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.

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.

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.

In vr please.

I’m not sure why they they threw that in… that’s not really a problem as far as I’m aware. Maybe they consider it a gateway to gambling?

Enter the Gungeon is a steal at that price. And so is West of Dead.

This is not gonna be the vote winner they think it is. And fuck them for trying.

Huh, you’re right. I must’ve caught a misleading headline then.

Swappable batteries and gyro controls. Good stuff.

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.

I think the bill words it as ‘if feasible’ or something similar. But that’s enough wiggle room to drive a bus full of lawyers through.

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

After bouncing back and forth between the house of lord’s and the house of commons This bill is a shadow of it’s former self. I’m glad to say.

Three things that were massively damaging for privacy and security have, as far as I can see, been scrapped.

1. The bill no longer requires tech companies to control ‘harmful but legal’ content. A blurry, ill defined concept that would have been impossible to regulate.
2. The bill no longer requires all end to end encrypted communication channel’s (WhatsApp etc) to have a backdoor for governments and enforcement agencies to access unencrypted messages between people. Something that would have broken effective security in every way.
3. The bill no longer requires porn to only be accessible to UK citizens after they have proven they are an adult. This was by providing bank details or ID to porn websites (lol no thanks), possibly through a third party company that is supposed to assure some privacy ( lol still no thanks).

And what’s left in the bill is going to be regulated by Ofcom, a toothless underfunded shell of a regulatory body.

Am I the only one who thinks this is funny? It’s a joke people.