djc

Good point. Right. It only looks plopped down, but it’s intentional so can’t meet the definition.

Sorry too hot let’s hate on Koons instead who deserves it more, but sometimes if you got a stray you gotta send it Anish’s way.

Oh so like the bean.

I am not at all familiar with the pricing. I think I understand your discomfort now.

I am equally concerned about SFMoMa’s drift towards vapid pop style Kaws works but that still seems to me to be the aberration not the norm yet.

I like that SFAC has a big budget for art and places pieces frequently. I see them and SFMoMa as supporting a solid ecosystem on the high end traditional side. They both seem to be well funded.

I agree with you there but I don’t know that I see one as killing the other. I think this town has enough money sloshing around to support multiple ill advised exploitive art systems. (I think the traditional one is also pretty exploitative which I suspect you and I agree about.)

Art has often had a weird relationship with patronage. I don’t think I can get that angry about it just because the money is coming from the types of rich people we have here right now. If it bothers people let’s place more different art about it.

My ideal of course is that power goes to new heights of real devoted art crackpots we’re cultivating in the bay that aren’t wealthy in their own right but I recognize this system has not yet emerged. But I am down to support it whenever we find an opportunity for it.

I think there’s a tendency to be like “wow people are playing and they should step back and let the experts do it” but I think a city where only SFAC placed works is less rich than one where they place works and others do too. I like that we have a bit of both, and I love that Naga is in the park.

I think it’s good criticism and I don’t know that I like this model but I hope we can all be equally critical of the art commission’s fairly conservative tendencies towards the mundane and established.

A brief statement on how I feel about this job after my first trip as a fully qualified flight attendant: “Wheeeeeeeeeeee!!! This is fun!!!”

It is possible this view may evolve over time but for now I think this statement adequately outlines my views on the subject.

Alright! Likewise! Until next time! :)

If some OS vendors want to allow parents to lock an account to child status via parental controls they can add that. Linux won’t and doesn’t have to. That’s fine too! Meanwhile Linux apps don’t get to pester everyone to put in their date of birth and collect that everywhere.

It’s not meant to prevent kids from defeating it. It’s meant to centralize a setting. It’s like saying websites have to honor DNT instead of doing their own terrible individual cookie banners. Which is how that other law should have been written.

The difference here is I have? And it doesn’t propose any such thing? Don’t make me build it just to show you how dumb this system can be and be compliant. I don’t even have a working laptop right now. I’m tired of this shit.

Will they try and add some type of weirdo DRM bullshit later? I dunno, fuckin’ maybe man but this is the difference between a label that says “don’t copy this floppy” and a system that actually tries to prevent people from copying a floppy.

… what OS security policy? Come on man. It doesn’t require one. Just straight up you could have a lib wrap a flat file you could edit in vim and that would be entirely compliant with this law. Which is exactly what Linux could do to deal with this.

Thanks! Good to be here. :)

😂😂😂

This richer source of data is not only widely available to governments but sold on the open market to corporations for basically any purpose they please.

I’d rather replace that with a less rich source of data. This law actually helps with that.

4) It is about a category of data that is definitively provided in a form without significant resolution…
5) … of a data source the government has much more detailed records of.

The risk of government birth certificates and identity documentation is far far greater.

I think this conflation is unsound. The system described by this law:

1) Does not send this data to the government or make it available to them. It stays local.
2) The law restricts the sharing that can be done with this data.
3) It discourages people from collecting this data separately.

I think I can evaluate a system which allows an app to be responsive to a user being self declared as a child vs a teen vs an adult without conflating it with cell phone tower record tracking or a trajectory of a truly terrible trend of government data collection to which this would add nothing.

I think in this environment I also have bigger fish. Much bigger.

I hope this also isn’t a symptom of feeling like my fryer is too small, but I don’t think that’s what leads me here in this case.

I don’t. I wish I did, but I don’t. So if we’re going to have dumb laws… a self declared based privacy preserving system of implementing it is not the part that gets me up in arms.

I’d rather directly engage about the laws that make this dumb option the far better of terrible options.

In addition, we have other issues with greater deltas which don’t argue that apps like discord should implement its own age screen which if you’re against this system is the ramifications of what will happen unless you also believe we can eliminate all the other bad laws in these areas.

This analysis is not “it’s only a small step toward true terrible and small steps are by definition fine” but like “if you were trying to build that this isn’t where you start or is it particularly useful in achieving those goals.”

I personally judge the additional risk this law adds as very low. My assessment on what you’re outlining is that while it may indeed follow in some future push. The difference between it following with this law in place already and without this law in place already strikes me as minimal at most.

Part of practicing risk assessment correctly is being able to judge some risks among many actual risks as lower risk. There’s a big culture of assuming security expertise means you see risks in everything and all of them are problems, and that’s a poor application of this field.