If you have Capslock set to change your keyboard language, and your computer locks with Capslock enabled, you literally can't type lowercase letters of your password. Capslock doesn't work, shift doesn't make it go lowercase - you literally just have to reboot to get back in.
That must be something you have changed, because if I have capslock enabled, it shows the capslock icon in the input field and the key is pressable to disable it for me.
If yes, perhaps there are relatively easy ways to address this.
I.e. configure the custom binding to also work on lock screen. Karabiner supports this I think.
Alternatively, rebind caps lock with a custom binding and not os settings (i.e. don’t rebind keys in both a custom tool and the OS). Then, if custom bindings don’t work on lock screen, you get the default, working keyboard on lock screen.
Really curious what you're going to do, going forward. Will you be rejecting compliance certified with Delve? Will you be forcing your vendors to redo compliance?
Per the piece, they only began to step away from Delve once they realized they couldn't close the deals they wanted and their hand was forced by outside asks.
And then also it took a rather large data leak later on to provide extra ammunition to decide and go forward with publishing this.
I'm glad they did, but there are a bunch of steps in between pure balls/altruism and what actually happened based on the blog.
uh isn’t the data leaker the necessary accelerant and necessary component to validate against the rest of the ecosystem? isn’t that what triggered the communication and coordination between multiple delve customers?
"In the only country in which 4chan operates, the United States, it is breaking no law and indeed its conduct is expressly protected by the First Amendment."[0]
As shown in that same article, they also responded:
>>>
"Companies – wherever they're based – are not allowed to sell unsafe toys to children in the UK. And society has long protected youngsters from things like alcohol, smoking and gambling. The digital world should be no different," she said.
"The UK is setting new standards for online safety. Age checks and risk assessments are cornerstones of our laws, and we'll take robust enforcement action against firms that fall short."
<<<
Quite frankly she seems completely out of touch with her own argument. The UK can certainly legislate away tobacco sales, for instance; they can't go after tobacco producers in a foreign state. 4Chan operates in the US and is a US company. They have no jurisdiction over it, even if their citizenry can access it; it's on them to block that access if they don't like it. Unless they're also implying that the US government should be allowed to go after UK companies that don't follow it's free speech regulations because American citizens can access them.
> Unless they're also implying that the US government should be allowed to go after UK companies that don't follow it's free speech regulations because American citizens can access them.
Precedent in the US is that courts do in fact have jurisdiction over a foreign website's owner if the owner "purposefully availed itself of the U.S. forum or purposefully directed its activities toward it", a test which is less demanding than it sounds. [1]
And US has taken advantage of this to go after foreign websites such as Megaupload, BTC-e, Liberty Reserve, etc.
Therefore, if there were a US law requiring companies to follow free speech rules, it could potentially be enforced against foreign website owners. But no such law currently exists. The First Amendment itself only applies to the US government (and to companies working on behalf of the US government). There is also the SPEECH Act, which, among other provisions, creates a cause of action where if someone sues a US person in a foreign court over their speech, they can sue back in US court. But only for declaratory judgement, not damages or an injunction. The goal is mainly just to prevent US courts from enforcing judgements from the foreign court in such cases.
> Not even China and North Korea whine about or send fake “fines” to offshore entities. They just block their sites and move on with life.
On the contrary, both of those are very active in going after people who operate websites they don't like from overseas, and/or their family members (who are often easier to get at). They just don't publish legal notices around it.
[sigh] and this is the first (mandated) step in that process. The UK don’t expect 4chan to pay the fine, which means, once the period to pay has expired, they’ll just be blocked instead.
Speaking as a UK citizen: you're exactly right. If the UK wants to prevent 4chan from being imported into the UK then it needs to block it at the border as it would for physical goods.
The fact that's technically hard to do (at least without going full-on CCP) doesn't change the situation. Attempting to fine a foreign entity for doing something that breaks no laws in the foreign entity's jurisdiction is just risible.
Oddly that's Zuck doing that. And weirdly, the law would only apply to app stores. I think that's a separate movement from what the UK is doing though. That US law is designed to hamstring Meta's competition not restrict political speech but it can be abused the same way I think.
There is no "US law" there are 45+ pending or passed pieces of state legislation, along with the federal Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) that's yet to be passed.
The PACs that push the one specific law you're talking about also push laws in other states, and federally, that are very, very different and draconian.
If only it were isolated to the UK. I know a website that does not hold content itself but rather links to other sites. Basically exactly what google does.
And yet, me sitting in Germany suddenly saw a nice banned notice when trying to access the site claiming this is because of "a high court verdict yadayadaya".
Why on earth do I now find ways around a UK court order to unblock a website when I am nowhere near their country? They should at least try and keep things within their jurisdiction.
It's very much a rock-and-a-hard-place situation. "It's an import", so they have to respond to it like they'd respond to imports...
But unlike physical imports, there's a sense that blocking these imports is an affront to base philosophical freedom in a way that prohibiting physical imports isn't.
> there's a sense that blocking these imports is an affront to base philosophical freedom in a way that prohibiting physical imports isn't.
It would serve UK legislators well to explore that tingling sense some more before they consider any further efforts in this direction, but that's just my two pence.
Right, but it shows their mindset. They're not letting China comparisons stop them from doing anything. It's not about the technology. In their mind, it's about the purpose and the legitimacy of any censorship.
> The UK is setting new standards for online safety.
Keyword: "The UK".
> cornerstones of our laws
Keyword: "our laws".
> and we'll take robust enforcement action
Enforcement action can only take place within the jurisdiction (with a notable exception of the US which doesn't give a single fuck about someone else's law).
