) minors.
> I think it was Leisure Suit Larry that asked multiple choice history questions that I guess were meant to be impossible for fifth graders to guess.
I'm from a non-English-speaking country. We didn't understand the questions at all, but all us kids in the neighborhood got into the game just fine with some brute forcing.
Also, coming up with the expected commands in the game was way beyond our skills so we'd only advance to a point where someone had seen and memorized others play. Didn't matter, as it was one of the only games in the system so we'd play it anyway. I still remember how hard it was to type "ken sent me" in the allotted time window.
That wasn’t the era of global releases via the internet. You had to either buy it in person or, order by mail or get a copy from a BBS. It was an American game made for Americans.
Well, the main hurdle was that we were 7-9 years old iirc and didn't know any English at all, beyond the memorized "knock knock" etc. So the topic of the questions wasn't on the table :-)
I love this story. I remember seeing two pre-literate kindergarten kids playing on a gameboy or similar handheld, one of them teaching the other strings of button presses for things like “save game” - just navigating through all the menus by memory.
I played through the entire Pokemon Yellow without understanding a lick of english. You just remembered what the commands did, and you learnt by experimenting.
Thanks for this comment -- it dredged up a memory I had almost forgotten.
I did this but inverted. When only pokemon red/blue were out in the US I downloaded a rom for pokemon yellow (discovered on whatever p2p I was using at the time) when searching for pokemon to play in an emulator. I didn't know it existed at the time and it was in Japanese. When I told my friends "pikachu follows you around!" None of them believed me.
Haha, that's incredibly cool too! I actually played through a rom of Pokemon Green for the exact same reason - it was cool, no one at school believed me Pokemon Green was a real thing.
Like, I remember someone telling me at one point that the thing in Head over Heels was a Dalek with prince Charles head. I didn't know either of those.
My brother and I had a notepad with all the questions and possible answers, and we'd run the game several times until we got through, then make a note of the answers. Eventually we had all of them.
"Ken sent me" is buried in my brain for that same reason. :)
Same, our solution was to pirate Softice, then step through the startup to find the checks and replace them with nops or point at the desired location. Sierra games were not that amenable to this though because of the interpreter.
I learned to read very early because I really wanted to be able to start the games on the family computer (instead of having to ask an adult to do it for me).
And only then I realised that it was all in English :-).
There is one thing I do not remember, and that is if Leisure Suit Larry was advertised toward children and how much of Leisure Suit Larry revenue sales came from 0–12 years old, adolescent of 13–17 years old, and then adult customers.
It could be that that Leisure Suit Larry age verification was actually fairly good, if one put it in relation towards how much of their customer base and revenue came from selling the game to young children.
The vast majority of children are not motivated. They will implement any workarounds they are directly told, but have zero understanding or skills required to develop a workaround themselves and no intention or desire to become technically literate.
The vast majority of kids are stuck when you've blocked the first two returns for a google search for "Proxy"
HN is in a crazy bubble. The vast majority of kids live normal lives, and don't spend their time trying to get around filters and things because that's boring to them.
Most children don't have an ocean of free time. They are playing their video game or watching their shows or whatever.
Of course rules are circumvented. Maybe even frequently. But that doesn't mean on the margin none of this stuff has an impact and is not worth the effort.
It's the whole "kids are going to drink anyway so I may as well buy them booze" brain rot.
> hand over a computer full of my personal data to a corporation
I'm equally paranoid, so I back up and wipe any device I hand in for repair.
> What if I can't afford to part with that computer?
No perfect answer for this, but I've always kept my last phone in a drawer in case my current phone breaks. It's saved me a couple of times. Maybe not everything works, but basic calls and texts always have, and I can use a browser for banking and other "complicated" stuff for a few days.
I'm OK if the perfect doesn't get in the way of the good - both personally, and in this sort of legislation.
Without sufficient technical information on how the computer works and without root access, we can't be certain a "wipe" will actually wipe everything.
For malware that could be inserted in a targeted manner, even with desktop computers we don't have access the every firmware of every part.
When we're talking about mobile "phones", we usually have an interface that tells us "sure, it's wiped", but is it? Without full root to every part of it, can you be certain that it is? When you press "wipe" on an iPhone or a closed Android flagship (or whatever the UI is), what happens exactly on the filesystem that you can't even access fully?
Telling people to hand over their devices willy-nilly is far from "good". We shouldn't settle for this. The hardware companies can ship us the tools to replace the battery ourselves. Maybe not "ourselves" - my aunt can ask me to do it for her if she can't do it on her own. But she trusts me more than she does people she's never seen ever. If the tools are expensive, we can ship them back. There are many options so we should discuss them.
Fair points. I've never owned anything but (rooted) Androids, or (now) GrapheneOS. I don't know if that makes me more paranoid than you are or not; I am, however, much less afraid of a wipe that's not a wipe!
Not everyone has someone with technical skills in their family, so making policy that fits only that minority doesn't make sense to me. The majority will, as you say, "hand over their devices willy-nilly".
