Also, including the mid-teens (15-16) into the regulation may have a generational negative effect. This is the age you start to get interested in the world and how it works. Social Media is the primary medium teens use to get this information, having eclipsed traditional media (magazines, tv shows, radio shows etc.) Banning Social Media for these ages leaves a gap in newer generations maturing to adults.

But maybe that's by design? I.e. make new generations indifferent to the world around them, and also prevent them from building resistance to (home) propaganda spread through Social Media.

It went a bit like this:

- EU mandates that users should be given the option to opt out from non-essential cookies.

- Meta responds by implementing an ad-free subscription-based model in EU, which allows them to dodge regulation.

- EU of course sees through their scheme and prepares to sanction them.

- Meta rolls-out subscriptions worldwide, so that it becomes harder for EU to claim that subscriptions were specifically created for dodging EU regulation.

This is BS regurgitated by people that can't let go of the cold war, because their self-importance is tied to the era.

Anyone with half-brain can see that USSR had the various CPs as means of establishing and maintaining control over other countries. Russia does not have any equivalent apparatus. Relying on military power alone, they can't reach much further than their backyard. And Putin is smart enough to understand this (unlike Trump).

> Putin himself stated those goals

Says an article titled with "US Intelligence:", based on Russia's refusal to concede territory in a war they may not be outright winning, but they're definitely not losing.

Incidentally (?), on April 26 there was the first conviction for one their trolls, writing on X as GheorghyZhukov. The real identity of the troll was established on trial, and he was convicted for slander and defamation. So maybe the feel that they may soon lose control of the online narrative, so they hope to create a chilling effect for online criticism via banning anonymity?

But with the advent and advances of several decades, aren't you supposed to be able to get better quality for cheaper today?

These brands earned the consumers' esteem because decades ago their products pushed the envelope in the respective markets. By having their product quality severely degraded, this also lowers the bar for the niche brands. They no longer need to push the envelop to get a competitive advantage. They just need to replicate what was already possible. I.e. no real innovation is happening any more.

Also, for every 2 niche brands that are trying to get it right, you will get 1 that is sketchy: send designs to the cheapest manufactury in China, hire a few influencers to post on instagram, and you're done. Basically capitalizing on the misperception that "niche == better".

So, we are left as consumers to have to dilligently research every purchase, just to get the quality that was the standard a few years back. There's nothing to enjoy here.

Not to mention that at the bottom, this is just another manifestation of "fast fashion" and "planned obsolescence".

It's $120/year/account for multi-user setup, and $60/year/account for single-user.

Which is still dirt cheap if you use social media professionally. E.g. what would $360 buy you if you try to do self-hosting? Maybe a day of work from a devops engineer to get this deployed for you?

E.g. Buffer charges around $50 per year per social media account, which gives you an unlimited number of collaborating user accounts. And their single user plans are even cheaper.

I don't see how self-hosting would be a worthy investment of your time/effort in this case, unless you are in some grossly mismanaged organization where you have several devops engineers paid for doing literally nothing.

This probably won't happen (at least in open) because there's a risk people will start asking for a cost/benefit analysis for everything. Laws that enable mass surveillance, immigration regulations, military spending, wars, political system.

I seriously doubt such clauses still exist today. The entrenchment of the MIC in the US political structure is so deep and stretches for so long, that they have probably managed to avoid having such clauses by now. After all, that's their obligation to their shareholders.

Also, the more high-tech the weapon, the more complex and fragile are its supply chain logistcs. So, scaling up the production of high-tech weapons is much harder, especially in wartime.

Also not an expert, but I get the feeling that "cluster munitions" is pretty much an umbrella term.

Because of the CCM [1], we tend to associate the term with the "ligther" variants, which are used as anti-personnel weapons. These variants probably wouldn't be much more destructive than a few grenades.

But what Iran is currently using, appears to be missiles with 500-1000kg payload. This puts each submunition in the 50-100kg range. This should deliver a lot more of a punch than a grenade. Also, because of their weight, they probably wouldn't be covered by CCM, had Iran ratified it.

And, yes, it is unsettling geeking out on this stuff, that may actually be killing people as we write our comment.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Cluster_Munition...

A colleague has been using Claude for this exact purpose for the past 2-3 months. Left alone, Claude just kept spewing spammy, formulaic, uninteresting summaries. E.g. phrases like "updated migrations" or "updated admin" were frequent occurrences for changes in our Django project. On the other hand, important implementation choices were left undocumented.

Basically, my conclusion was that, for the time being, Claude's summaries aren't worthy for inclusion in our git log. They missed most things that would make the log message useful, and included mostly stuff that Claude could generate on demand at any time. I.e. spam.

I guess that's what you get for electing an American as the Pope. /s