Thatâ(TM)s a terrible interpretation of âoeviableâ, and not the only one thatâ(TM)s used. Viable ideally means itâ(TM)s enough. It works. It has the minimum features/improvements for it to be acceptable to customers, and nothing more. Itâ(TM)s meant to be a guard against scope creep and endless delays in which less-critical features are added, and provide opportunities for feedback sooner in case youâ(TM)re going down a misguided path. Iâ(TM)m sorry if that hasnâ(TM)t been your experience of it!

on Mary Barra being replaced by the end of 2028?

I've had an ongoing project to declutter my inbox by unsubscribing from two or three mailing lists each day, and deleting any old emails from them at the same time. The new tool makes this process several times faster. Love it.

My wife's iPhone took a tumble and the main part that got damaged was the glass back. Why is it glass? 95% of phones spend their lives in a case so who cares what the back and sides look like? Make it as durable as possible.

Snow White got 75% on audience score on Rotten Tomatoes but only 1.5/10 on IMDB (which allows unverified reviews — and they detected unusual voting activity). I haven't seen it yet, but I'm taking the ratings with about a tablespoon of salt.

If the US ever gets its democracy back, perhaps consider a constitutional amendment that disqualifies anyone who has made a significant donation to the president, their political party, or their friends/associates, from receiving a pardon?

It's becoming increasingly clear who the real "precious snowflakes" are.

A station wagon is totally a sedan with an extended, full-height rear. European companies like Audi, BMW, Skoda and Volvo still know how to make them, everyone else seems to have forgotten, instead favouring ridiculous tiny-boot SUVs that are useless for carting big things around.

At 4635mm in length it's very close to the average of a US "medium SUV". In Australian terminology it's considered a "large SUV".

Certainly wasnâ(TM)t intended to be

These companies already have mountains of data points on every user. This kind of law could lose them a suitable percentage of their users, kids as well as adults whoâ(TM)d prefer to opt out than prove their ID, to gain what? Name and a verified date of birth? They already knew that anyway.

Regardless of what you think about the practicalities of enforcing such or law, or the ethics of limiting children's access to things, these companies do not deserve any sympathy, nor even any say on this matter. They have had years in which to make their products safer but done the bare minimum, instead investing in making them more and more addictive, because profits.

Why would you fine parents for the actions of 1) other kids who cyber-bully kids, 2) social media platforms that knowingly build systems that provably harm kids' mental health and do the absolute bare minimum they can get away with to prevent harm? You don't punish parents when their kids get their hands on drugs (unless the parents are the suppliers). Parents can get punished when they fail in their duty of care, but in the scenarios we're talking about, the people failing in their duty of care are not the parents, the creators of the tech platforms are.

Banning those things certainly doesn't stop kids from accessing them entirely, but it does make it more difficult (at least for the physical things).

They exist, but they're optional, and you don't have to use them (or any other form of ID) to sign up for anything that I can think of.