Linux drive synch is really late to the party here, glad its not dead though.

“If the AI determines you’re impaired (blood alcohol ≥0.08% or showing fatigue), it can prevent ignition startup or limit vehicle speed”

So if I the driver is injured, or distraught over an injured passenger, the car will limit how fast they can get to a hospital?

Reckon this needs a little more time in the thinking through phase of the process.

Agreed. The eu model is a good start, but the security of it’s implementation woefully inadequate… And I agree this MUST use post quantum cryptography.

Dox-gating (yes I just made that up lol) operating systems will result in people not updating security patches.

What is being pushed for implementation is better described as identity verification, not age verification.

I would have little issue with a solution that purely gated services on age in a secure and privacy respecting manner. This OS level garbage is not that, its creating an oligarchy run identity gate to control access to personal computing.

I’m not convinced this is adding a problem to anyone but its an opinion, we can differ.

Sorry, you’re still not making any kind of sense. In no way does sugar compare with a product which, in use, actively damages the used and spreads toxic chemicals into the air for all around them. Nothing in my comment would make any stance against sugar remaining legal.

Turns out you are right. Formalisation of that ban as an offence was much later than I thought. https://www.gov.scot/policies/smoking/smoking-around-hospital-buildings/ gives some dates and context for Scotland to add to your Wales info.

That said, the practical difference between a policy ban vs a legal offence is mostly an enforcement question. In all practical terms on private property a policy ban is still a ban.

To my own personal experience, policy bans across the whole UK (having lived in several cities over the past 20 years and visited more hospitals than I’d care to) have been a consistent thing. Though I won’t dispute there will always be arseholes like the one you encountered just being arseholes…

Most shops in the UK selling booze already operate a policy of asking for ID from anyone who they think looks under 25, even though the legislation is 18.

Likely as not they’ll roll that policy on to cigarettes (in the few rare places that don’t already) and that would mean the subset you’re speaking about would have to be firmly addicted by the age of 11. At that point, I think this is not so much a tobacco problem, as a child welfare and protection issue and we have social care and protections that should already be addressing those cases.

I don’t see anyone in that frame getting to middle age and ID for ciggies ranking in the top 10 of problems in their life.

You forget we are not talking about the USA here. The article is about the UK where we already have a lot more food regulation than you do in the USA.
If you really want to go down the road of things proven to work, maybe start within the USA and introduce the effective firearms legislation and regulations that most of the civilised world has proven reduces per capita gun deaths and almost entirely negates mass murder of schoolchildren.

be fair, you also got the failure part wrong too.

already happened : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_(cigarette)

no different to the fact that my father got state pension at 65 but I wont get this till I am older than he was…

UK based here. sorry to tell you that your sources of information are really poor.

Smoking is banned outside hospitals. has been for 20 years.

Smoking IS banned in public places. Has been since 2006 in Scotland and 2008 across the whole of the UK.

You might need to explain that one a bit for me.
We have a lot of food regulation, sometimes to enforce quality (e.g. no chlorinated chicken), in other cases to encourage better public health (e.g. higher rates of tax on high sugar drinks).
What do you think my statements would make illegal?

Going to get down voted to hell and back for this I expect, but hey, different opinions generate discussion right?

This is good legislation for the environment, for non-smokers, for the NHS, and has zero negative impact on smokers. The ONLY parties I see really hurt by this are tobacco companies, since retailers make minimal margins on tobacco.

The constant use of the word freedom in the thread comments just seems odd to me. This isn’t a question of freedom, and the comments mostly seem to ignore the paradox of tolerance as it applies to antisocial activity. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance. Individual freedoms have limits and must end at the boundary of another persons personal space and freedoms. That’s why smoking is banned in confined public places.

Its all very well to say tax the shit out of it and fund the NHS, but that will feel pretty shit when your parent/partner/child has to wait for an operation because the queue is full of smokers who are entitled to that spot by having paid for it. Which also veers dangerously close to creating paid tracks within the public national health service.

You should take a look at Suri. I had the same annoyance and objection fo oral b and philips and their lazy lack of any form of effort to improve or innovate or be environmentally responsible. Been very happy with a suri for a couple years now, I send heads back for recycling and the battery lasts months at a time. https://www.trysuri.com/

good example that works well on a data minimisation basis when they the need is for some indication of age appropriated trust. There are limits to it though. - to actually satisfy age-gates/verification they would also need to tie your identity to the ownership of the card, and ensure the card isn’t some kind of under 18 prepaid affair.

This is ridiculous and clearly shows both nefarious intent and complete disregard for the GDPR and it’s core principle of data minimisation. There must be a simpler solution to this - maybe through attestation from a trusted third party who has already (legitimately) verified the user’s identity - like a bank. Imagine a user creating and providing a token that allows a one-time request through the open banking standards to receive an attestation on whether or not the user is over 18 - without disclosing the users actual dob or any other personal information except who and how the attestation was made. Not sure if it would even be necessary for companies to store precisely when the attestation was made if the banks themselves record the event.