I'd rather pursue this as a two-part problem: get the best accommodation we can for hardware, and also impose (very, very) strict data-privacy rules. Trying to do too much at once risks accomplishing too little.
> I am, however, much less afraid of a wipe that's not a wipe!
I don't remember, but there was a story about deleted photos on iPhones resurfacing by mistake. Or deleting a file on Windows or Linux most likely removes the entry for that file, not the contents of the file itself. Or the "quick" format or whatever it was called in Linux. Or not being able to delete everything from an SSD because it moves things around and deallocates some regions. But even if a wipe is a wipe, a random employee is more likely to insert a hardware or firmware malware targeted to someone than the company is likely to insert just malware to every computer sold. Using "paranoid" in this case implies that there aren't many people with actual secrets to keep who could be targeted.
> Not everyone has someone with technical skills in their family, so making policy that fits only that minority doesn't make sense to me. The majority will, as you say, "hand over their devices willy-nilly".
Sure, offer both options then. Also, notwithstanding the fact that
I agree with offering both options, not having technical skills should be frowned upon. Everything is computers. Not knowing (someone who knows) how to use a screwdriver or a heat gun is inexcusable.
> I'd rather pursue this as a two-part problem: get the best accommodation we can for hardware, and also impose (very, very) strict data-privacy rules.
Data privacy rules don't accomplish much when the adversary doesn't care about rules. Reminds me of the "We don't have any criminals in Sweden because it's a crime to break the law" meme.
> Trying to do too much at once risks accomplishing too little.
I'm not the guy you're asking, and you didn't need to be rude, but the difference is a fun driving experience. It's perfectly OK not to value that, but it's a valid priority.
I'm speaking here as an NA Miata owner. My car's waaay behind your Prius on the luxury scale: it's loud on the freeway, and rattles and bumps the whole time; there's no cruise control; the roof seals leak a bit if you don't close the windows / doors in just the right way; the AC's on the fritz at the moment, and I need to sand off and re-spray some peeling clear coat that makes it look dumb. I've put more time (and actual $$) into the car than its paper value should justify, but goddamn does dropping the roof and pulling out of the driveway put a silly smile onto my face every single time, and heel-and-toeing a downshift on a twisty road to hit the next corner just right never stops being a thrill.
"Upgrading" to a more expensive car would buy me the luxury and the fun together - together with a lot of engine power I don't need outside the track, and would frankly be scared of day-to-day - and (to the point of this thread) I'm kinda frugal, so I don't feel any need to do that. But "luxury" (even "comfort", sometimes) and "fun" are orthogonal values, in the automotive world, and you asked, so that's the answer.
I'm not convinced there's a materially more-fun driving experience to be had by spending gobs more money.
If you optimize for that instead of other aspects, then Prius money would get you a Miata with most of the same features and a sportier aspects. And you're still a long way from a six-figure car. That was the gist of my earliest point.
I think the gist of your point got missed by both me and the GP. It read like you didn't think / understand fun was any kind of a value at all. I mean, you did ask:
> What specific benefits does a "driver's car" have over a "regular" car, praytell?
You're dead right on about the Miata vs Prius comparison, though. If I wasn't, for all of its manifest inconveniences, unreasonably in love with my (at this point classic status) little car I'd "upgrade" to a newer Miata.
That said:
> a materially more-fun driving experience [isn't] to be had by spending gobs more money
Kinda isn't the case? I've driven a couple of $100k+ cars, and they were a fricking blast. Effortless power is intoxicating; you feel momentarily like a super-hero when you put the throttle down. I can only imagine that a proper racecar is another leap beyond that - albeit with a massive decrease in comfort.
The catch, however, is that you can't safely (or legally) drive high-performance cars anywhere near their limit in public, only on the track. So, 99% of the time 90% of the money you've spent is wasted. My Miata is 90% of the fun 100% of the time, at (mostly!) legal speeds, and if I want to actually push its / my limits I can do that on a cone course in an empty parking lot, no track required.
(Also, little kids smile and wave at me all the time, because it's cute, and hard-core gear-heads start conversations with me about it at petrol stations. That's all fun, too.)
I think I'm getting a lot more enjoyment per dollar or per mile than the $100k+ fools do.
Unless, of course, they're doing it for status signaling, which they mostly are. That's fair, I guess; I don't think my Miata ever got me laid, which (I'm told) their cars do. The rest of us just wish they'd be damn honest about it, that's all.
The thing is all 100k cars are well past the point of diminishing returns.
I use to have a 993. It was a lot of fun. I also had a 2016 GTI. It was at least 85% of the fun for 20% the cost. It didn’t turn heads as much, though, which is what most people buying high end cars are after.
