pfried

He said exactly the same thing I said: laws like the California one that don't require age verification are fine.

what is the point of the OS asking

Because for the purpose of securing kids accounts, it doesn't make sense for the kids to enter their ages themselves each time they create an account at a new website.

Tell me how it can be used against me. It doesn't give out any information beyond what I let it give out about me, and that information (an age range) is derived from information I get to make up. Remember, the California law doesn't require any verification of the age data that is given to the OS.

Companies are already required to ask if their users are kids because, among other reasons, there are laws against creating ad profiles for kids, and companies have been sued for doing this even accidentally. The California law just changes how they're required to check if they're a kid from asking them at account creation to asking the OS at account creation, where the parents have set the age for them when the OS account was created. It gives the company checking if they're a kid no more information than they had before. I agree with Havoc8154@mander.xyz that this is totally reasonable.

This particular federal bill, on the other hand seems closer to the Florida bill in that it requires some form of age verification instead of just accepting what the parents enter when creating the OS account. That is unreasonable. Complain to your representative, and we'll see how it gets amended.

La Ville Derrière

He is the same as Sotomayor and Jackson according to many Lemmings.

Tesla is moving as much manufacturing out of California as it can. The only reason it started in California was that there was already a factory there from a company that had already vacated it years ago after it had unionized, the only unionized Toyota plant in the U.S. to this day. Tesla was more interested in getting manufacturing started as quickly as possible than it was in reducing costs, so it took over an existing factory instead of building one in a "right to work" state and paid workers enough not to unionize or stop work. Now that Tesla has factories in Texas, it has shut down production of the Model X and Model S, which were produced in California, in hopes of eventually vacating or replacing entirely with robot workers, which are the only thing they're making there now.

Dude, I already told you I'm in California. I know what's happening here.

Not if they get penalized for it more than they benefit from breaking the law, and California is strict about enforcing labor laws.

Look man, in addition to being counterproductive, the actions you're defending have a lot of collateral damage. It's similar to Israel saying that they should be able to bomb Gaza to get terrorists even though the bombings also affect children, which is another example of an action that is both counterproductive and has a lot of collateral damage.

Also, literally a Democrat.

There is no money spent on security for union busting in California. California has strict laws against violent union busting.

Not in California. Air pollution causing health problems is a real problem though.

As I've already explained, the only way to solve that problem is security measures. Even if they pay people well, that doesn't stop a disgruntled or temporarily insane employee from destroying the warehouse.

Collective bargaining extracts as much value out of the employer as the employer gets from placing the warehouse in that location.