dickalan

@dickalan@lemmy.world

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨As adults, do you still watch kids’ cartoons, either old or new?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  I bought every episode of darkwing duck because it was on sale and I definitely see where I got my love of puns from

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨history repeats itself once again⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  at least it was in China

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨history repeats itself once again⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  i’m sorry I had to have a computer think for me but this is what it gave me

  This is a delightfully strange thought experiment, and I see exactly why you’re asking. Let’s break it down, first without kids, then with kids weaving through the chain.

  ---

  1. The basic chain: no kids

  You’ve got a sequence like this:

  · M₁ marries W₁. W₁ dies. · M₁ marries W₂ (40 years younger). M₁ dies. · W₂ marries M₂ (much younger). W₂ dies. · M₂ marries W₃ (much younger). M₂ dies. · … and so on, alternating.

  Is it all one long chain of the same couple? No, it’s a relay race of spouses. Each new marriage involves a completely new person who wasn’t part of the original couple. What links them is that they “inherit” the previous widowed partner, but the couple itself is always a fresh pairing. You could call it a serial marital lineage, not a single couple.

  The relationship between any two non-adjacent people in the chain is simply “my late spouse’s later spouse’s later spouse…”. There’s no standard family term for it. M₁ and M₂, for example, are co-husbands of W₂ (sequentially), but they have no legal or blood relation to each other.

  ---

  2. Introducing kids into the chain

  Now imagine each marriage in the chain produces children. Crucially, no inbreeding — everyone marries outside the chain. For simplicity:

  · M₁ + W₁ have children A (Generation 1). · W₁ dies. M₁ + W₂ have children B (half-siblings of A, sharing father M₁). · M₁ dies. W₂ + M₂ have children C (half-siblings of B, sharing mother W₂). · W₂ dies. M₂ + W₃ have children D. · and so on.

  Let’s map the relationships to the first set of kids A, and then “down the chain”.

  For child A (from the original couple):

  · W₂ was A’s stepmother (father’s second wife). That relationship remains even after M₁’s death, though legal ties often fade without adoption. · B are A’s half-siblings (same dad). · C are A’s half-sibling’s half-siblings — no blood relation to A. They are the children of A’s former stepmother with her new husband. You could say they are A’s ex-step-siblings or step-half-siblings — no standard term, just a biographical link. · M₂ is A’s stepmother’s new husband. Not a stepfather, because he didn’t marry A’s parent. In some extended family trees he might be called a step-stepfather (jokingly). · W₃ is even more remote: stepmother’s new husband’s new wife. That’s a step-step-stepmother — purely biographical.

  What about “generation down” couples?

  Suppose A marries someone X, completely outside the chain. Is M₂ (W₂’s second husband) a step-parent-in-law to the couple A + X? No. A’s in-laws are X’s parents. M₂ is not A’s parent, nor X’s. The link is too tenuous: “my father’s widow’s new husband”. That might be a quirky mention at a wedding but has zero legal or customary standing.

  Now suppose B (child of M₁ & W₂) marries Y. B’s mother W₂ is still alive? If W₂ is still alive when B marries, M₂ would be B’s stepfather, because W₂ married M₂ while B was a child (possibly). In that case, M₂ is a step-parent to B, and he would be the stepfather-in-law to Y. That’s a standard relationship, as long as the step-relationship formed during B’s childhood or adulthood through marriage.

  So the “many times removed” couples only become step-parents or in-laws to the specific children whose parent they married. The further the chain moves from those children, the more the role evaporates into “person my ancestor’s widow later married”.

  ---

  3. A concrete multi-generation picture

  Let’s make it visual with ages so you can see the strange generational overlaps:

  · M₁ born 1900, W₁ 1900 → kid A born 1925. · W₁ dies, M₁ (now 50) marries W₂ born 1940 (40 yrs younger) → kid B born 1950. · M₁ dies, W₂ (now 30) marries M₂ born 1970 (40 yrs younger) → kid C born 1980. · W₂ dies, M₂ (now 40) marries W₃ born 2000 (40 yrs younger) → kid D born 2010.

