Bingo.

If the AI were ENCOURAGING someone to commit suicide or kill someone else, I would have a big problem with that (minor or adult). But just listing information is something very different. Based on the transcript clips I have seen, it was not encouraging anything, just supplying information. And that is AFTER the boy performed work-arounds to defeat the "safety" protocols.

As for children- I have said it a zillion times, parents should NEVER give free-reign access to the Internet (or IA) devices without active supervision to ANY children (theirs or not). They should have parental controls on all the devices the children use or have access to. You cannot rely on every site that someone could possibly use to throw up adequate "protections". It is completely impossible and all it is doing is punishing adults by forcing them to "register" sensitive information.

If the parents want to get litigious, it should be against the party that gave the unrestricted/unsupervised Internet/AI access to the minor (the phone/tablet/desktop/whatever). Not the sites the minor visited.

>"Bluesky also notes that the law "requires collecting and storing sensitive personal information from all users...not just those accessing age-restricted content" â" and that this information would include "detailed tracking of minors.""

Funny, we just had this discussion.

What these laws do is punish ADULTS by forcing them to positively identify themselves with sensitive information. And that is surely a boon to yet more tracking, targeting, and chilling of free speech. Last I checked, I can walk into any library and look at whatever I want without identifying myself. And if I want protection for my [theoretical] children, I won't allow them to go there unsupervised.

Protecting children effectively from the wild insanity of the Internet has to go way beyond a few popular social media sites and should be based on what physical devices minors are given and driven by parents. Parents need more options for easy and effective lockdown/whitelisting on mobile (and other) devices. These types of laws do not do that.

Parents have the duty to protect their children. They *are* to blame if they hand over dangerous things to their kids. It should be up to companies like Google, Apple, and Microsoft to offer tools parents can use for restricting access at the source devices kids have access to. Not to restrict adults. Minors should be slowly prepared to be proficient through restricted devices with the parents monitoring and explaining and participating when accessing stuff outside the minimum required. It should start with whitelisting all communication in/out and carefully vetted apps. Then slowly introducing more freedom as they become more responsible. Proper parenting does this with everything else.

I hope all these ID laws are struck down.

>"It keeps getting better. But I don't consider the current setup to be "production ready" - maybe that's a better word than perfect. I simply expect not to need to revert to Microsoft every so often."

At work I have hundreds of users running Linux + LibreOffice daily. So for us, it has been production-ready for many years (OpenOffice prior to that, StarOffice prior to that... we have been into it for quite a long time). It is not without some quirks, but that can be said for most software I have ever seen/used. It is rock-solid for word processing and spreadsheet, and graphics is very capable, as well. I would say my biggest complaint has always been the lack of a good/easy/usable database component. To me, that seems to be its weakest area.

I also understand where you are going with that. And perhaps such a system could be useful, where ID is really necessary. But I don't think social media and forums and other such sites should be ID'ing people at all, ever. Now I know this is probably a losing battle, especially with more of these ridiculous laws which claim to "save the children." Thankfully, I don't use social media (unless you count a few forums or comment sections, like Slashdot), so it hasn't affected me... yet.

At least for sites that require payment, credit cards are probably enough. The only real problem is the lack of PIN codes on them (which is incredibly stupid) which would confirm the person using it is most probably the person to whom the account is associated with. Trying to pay for something online, anonymously, is probably not going to happen.

>"I can at least understand people wanting longer support for things they paid for. In Libreoffice's case they should ask for a refund."

Yeah, really. The amount of entitlement by people is sometimes a bit surprising.

>"Equally though it could be argued that there has been a general failure by the tech industry and open source community to offer a viable alternative for that hardware. "

Well, there is a viable alternative for older hardware, especially for home, and it is Linux (like Mint). Any OS upgrade or change will require some effort and learning, but Mint is easy to install and use and everything will be up-to-date and free. Then they can run the latest LibreOffice, Firefox, GIMP, Inkscape, VLC, Clementine, Thunderbird, Darkroom, Kdenlive, Pysol, Audacity, etc. I have loaded quite a few old machines for people, most of whom have been extremely happy.

