Supermariofan67
I think this will change. Nvidia hired devs on Nouveau, NVK is coming along, etc
A year ago, the majority of Lemmy was vehemently in support of banning porn
It is based on the assumption that every piece of code in the entire stack from the UEFI firmware to the operating system userspace is free of vulnerabilities
Lol that's hilarious. I laugh so much at the crazy mixing of units we use here in the US. Similarly, it's quite common to see metric and customary units in the same sentence, as in "add 1 tablespoon to 100 mL of water".
Looks like the birdie has escaped phoronix...
In the small chance that this comment is serious, Nvidia is found this because the corporate server-based customers need the ability to troubleshoot and debug the driver.
The actual trade secrets are being moved into the proprietary firmware blob and out of the driver.
Whenever I want to pirate something I just go straight to btdig. And if there's no torrent and I really need to search the web, I've had much better luck with Yandex. I figure they're more resistant to takedowns from western corporations
Funnily enough, we do have an amendment allowing it, though it does not prohibit state governments from regulating it. All it would take is a simple bill of congress to end the requirement that states set a 21+ law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-first_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Edit: oops this was meant to be a reply to the other comment
No. Supposedly they raised the age to 21 because of drunk driving teens, though I'm not sure what effect it had. In my opinion, the better option regardless is to introduce teens to how to use alcohol responsibly and safely, rather than prohibit until it's too late.
This is good. Now do the same with alcohol. You can be forced to die in a war at 18 but can't drink and enjoy the full rights of an adult citizen.
They're already trying. Payment processors and big banks are increasingly refusing to do business with porn companies, and even sites that host nsfw artwork with no actual participants.
Highly doubt that would happen. If anything, the current court would the project 2025 censorship agenda and support the Protect Act provisions that were already (correctly) struck down in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (it was just that time's edition of the overbroad "protect the children!!!" bill that did some good and some bad; most of what remains today and hasn't been struck down is good though). ~~It's also not the law criminalizing CP so that could be where his argument might fail.~~ (nevermind; he's talking about the provision that extends the statute of limitations)