  Now:

  · A is 25 years older than W₂ (her stepmother is younger than her). · B (born 1950) is 20 years older than stepfather M₂ (born 1970). · C (born 1980) is 20 years older than stepmother W₃ (born 2000).

  When C marries someone Z in, say, 2010, his stepmother W₃ is only 10 years old at the wedding — a bizarre but legally valid stepmother-in-law to Z, because M₂ married W₃ while C was a child or adult. This can create intergenerational absurdities where step-parents are younger than stepchildren, but the titles stick.

  ---

  4. Answering your core questions directly

  What is the family dynamic here? A cascading string of remarriages that creates a web of half-siblings and step-relations across wildly mismatched generations. It’s not one couple but a lineage of conjugal partnerships that “hand off” younger spouses.

  Is it all one long chain of the same couple? No. It’s a chain of different couples, each linked by one common member with the previous couple.

  What if we start a generation removed? Are the many-times-removed couples step-parents or step-in-laws to the generation-down couples? It depends which “generation-down” couple you mean:

  · For the children whose actual parent is in the later link of the chain, yes — the spouse of that parent is a step-parent, and thus an in-law to those children’s spouses. · For children further up the chain (e.g., A’s children, grandchildren of M₁), the later spouses are at most step-step-grandparents — a descriptive curiosity with no real familial weight. · The chain dissolves into “my ancestor’s widow’s later spouse’s later spouse” which no culture formalises.

  In short: you’ve invented a marriage matryoshka where each generation’s step-relations nest inside the next, but the titles dilute quickly. Delightfully, it remains entirely legal and non-incestuous as long as no one marries a blood relative.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨And no paper towels to use on the handle⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  good thing i’m drop ball world champion then

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Nutritional Hexes⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  did you figure out which underworked muscle group you have to work out next because of that

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨New kink unlocked⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  rant by Chuck palinuik might be it, it didn’t come out in the 70s though

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨New kink unlocked⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  rant is an amazing book and this is the first time I’ve heard anybody else reference it in the wild

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Not looking for how to meth. But is not a moonshiners still about as dangerous as a meth house exploding? What the difference?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  H2OH no i don’t

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Not looking for how to meth. But is not a moonshiners still about as dangerous as a meth house exploding? What the difference?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  you just described the recipe for salt, Table salt

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨We're just scanning for the bear...⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  thank you so much I appreciate you sharing that information

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨We're just scanning for the bear...⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  what is this from it looks amazing

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Is Winnie the Pooh considered "racist" now or are .ml folks using it as an excuse to defend Xi Jin Ping?⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  bro, fuck off with your bait, fuck off real hard

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Apparently, all YouTube Rewinds have been unlisted as of today.⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  You sound like you subscribed to a lot of boring people

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Amazon develops methods for inserting ads onto any flat surface in an existing video⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  This was my first and only idea for AR goggles and I think somebody has already made that mock up if you search online that will actually do that

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨ELI5 why I logically understand McDonald's food is low quality and bad for me but I crave it like crack?⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I know and I’m a huge fan of Mike Myers but once I watch it I can’t un Watch it

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨ELI5 why I logically understand McDonald's food is low quality and bad for me but I crave it like crack?⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Is that Mike Myers? I still haven’t seen so I married an ax murderer even though I own it

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Gravity!⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Bro, stop trying to other people

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨He was first to try it! :) So brave.⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Historical myth: The rumor started in the 1990s–2000s on drug forums (and later persisted on places like Reddit) because people noticed the close structural relationship and assumed “just swap the side chain.” In reality, pharmaceutical companies start from opium-derived precursors (thebaine → oxycodone → etc.) or full total synthesis — they never use naloxone as a starting material to make oxymorphone.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Is it completely impossible to do age verification without compromising privacy?⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Ok

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Is it completely impossible to do age verification without compromising privacy?⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I figured you were wrong so I asked an AI and it confirmed what the people below you were saying, you really do seem to be talking straight out of your ass

  Yes, it is technically possible to build an accurate, high-confidence age-verification system that does not compromise privacy in the traditional sense (i.e., no central database of IDs, no name/address/DOB stored by the site, no paper trail that can be subpoenaed or leaked). The core tool that makes this feasible is zero-knowledge proofs (ZKPs), specifically age-based ZK proofs.

