Formerly /u/Zagorath on the alien site.
Yeah Modern Revised Romanisation transcribes ㅐ as “ae”, which works a lot better.
Though it introduces its own problems. For example, it transcribes ㅓ as “eo”, which causes English speakers to pronounce it as “ee-oh”. Take Jecheon (제천). Most English speakers would pronounce that as “jeh-chee-on”. A better pronunciation would be jae-chun (with “u” being the vowel in “gut”, or maybe jae-chon" (the vowel in “chop”).
Yeah “hun day” isn’t too bad. I’m not Korean myself, but I think I prefer that pronunciation to “hi-oon-day” which is what I usually hear.
“Hun day” kind reminds me of “win” as a pronunciation of Vietnamese “Nguyen”. It’s obviously wrong, but it works pretty well as a pronunciation that uses phonemes and phonotactics common to English.
It’s definitely not unique to Americans.
And tbh I don’t really blame them too much. It’s spelt with an older form of romanisation which is, in my opinion, really, really awful. I don’t really love more modern romanisation schemes, but at least “dae” would be unlikely to be pronounced as “die” in the way “dai” is.
I did have to go and check but yeah, that’s it.
Very, very few westerners can. They almost always pronounce it with three syllables.
Guilty of 3 counts of murder, 1 count attempted murder.
The article says “Mississippi and elsewhere”, so I assumed all sorts of bans were fair game for discussion.
As for your second point, I genuinely don’t really care all that much. Take my solution and require platform vendors provide a parental controls API and require websites and apps call it. From there, whether you legally required parents to set up parental controls, you strongly suggest they do it, or you just leave it there as an option doesn’t matter as much. Maybe different places can have different laws.
The important thing is that parents should at least be given the tools necessary to be able to do this.
Ne t’inquiete pas, je suis un dumb-ass la plupart de temps.
Je suis en train de apprendre aussi le français, la même que @grue@lemmy.world.
It honestly woulda been funnier to clumsily edit the meme in Paint than to sincerely fix it from source.
Voudrai? Will like?
The fact that they haven’t gone for this approach that delivers age verification without disclosing ID, when it’s a common and well known pattern in IT services, very strongly suggests that age verification was never the goal.
I don’t agree. It certainly makes it possible that it isn’t the goal. But I genuinely believe that, at least here in Australia (where our recent age-gating law is not about porn, but about social media platforms, with an age limit of 16), the reason behind the laws being designed as they are is (1) optics: despite what those of us here say, keeping young children off of harmful social media algorithms is very politically popular and they wanted to pass a bill that banned it as quickly as they could. No time for serious discussion about methods. And (2) a complete lack of knowledge. Because they wanted the optics, they passed the bill extremely quickly and without a serious amount of consultation. And I don’t trust that even if they had done consultation, they would have known who is more reliable to listen to, the actual experts and privacy advocates, or the big AI companies with big money promising facial recognition will somehow solve this. Because politicians are, by and large, really fucking stupid at technology.
What is it they say? Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity?
“Kids shouldn’t be driving cars, it isn’t safe!” Yes, but somehow we have made it 100 years without requiring proof of age/license to start the car.
This is sort of my take. There’s a lot of fun to be had in discussing possible technical solutions to the problem. And technical solutions do exist. But they all have some sort of noteworthy downside, including relying on the government to build and maintain this signing server.
But the best solution, IMO, is much more low-tech. Parental controls. Mandate that all browsers and operating systems support a parental control API where apps and websites can request to know if a user is of age. Mandate that adult sites call this API. And put the onus on parents to actually set up parental controls on their children’s devices, with an appropriately strong password that the children cannot break into.
This can be improved even further to lock a single age verification to a single account. Instead of issuing you a generic signed cert, they use blinded signatures to sign a cert that you generate and encrypt, containing the domain name and your username. The govt never sees the site or your username, because it’s encrypted, and the site never sees the document you provided the govt with to prove your age. But you have a cert that can only be used by you to verify your account is of age.
There’s an alternative solution that would enable a person’s browser or device to verify their age based on a govt-signed cert with repeated hashes. This would have the benefit of the government not even knowing how many verifications you had done, because they only provide one cert per person (with longer renewals. The downside of this is that it requires some form of unique multiple-use identifier. In the sample question that’s fine because it’s a passport. IRL it could be something like an email address, or even just your own unique UUID.
Just so you know, Lemmy allows you to edit posts. You can fix the typo in your image too.
On doit apprendre le français (ou l’allemand) pour rechercher le web sans indices Américains? Défi accepté!
🤨
There’s a ~/.docker/config.json. In that there’re some auths, with keys https://index.docker.io/v1/, https://index.docker.io/v1/access-token, and https://index.docker.io/v1/refresh-token, and then there’s "currentContext": "rootless".
There’s ~/.docker/contexts/meta/[a long hex string]/meta.json, with {"Name":"rootless","Metadata":{"Description":"Rootless mode"},"Endpoints":{"docker":{"Host":"unix:///run/user/1000/docker.sock","SkipTLSVerify":false}}}.
The only file in /etc/docker is key.json.
I never set one up myself, and this 11 year-old thread implies that Raspbian doesn’t have one set up by default. It is a very old thread though, so could be wrong.
edit: this is more recent and also says Raspbian doesn’t have DNS caching by default
$ dig registry-1.docker.io
; <<>> DiG 9.18.33-1~deb12u2-Debian <<>> registry-1.docker.io
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 50801
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 8, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1
;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 1232
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;registry-1.docker.io. IN A
;; ANSWER SECTION:
registry-1.docker.io. 33 IN A 54.210.249.78
registry-1.docker.io. 33 IN A 44.218.153.24
registry-1.docker.io. 33 IN A 107.20.112.188
registry-1.docker.io. 33 IN A 34.234.222.10
registry-1.docker.io. 33 IN A 34.195.83.243
registry-1.docker.io. 33 IN A 52.21.128.203
registry-1.docker.io. 33 IN A 52.0.248.137
registry-1.docker.io. 33 IN A 52.207.69.161
;; Query time: 47 msec
;; SERVER: 192.168.20.1#53(192.168.20.1) (UDP)
;; WHEN: Tue Aug 12 22:27:45 AEST 2025
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 177
$ cat /etc/resolv.conf
# Generated by NetworkManager
search Home
nameserver 192.168.20.1
edit: oh, and in my router’s configuration:
I’m happy to keep it public if only for the off chance that if we find a solution it might some day help someone else with the same issue. The thread’ll fall down in the rankings naturally over time anyway so I wouldn’t worry about polluting anything for people not actively seeking it out.
I’m not 100% sure how to find the OS version, but uname -a outputs [...]6.12.25+rpt-rpi-v8[...]. /etc/os-release contains “Debian GNU/Linux 12 (bookworm)”. It should be whatever was latest as of a month or two ago when I installed the OS fresh.
I mean, based on the source, they’re still even on Twitter which is a lot more overtly fascist than WhatsApp. So…yeah…