I believe the onus would be on countries outside of the US to block 4chan no different than China having to block a site in their great firewall for making a picture of Xi looking like Winnie the Pooh.
Their goal is to create a presedent so they can start applying it to platforms they don't like. Its happening all over Europe not just the UK and the plan is clear. They want to repress discourse that is not officially sanctioned.
They can try to set whatever precedent they like. But US courts won't accept the argument, so it'll just stay a fee that accumulates on some paper ledger.
And then the children of the admin are traveling somewhere and get yoinked as leverage by the UK/EU/Brazil/Whoever and all of the legal arguments in the world won't do you any good. There is only one law that matters in the real world as much as so many westerners want to put their head in the sand about it.
They did not because they were in the honeymoon with the US. They were buying weapons and expensive American services in exchange for security. This era is over.
Today building social network or a cloud provider is a trivial exercise. If the financial incentive is there (aka ban of US services), they will pop out like mushrooms.
I disagree. It's no different from selling to a foreign buyer by sending the product in the mail. You're not doing business in their country, and it's the buyer's responsibility to adhere to their local laws about imports, not yours.
The Online Safety Act 2023[1][2][3] (OSA) (c. 50) is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to regulate online content. It was passed on 26 October 2023 and gives the relevant secretary of state the power to designate, suppress, and record a wide range of online content that they deem illegal or harmful to children.[4][5]
And honestly this is more than they really should even have to do. I think it does go above their obligation. They're doing Offcom a favor here, they don't even have to figure out how to block it themselves.
The lawyer is great on Twitter, he's not only defending 4chan, he's on a crusade to prevent this stuff in the future and trying to get bills passed in the US.
Thinking that you are operating in the UK because a UK user can theoretically send packets to you, is similar to thinking a corner store in Japan is operating in the UK because a brit can theoretically get on a plane and fly there to shop.
I run a site in the US and have zero intention of implementing GDPR or geoblocking anyone. If the feckless EU bureaucrats don’t want me serving Europeans, they can either block me or convince their citizens to stop requesting things from my servers. Beyond that, they can fuck off.
I travel internationally all the time, including to Europe. These clowns don’t even have the ability to connect me to my site. They can’t subpoena anyone, they have no control or visibility. Why does anyone outside of the EU give a shit about this? It baffles me.
You can declare that “it doesn’t work like this” all you want, and I’ll just keep ignoring it. GDPR is totally irrelevant to me, and no one who disagrees has the power to actually do anything about it.
You'd be amazed at the times I've argued with people on HN that free speech infringement by the UK government has grown rampant, only for them to enact the next draconian law a month later.
UK is trying to be like Russia and China, where a minder will show up at your door if you post something the government doesn't like. Then people online will defend it because the investigation didn't turn into a full criminal charge or they say the people simply deserved it.
The reality is this will seriously chill speech broadly across the country regardless of either of those outcomes, and the technical costs of enforcement will be steep.
We don't have any pro-free-speech political parties, nor a written constitution unfortunately.
I mean there are parties that say they like free speech, but it never extends to the sort of speech they disagree with, or by people of the wrong colour/religion/gender etc.
"Most" is probably not accurate. I can't imagine the average middle aged individual in the UK has a VPN they use regularly. I'd be pleasantly surprised if that was the case.
Russia is leading the pack in banning VPNs, and they're, surprisingly, getting pretty good at it. They caught my naive attempts at trying to use Tailscale, WireGuard and OpenVPN immediately. People in government are laughing at the populace struggling to bypass their whitelists, blocks and slowdowns, directly saying that "you can have your VPN, it just won't work, and you will never access anything beyond our Russian sites again. Have fun.". Currently trying to find a way around it using some of the new VPN protocols that popped up trying to bypass the Roskomnadzor DPI, and maybe, I certainly hope, that I will even succeed, but either way they're showing that it's technically feasible.
I really hope for all the people in the UK that your country doesn't go down this route.
Haven't investigated that much so there might be some big catch I'm missing, but I really wish people would stop making custom OSes and just help out an existing project
In the worst cases you get people who just want to say they made an OS by slapping their name on an existing distro after changing the default background image or making a couple tweaks. That's a lot easier to than to contribute something meaningful to an existing project.
More charitably, it's faster and a lot less complicated to modify a distro to your liking than trying to get a major distribution to cater to your whims and philosophy and making your version avilable to others gives them the option of easily installing your new features/modifications as is or using what parts they want. That's the joy of of FOSS. Even when the changes are modest, if they are shared and even a little useful then someone else can incorporate them or build off of them.
I assume because the discovery is branching. If the an agent using the CLI for for GitHub needs to make an issue, it can check the help message for the issue sub-command and go from there, doesn't need to know anything about pull requests, or pipelines, or account configuration, etc, so it doesn't query those subcommands.
Compare this to an MCP, where my understanding is that the entire API usage is injected into the context.
> How is progressive discovery not more expensive due to the increased number of steps?
Why not run the discovery (whether MCP or CLI) in a subagent that returns only the relevant tools. I mean, discovery can be done on a local model, right?
In short: JSON. Plan prose or markdown is way more token efficient than JSON. I think that responding in JSON was always a mistake in the spec; it should have been free-form text (which could then be JSON if required).
If you have Capslock set to change your keyboard language, and your computer locks with Capslock enabled, you literally can't type lowercase letters of your password. Capslock doesn't work, shift doesn't make it go lowercase - you literally just have to reboot to get back in.
reply