>"If it were perfect then that would be fine."

No project as huge and complicated as LibreOffice will ever be perfect. Even setting aside that one person's definition of perfect can be very different from another's.

>"I don't want to be in a situation where the current LibreOffice is as good as it gets."

Well, you shouldn't have to. I doubt you are someone that is going to continue to use an ancient/obsolete OS on your machines. Security concerns alone would be shocking, meaning such a machine should never touch the Internet, or open recent documents.

I can understand a single-purpose machine that is isolated from the Internet (and much of any network), running something which has an obsolete OS. But those types of machines wouldn't be needing an up-to-date office suite.

>"What technical one would that be? Windows 7 is also 64-bit. "For example" fails to provide relevant evidence to support your assertion."

It is another target to have to compile, test, debug, etc. That represents a drain on their limited resources. Also, old libraries and bugs in an ancient OS require work-arounds.

>"LibreOffice is part of a switch to Linux desktop campaign https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fendof10.org%2F which is very much ideological in nature."

Yes, that is ideological based on freedom and openness. Not based on trying to force people to upgrade from 7/8 to 10 or 11. If it were, they would be dropping support for 10 soon to inflict as much pain on old-platform MS-Windows users as possible.

>"It says nothing about stopping updating. [Firefox]"

That is true, but it is likely they will. And my point was already made in that they don't support any version newer than 115. 7/8 users are already frozen in time (from a features, improvements, and compatibility respect) in Firefox, it is just security and major bug fixes for a little while longer.

The issue is that they only need to verify age. Not birth date. Not name. Not address. Etc. When you go into a store to buy some adult product, they have the obligation to only verify your age. They should not be allowed to record any other information about you. Many ID's have the entire thing rotated to portrait instead of landscape for minors, making simple age verification easy and without having to read anything.

I got into an argument with Target when I was buying canned air spray (duster). I had no idea people were abusing it (somehow) and that it was age-restricted. The checkout wanted to see my ID, so I showed it to the cashier and she tried to take it AND SCAN IT. I said "absolutely not" and took it back. I had to escalate to the store manager. They said they needed documented proof, I said, no you don't, that isn't what the law requires. They relented and sold it to me. This, aside from the fact that looking at me, it is OBVIOUS I am way over age 18 or 21 or whatever they needed. This is also why I have a sticker over the machine-readable 2D barcode on the back of my ID. So it can't be easily scanned into some system without my knowing.

I don't want a world where it is easier to ID people, it just ups the abuse.

>Two options

Actually, there are lots of options. Here is my list:

1) Continue to use that last LibreOffice version for the platform, just like you have continued to use an old/unsupported OS.
2) Upgrade your MS-Windows OS, (if that is even possible on such old hardware)
3) Switch to Linux, which is far more likely to work on ancient hardware (depending on distro).
4) Buy a new laptop/desktop computer and use whatever current OS you want to tie your wagon to.
5) Stop using computers and go hide under a rock.

I am sure I missed some other options.

>"If you are still running Windows 7 or Windows 8/8.1, this is the end of the road. LibreOffice will not run on those systems anymore, and there are no workarounds."

Um, the current version will still run on ancient MS-Windows machines (which have less than 5% of MS-Windows desktops). It just won't be newer versions. There is no license that will expire. No servers or cloud crud that will stop you from using it. Talk about an over-the-top headline.

>"LibreOffice has made it clear that it will not carry dead platforms any further. [...] if your computer is too old to run modern systems, LibreOffice is walking away."

No, LibreOffice has made nothing of the sort clear and no such statements. This wasn't an ideological move, it was a technical one. For example, they are moving to 64 bit builds only. MS-Windows 10 is soon to be a "dead platform" and there is nothing that indicates they will drop it, like so many commercial systems have already indicated.

