Does systemd still have DOB fields added in anticipation of age verification, or can I come back from Artix?
this post was submitted on 16 May 2026
411 points (99.8% liked)
Technology
84700 readers
4477 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
there's a pretty simple solution IMHO. The faker python library is awesome at generating test data. Return a random dob everytime a site requests it.
import faker
faker fake
return fake.date_of_birth(minimum_age=18, maximum_age=90)
A whole library, or a yet another ad for Python, sorry? Why not marvelous Perl, or any lovely PHP's or a JavaScript faker?
Why a library in the first place?
In case of PHP (checked in v8.1)
echo date('Y-m-d', rand(strtotime('-90 years'), strtotime('-18 years')));
// 2007-07-30
And, I had a snippet for JavaScript (tested in the current Chrome's EcmaScript).
We get the years in milliseconds, and substract from the current time.
console.log(new Date(Date.now() - 365*24*60*60*1000 * (18 + Math.random()*72)).toISOString().slice(0, 10));
// 1984-07-20
In shell even! Let's use the common suit GNU coreutils (e.g. v9.4).
We have 90y - 18y = 72 years, that is 26,280 days or ~26,297 days (source)
$ date -d "-18 years -$(( RANDOM % 26297 )) days" -- '+%F';
# 1976-04-06
Mostly because it's starting with dob, what happens when they require a phone number, address, credit card, or social security number? Faker can fake all those in that library. But you're absolutely right, for one dob it is massive overkill.
Also, I'm do test automation for my career. Litterally use faker daily for generating test data. Defaulting to it is natural and familiar. Most use what they're familiar with, rarely the best solution for a task.
Wtf is going on in this thread
ikr
a couple of distro admins remind lawmakers that people can do what they want with their computers and it's python day on lemmy
A whole library, or a yet another ad for Python, sorry?
This is more of a problem with how some people code more than python. I also find it irritating that some people import random libraries out of the internet to do simple things instead of actually spending the time to write two lines of code. Python has built in datetime library that could be used for this similar to the examples you gave.
No, just no. Fuck any laws like this.
Website demands dob, close window.
"You shouldn't have to choose between open and secure." The implementation backs that up. The friction is one-time for power users, but it's a genuine obstacle for scammers and it makes opportunistic spyware installation meaningfully harder.
---
His argument: power users absorb a one-time inconvenience while vulnerable people (scam victims, children) get protected...
The pattern HN picked up immediately...That's the true believer pattern. The argument is ideological, so persuasion is off the table. He read the laws, decided compliance was the correct response, and went to work. Every objection the community raised went nowhere: that this enables surveillance infrastructure, that lying is trivially easy, that the laws themselves are unconstitutional overreach. He'd already accepted the law as legitimate and moved to implementation...
He hit three separate projects in one week...
He agreed entirely, writing that the approach would be "completely ineffective at preventing anyone from lying about their age." He called it "hilariously pointless." Then he said Arch Linux should implement it anyway because the law requires it...The open source community has always relied on the assumption that contributors act in good faith toward user freedom. Taylor probably believes he does. The laws say collect birth dates, so he collected birth dates, and in his framing that was being helpful.
The reason to name him is the pattern. The surveillance state runs on volunteers: people who do the implementation work for free, out of genuine conviction, with no paper trail connecting them to the money that wrote the laws...
Taylor already has the resume line and knows the codebase well enough to try again. The deadline pressure only grows, the laws are real, and someone will be next. The community needs to recognize the pattern before the PR opens, not after.
