If you set the target resolution to 1080p, not much changes in the render pipeline except the that final upscaling step. To get better quality, the lower resolution is bumped up so there is more data to work with for the upsampling, but the scaling performance can be very hit or miss depending on the game as the engine itself often can play a huge role in rendering performance.

As far as rendering the 1080p image at 4k, yea it works fine, but there will always be little artefacts that remain for those looking for them. 1440p seems to be the sweet spot for gamers today, but 4k is really nice for when you're not gaming as most online video is now made for dual use on televisions.

But to address the article in a simple environment dns _just_works_. I’ve never once had an issue with bind. It’s incredibly simple and stable and easy to understand when working with within a small environment without much churn and enables other technologies to operate in an expected way because it’s the standard. ACME, kerberos, sshfp, many more are enabled by DNS. Sure maybe you can kludge some of that back together with hosts but I’d rather not just to replace one of the most stable services that exist.

DNS does start to get more complicated in massive environments but that’s just a reflection of the environment. Using ansible to manage /etc/hosts across hundreds or thousands machines with churn will not be less complicated to manage than dns.

EDIT: Oh it seems like that’s what the CA bill does? Seems good to me. I have zero problem with age restriction if age verification goes no further than mom buys kid iPhone enters birthdate, Instagram asks phone is user 18.

These sorts of rules can only ever achieve "mildly difficult".

And maybe that's a healthy way to think about it. That it doesn't matter if kids find it easy to work around. There is no child who hasn't been able to get their hands on alcohol when they want it, but perhaps the infinitesimally small amount of friction leaves many to second guess their choices? Then again, from what I see out there, just rationally explaining why alcohol might have negative consequences is enough to see that second guessing. Alcohol consumption amongst the youth has completely plummeted now that we no longer treat it as some magical taboo thing and finally started talking honestly about it. The same pattern has been observed over and over in other things with undesirable consequences for children.

I’m all for sane best efforts for restricting children’s access to mind warping materials online if the consequences on the overall internet are minimal which I think this does. I’m not on board with killing the internet as we know it to get from 80% of children off social media to 90%.

The problem with social media and to a lesser extent porn is addiction. If a kid had to go to a friend’s house or sneak on to their parents computer to scroll tiktok that’s already a huge step in a healthy direction.

Is it? Only around 10% of the population will develop an addiction (of any kind). About the same rate as the population who live chronic sedentary lifestyles, which comes with equally (or maybe even worse) health and social consequences. Where is the regulation that forces you to prove you are of a certain age to sit on the couch?

This seems like a lot of effort for something that impacts such a relatively small group of people — a group of people (in size) that we otherwise don't normally care about one bit. 10% of the population is marginalized time and time again. What's special about this particular case?

You’re probably right though, i don’t think 10 year olds should be on social media in any capacity. Why? Partially because they can easily get addicted sure, but also because really any amount of interaction with these platforms is bad for them because they are monstrous mind warping engagement machines.

No doubt kids will choose social media over cleaning their room. Would they choose social media over going outside to play, if society still allowed them to do that?

The "boob tube", so given the derogatory nickname due to the perception of much the same idea you present, may not have been able to take the warping engagement to the same extreme, but during its prime also didn't really capture the youth attention because the youth had better things to do, like disappear into the woods until nightfall. TV use has always been dominated by older people who, through things like failing health, have lost the ability to do anything better.

True addiction or not, it is worth noting that addiction doesn't happen overnight. One needs repeated exposure to develop the necessary neural pathways. This is why addiction shows up much more commonly in obviously tough environments. People use a device as an escape from their situation, which feeds the mechanisms necessary to develop an addiction. Social media is most certainly engineered to tick the "this is enjoyable" box, but that alone isn't enough to develop a problem. There needs to be something that sees someone want to use social media above all else on a regular basis and, as you point out, it is very likely that much more than 10% of the population don't actually find social media to be all that enjoyable; just more enjoyable than taking out the trash.

So, maybe we can reframe this as: All this work to continue to keep up not wanting to see kids without a metaphorical helicopter constantly over their heads as a result of an imagined boogieman that was invented in the past? Seems like a horribly misaligned effort.

They can do exactly the same with other proposed solutions - ask an adult to register a social media account with their id or pass selfie-age-verification for them.

However, you cannot make parents actually use such systems, so ignoring the obvious control this gives nation states, giving states this power might help the children of those irresponsible parents, which is the only real argument I have heard, since the effects of it are the same if the child simply had responsible parents.

In my mind you have states mandate that adult content (porn, gore) and social media services are legally required to check for the age from the OS. No other sites need to do anything. No data collection or ID verification anywhere. All responsibility on parents.

I would imagine for the zealots out there its worth it to go further and destroy the entire internet to prevent a single 14 year old from jerking it to a tiddy. And then of course the advertisers want device attestation. At least it seems California is picking a sensible middle ground.

I’ve heard horror stories about unlimited equating to zero. But I’ve also heard plenty of horror stories about PTO and unpaid time off getting denied as well. There is not much for employee protections in the states.

Maybe the hate for DTO in well compensated circles like this comes from people who were already getting 6 weeks of PTO. I would imagine they’re not comparing DTO against the 4 weeks my sister has as a senior dev in a marketing firm with an extra day per year of service or the _3_ weeks my mother had at 65 working as a data analyst for a healthcare company. Or maybe my company is just a unicorn in a sea of companies abusing it with people not being able to get any time off at all.

People are talking about how it’s always busy, there’s never enough time etc. That’s true almost everywhere. The work never stops. There’s always a project, always a critical bug, always a new initiative, always the next sprint. There’s more work than could ever be done with twice the employees. Good culture just mandates that you work around peoples absence and so is fine if people are out. Likewise as a good employee you don’t abuse unlimited and take off half the year.

Radical workflow changes with no recourse is the standard in proprietary software, not so much in FOSS.

Jokes aside: yes, I can see how it's technically possible to never experience a workflow change. But also using the same tools at work, your kids school, family you help etc. I just find not very probable.