Meanwhile, Firefox stopped new versions for 7/8/8.1 at version 115 and will stop updating that old version at the end of the year or so https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsupport.mozilla.org%2Fen... Chrome dropped support for those over two and a half years ago.

>"Democrat/Blue states, like California, are now forced to "fight fire with fire" by doing the same."

You are trying to perform revisionist history. Many Democrat-controlled States have been gerrymandering the hell out of their districts to gain and retain seats for ages. If you compare popular vote leaning to district/seat vote in many states, you quickly discover that one party or the other are under-represented.

This PR stunt of Texas Democrats "fleeing" to Illinois to temporarily block a quorum is quite amusing. Have you looked at Illinois' district maps? Yeah, a Democratic strong-hold with gerrymandered-to-death districts. https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgerrymander.princeton.... (Report card grade of Illinois: F, and I don't even agree with the overall bias of their "report card" methodology and assumptions, which favor the left).

Both parties do this. It has been going on for as long as there have been districts. Where it is done, to what level, and to which direction changes over time. Stop pretending it is something new, novel, or limited to one party.

>"Stop blaming the parents."

Parents have the duty to protect their children. They *are* to blame if they hand over dangerous things to their kids.

>"The drug pushers are the tech bros."

Yes, they are. And it is up to the parents to restrict access. It should be up to companies like Google, Apple, and Microsoft to offer tools parents can use for restricting access at the source devices kids have access to. Not to restrict adults.

>"And it's these same companies who entice businesses and governments everywhere to set up online-only services so that a regular citizen can't function adequately without a smart phone."

We are talking about minors. Not adults. Minors do not need online-only services. They should be slowly prepared to be proficient through restricted devices.

>"The parents are simply trying to do the right thing for their kids"

No, many are certainly not. They are often handing access to dangerous devices that can do ANYTHING and walking away.

>"They buy those kids smart phones because that's what makes sense in today's tech bro world."

The devices they are being handed or have access to should be restricted devices with the parents monitoring and explaining and participating when accessing stuff outside the minimum required. It should start with whitelisting all communication in/out and carefully vetted apps. Then slowly introducing more freedom as they become more responsible. Proper parenting does this with everything else.

If we want to push something on companies, it should be to offer better parental control options for devices we give to children that are used without supervision. Not to force all visitors to identify themselves everywhere like a nanny state or totalitarian government does to control its citizens.

>"Bluesky also stresses that the law goes beyond child safety, as intended"

If that really IS what is intended by all this nonsense. Because what it actually does is punish ADULTS by forcing them to positively identify themselves with sensitive information. And that is surely a boon to yet more tracking, targeting, and chilling of free speech. Last I checked, I can walk into any library and look at whatever I want without identifying myself. And if I want protection for my [theoretical] children, I won't allow them to go there unsupervised.

Protecting children effectively from the wild insanity of the Internet has to go way beyond a few popular social media sites and should be based on what physical devices minors are given and driven by parents. Parents need more options for easy and effective lockdown/whitelisting on mobile (and other) devices. These types of laws do not do that.

>"Many houses will have their electrical panel in or near the garage as well which makes installing an outlet much easier/cheaper"

True. Mine is in the garage, as well. But you still have to have enough main service to cover the additional high-amperage load. For some, that will be a large issue. And you need an empty circuit location in the panel (or will have to switch a few existing circuits to using tandem breakers to make room, assuming the panel is rated sufficiently).

>"So install an EVSE that's configurable. They're pretty common"

Oh, I will, if I decide I need level 2 charging. But $400 is a lot to spend on something I probably don't need. So I am waiting to see if the need arises.

If I do get one, I will either just get a fixed 24A one, or one that is adjustable- but ONLY if it is designed properly. The only safe models have PHYSICAL controls to set the max amperage to advertise to the charger (using dip switches, jumpers, rotary dial behind a panel, etc) in additional to being UL listed. There should be no easy way to accidentally have it change the setting to anything higher than 80% of the rating of the outlet, wiring, and breaker combination (through an app, software, soft-controls, etc).