  How a privacy-preserving age check actually works in 2025

  1. User proves age to a trusted credential issuer once
  2. • Government digital ID (e.g., EU eIDAS wallet, some U.S. mobile driver’s licenses, Yoti, ID.me, etc.)
     • The issuer cryptographically signs a statement like “This private key belongs to someone born before 2007-11-27” without ever revealing the exact birthdate. User generates a zero-knowledge proof
  3. • Using their phone or browser, they create a proof that says:
       “I have a valid credential signed by [Trusted Issuer] that confirms I am 18+ (or 21+).”
     • Nothing else is revealed: no name, no exact age, no birthdate, no issuer identity if you want to go fully anonymous. Website verifies the proof in <1 second
     • The site checks the cryptographic signature and that the policy (“18+”) is satisfied.
     • It learns literally nothing else about the person.

  Real-world implementations that already exist or are in late-stage pilots (November 2025):

  • Worldcoin’s World ID “age 18+” orb-verified credential + ZK proof
  • Polygon ID / zkBridge systems used by some adult sites
  • SpruceID + Ethereum Attestation Service kits
  • Gitcoin Passport + ZK age attestations
  • Proof-of-Humanity + age minimum circuits
  • Yoti + ZK prototype (demoed 2024–2025)

  Remaining practical hurdles (why it’s not universal yet)

  • User has to have a compatible digital credential in the first place (adoption still <30% in most countries)
  • Friction: first-time setup takes 2–10 minutes instead of 3 seconds
  • Most adult sites don’t want to pay the (tiny) gas/verification fee or integrate the SDKs
  • Regulatory gray zone in some jurisdictions that still mandate “know your customer” records

  Bottom line
  Technically: Yes, 100% possible today with zero-knowledge age proofs.
  Practically: It exists, works, and is slowly rolling out, but the porn industry and most social platforms still prefer cheap/frictionless (but privacy-invasive) methods or just do nothing.

  So the top reply in your screenshot (“you always need a middle man with too much information”) is outdated — cryptography has already solved the “middle man” problem. The real blocker now is deployment inertia, not theory.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Insulin⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  The fuck did you just call me weirdo quit trying to fucking put me in a box, fuck off

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Insulin⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  It’s funny how you can russlr your Jimmy’s just by saying a simple word, you wouldn’t have to be Conservative weirdo are you

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Insulin⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Boo-hoo buddy who the fuck cares, clearly you do and you felt the need to tell everybody on the net like a fucking baby

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨what is the best fruit to leave in a fridge?⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Yeah I thought that too but it turns out only the outside turned shitty

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨"Nevertheless, the vaginal sounds that were sent will have reached Epsilon Eridani in 1996 and Tau Ceti in 1998. It is unclear what sort of reply we should expect."⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Certified Reddit moment right here

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Does Coke Zero taste different in the UK vs. the USA?⁩ ⁨⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Yeah I really just need to fucking drink water at least that shit has fluoride in it, not a dig on fluoride, my mom had such horrible teeth from living in unincorporated town

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Does Coke Zero taste different in the UK vs. the USA?⁩ ⁨⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Yeah I love me some Coke zero but a bunch of studies have been coming out that just say fake sugar is fucking bad for your brain and might make you retarded so you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t the best move would be cutting them out entirely

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨purrfect costume⁩ ⁨⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I bought that show every season relatively cheap on my Apple TV and I have to say I am enjoying it

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Was the fall of Rome this stupid?⁩ ⁨⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Well we’re not gonna have that problem America just hit peak 18-year-old in colleges and it’s only going to be smaller class sizes in a couple years or maybe even now from here on out

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Why do we still joke about setting up old wooden guillotines?⁩ ⁨⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Less people is the answer not more people.