The picture says "enamel-mimicking" and the text says "protective coating that mimics the structure and function of natural enamel", so it looks like a protective layer, not true repair. I've been using a paste with novamin lately, it also creates a protective layer and is also marketed as "repair". I like it and feel some heat when it contacts with teeth, so the chemical reaction must be working. But the marketing leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

> allow list for my kids

I do the same but let's not pretend that's within the technical ability of the average parent. Of course, it should be and that would be a far better place for the government to direct its efforts.

What’s with england and its complete lack of response to this kind of power grabs?

Not keeping the ID in a phone is better than keeping it in a "secure element" and having to upload it there using closed-sourced software with unclear functionality.

I've never heard anyone say any of these supposed myths, except for the first one, sort of, but nobody means what the first one pretends it means, so this whole post feels like a big strawman to me.

As someone who knows very little about finance, is there any ETF available which acts as a middle-ground between market-cap weighted and equally-weighted funds? The very high concentration of tech and AI in the S&P 500 at the moment makes me uncomfortable, but equal-weight seems too drastic to me. A fund where the weighting is done by the square root of the market cap feels like it would make sense but I can't find anyone doing this.

No, "digital credentials" is an awful idea because it requires to store your ID on your phone and thus make it accessible to Apple and Google and secret courts. What I suggest is simply to store a single "isAdult" bit on device, without revealing any identity, and make apps like browser do the censorship on device, without sending any data to a webite. The algorithm is as follows:

    if isAdult == 0 and website doesn't send a "safe-content" header, then:
        browser refuses to display content
    if isAdult == 0 and photo in a messenger doesn't contain a "safe-content" metadata, then
        photo viewer refuses to display content
    if isAdult == 0 and the app is not marked as safe, then
        app store refuses to download the app and OS refuses to launch it

With my approach, you don't need to store your ID on your device, you don't need to send your ID anywhere, and website operators and app developers do not need to do anything because by default they will be considered not safe. So my solution's cost is ZERO for website operators and app developers. As a website operator you don't need to change anything and to verify the age.

In Russia there is a plan to make special SIM cards for children, that would not allow registration in social networks. Isn't it better than UK legislation?

The whole idea that every site or app must do verification is stupid. It would be much easier and better to do verification at the store when buying a laptop, a phone or a SIM card. The verification status can be burned in firmware memory, and the device would allow only using sites and apps from the white list. In this case website operators and app developers wouldn't need to do anything and carry no expenses. This approach is simpler and superior to what UK does. If Apple or Microsoft refuse to implement restricted functionality for non-verified devices, they can be banned and replaced by alternative vendors complying with this proposal. It is much easier to force Apple and Microsoft - two rich companies - to implement children protection measures than thousands of website operators and app developers.