Thankyou for digging past the headlines and showing your findings. No one has the time to do it all the time but together we can.

He’s just trying to sell books now. Ignore him.

Oral b pro 1, 2 or 3. They use the same motor and batteries as their most expensive ones, which is really the only bit that matters. Everything else is just gimmicks to justify the price… Bluetooth connections and other bullshit.

And don’t bother with official heads either. Generics work fine. Just remember to change them often.

Yes, I admire her so much for doing this. She’s a real hero.

Parents should say no, and now this will make it easier for them to do so :)

The advertising standards authority use a nutritional profiling model. If the food is High in Fat, Sodium, Suger (HFSS) it gets a higher score. Some points are deducted if it is high in fruit, veg or nuts. If the food is above a certain point threshold different advertising rules apply.

This applies to preprocessed food. Not ingredients you would use to prepare your own food.

I don’t know about your other questions but some of the other rules are interesting…

You can’t use licensed characters or celebrities to advertise to under 16s.

You can’t condone or promote unhealthy lifestyle or eating habits. Ie. Eating a massive bucket of ice cream in front of the playstation.

You must not take advantage of a child’s vulnerability by appealing to emotions such as pity, fear, or self-confidence, or by Suggesting that having the advertised product somehow confers superiority, for example making a child more confident, clever, popular, or successful.

You must not present your price in a way that suggests children or their families can easily afford it. “Only”. “just”. Etc

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-nutrient-profiling-model

Just some good ol’ oppression of the prol’s through class.

It’s a bad headline dude. Really misleading.

My girlfriend’s a model. She goes to another school.

Some members of the staff also felt their compensation was better than they might otherwise have earned in India, the defense argued.

Is this a real lawyer? They clearly have no legal case. I hope the book gets thrown at them.

The processor in 3 is a pretty sizeable improvement over 2. A quick and dirty a/b test I did found frames rendered in 13ms on q2 would render in 9-10ms on q3, so that’s a good 20 - 30% faster, even though it’s rendering a lot more pixels.

I think the important bit for meta though is making sure their range of headsets all have decent passthrough. No one is going to develop MR apps, and it’ll never take off, unless the whole user base can use them.

Personally I’d take the better lenses and resolution of the q3 over better passthrough though.

Lol. I’m glad you’re not my dad. The horror.

The first one did a really good job of having an interesting range of guns and abilities which were very well balanced. There was no ‘best gear’. I’m sure they’re able to have things worth buying that don’t give you an unfair advantage over people who haven’t. It’s a morally hazardous area though.

And shame on business insider to down play it as someone complaining they’re not ‘cute’ enough.

Slap City is a brilliant super smash style brawler. I play it couch coop a lot, it’s always a blast. Very well made.

Thanks for pointing that out, it is Discovery’s decision. For their part though, Sony is still at fault as they didn’t demand perpetual use rights for content sold on their store, or at least a full refund for the customer.

You put that into words perfectly. I think it’s the only game that proscribes an emotion so successfully through a gameplay mechanic. It’s the most real, raw and visceral sense of loss I’ve ever felt in a game, film or book. Truly unique.

It looks like the biggest culprit is poor or non existent lod’s on the models. Strikes me as odd though as that’s a pretty basic art requirement for a game like this. I don’t see how this took them by suprise.

I guess the good news is that’s it’s easily fixable. It’s not like ksp2 which looks like it has some pretty unsolvable core issues.

Sorry wired just came to hand. You can find it referenced elsewhere.

But it did change from ‘have to’ to ‘have to, if possible’ which is a massive climb down. It’s basically not possible to have a backdoor in e2e encryption so I think it’s dead in the water. It may even make other companies shift to e2e to avoid this legislation, which would be ironic.

And I think the quote is from the minister in charge of the bill, so he/she would talk it up.

The bill is awful. But at least it’s weak(er) and awful.

Time will tell.

Sure. I’ve not read it either but here’s what I’ve found.

Removal of encryption backdoors - https://www.wired.co.uk/article/britain-admits-defeat-in-online-safety-bill-encryption

Removal of ‘harmful but legal’ - https://techcrunch.com/2022/11/29/uk-online-safety-bill-legal-but-harmful-edit/

Age verification isn’t so clear cut but there’s room for a lot of hope. What ‘age verification’ is going to be in the bill is yet to be determined by Ofcom.

… Which is law makers kicking the can down the road… or passing the buck. Probably because it’s unenforceable and a technical/ privacy nightmare. Maybe it will amount to something, in which case we should be afraid, but I think most likely it will amount to not much.

Full bill is here if you have a spare 3 days to read it all - https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/52368/documents/3841