These days I get my zoomies on two wheels. I have a Triumph, so I’m very familiar with the gas station chat-ups. ;)
I'm the IT Director of a medium sized (for our industry) company. Some years ago I worked with an amazing free-lance developer, and our then-director of marketing, to build a custom website that we were pretty proud of. A year ago our new marketing director paid mid-five figures to move to one of the site-builder services because 1.) the old CMS back-end to update content was "too technical", and the hours / a day wait for me or the developer to do it instead was too long, 2.) marketing didn't have direct control over design elements, and our questions like "do you want all of the buttons changed to match this style?", or "we use drop-downs on these other similar forms, should we use that here, too?" were... impertinent, I guess?
The mistake we made, which you beautifully articulate, was paying insufficient attention to the Owner Experience. The old CMS was functional, but it was ugly; the previous marketing director didn't care about back-end looks, and didn't want to put resources into making it look pretty. I should have recognized that that priority had changed. We also could have made them a form-builder + page-builder of some kind, with a way to directly edit templates. Whatever it took, we should have made the old system more satisfying to its new "owner" - and I should have put that expense into the IT budget, rather than have expected it to come out of theirs. That would have better for the company. Live and learn.
All that apart, not being responsible for the website is great: it's nice not to deal with text editing and image updates. I said my piece about the advantages of a custom site, and was heard and overruled, and that's fine. I made sure I am not an owner of the new site; they have their playground, and are welcome to it.
UX is, of course, degenerating, and marketing are (predictably; I predicted it) starting to chafe against the limitations of this company's product. I expect we'll move back to a custom site in a few years. But, what they've got is for now a better Owner Experience, which for them is worth the many multiples of cost, and the current functionality shortcomings.
I expect next go-around they'll want to pay some big design agency for a custom site; it'll probably be six figures. I don't know how I should approach that discussion. Any ideas?
> I expect next go-around they'll want to pay some big design agency for a custom site; it'll probably be six figures. I don't know how I should approach that discussion. Any ideas?
Keep your ear to the ground and when you start to hear rumblings of this happening, pay a skilled freelancer to update the old website (or just build a new one if its easier) to fit the new marketing director's taste. Solve marketing's problem, save the company a bunch of money, be the hero.
Yeah, that's the obvious thing to do. My fear is that we (more directly: I) have burned trust. After all, they moved us away from an internal solution because marketing didn't like it; how can I persuade them that a new internal solution wouldn't be going backwards?
You'll have to trust me: from a customer-facing POV the old site was miles better than the new; it's only from an "Owner"-facing POV that the new one is preferable.
Um, I guess that hints at the answer: any new proposal has to start with their (Marketing's) experience of the product - flatter them to the max. This probably should start with my being a little more-attuned to their specific frustrations with their new solution. Hmmm.
Thanks for thinking this through with me, HN. Would welcome any other advice.
> median period length and typical variation/range.
This was what my partner found useful to share with her doctor while trying to figure out a medical issue. Of course it could have been done typing dates and notes into excel, and manually creating charts, but the chance that she (or most people) would consistently follow that workflow (pun not intended, but I like it) is nil.
My understanding is that it would be, if admitted to. That's where the parallel comes in: establish an evidentiary trail that's plausible enough to withstand defense scrutiny, and count on the court itself (ie, judge) not to dig any deeper.
> in Wikipedia you can spend hours reading banal pop-slop content or instead spend that time reading amazing articles about history, literature, arts, and science.
I'm not saying you're personally doing anything wrong, but there's a parallel here, when smart and curious people read articles about history and literature and art and science, rather than engaging directly with the real thing.
Or then the next level down, where creating amazing work in all of those domains depends on enough "slack" in the system for people to pursue deep work that will not be immediately profitable.
Do you see where I'm going with that? We (and I'm very much including myself: here I am on HN, instead of reading something more substantial) skim the (Wikipedia) surface, instead of diving truly deep. AIs (right now) are the ultimate surface-skimmers, and our fascination with and growing reliance on them reflects something in our current surface-skimming cultural mindset.
I didn't think you thought otherwise, and apologize if I left that impression. As I said, I spend more time reading Wikipedia articles and watching YouTube videos than I do on any kind of "deep" study, and I think I am less well-equipped for that kind of work than I was twenty years ago. Some of that is life-circumstances - I have a kid, and a more-demanding (time-wise and cognitively) job than I did back then - but some of it is also the ease of access to the shallow stuff, and the instant gratification that it brings. That's cultural, and it's been created (along with, of course, many benefits) of our information revolution. I haven't been inside a library in years.
Well, my dad got migraines from everything° on that list bar tomatoes - though he did from dried tomatoes, so does that count as everything on the list? I don't know the biological pathway, but it was neither self-diagnosed, self-derived, nor made from woo; he visited several real-MD neurologists before someone identified the chemical(s) at fault, and gave him a list of foods not to eat.
°In fact it was all cheeses, not just parmesan; the more aged the worse. And also chocolate, and olives. Basically anything aged or fermented. I don't know how that lines up with MSG's chemistry, but he was careful with MSG, though nothing like as avoidant as he was with soy sauce and cheese.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stadiums_by_capacity
reply