But see also the next section ("empowering experienced users"):
> We are building a new advanced flow that allows experienced users to accept the risks of installing software that isn't verified
> We are building a new advanced flow that allows experienced users to accept the risks of installing software that isn't verified
Also this will kill any impetus that was growing on the Linux phone development side, for better or worse. We get to live in this ecosystem a while longer, let's see if people keep damocles' sword in mind and we might see more efforts towards cross-platform builds for example
There is also the same thing with L for loss/loser. "that's an L take", "L [person]", "take the L here", etc.
They are pretty straightforward in their meaning, basically what you described. I believe it comes from sports but they are used for any good or bad outcome regardless of whether it was a contest.
This is the first sign we're getting old :) new language features feel new. The language features I picked up in school, that my parents remarked upon, were simply normal to me, not new at all. I notice it pretty strongly nowadays with my grandma, where I keep picking up new terms in Dutch (mainly loan words) but she isn't exposed to them and so I struggle to find what words she knows. Not just new/updated concepts like VR, gender-neutral pronouns, or a new word for messages that are specifically in an online chat, but also old concepts like bias. It's always been there but I'd have no idea what she'd use to describe that concept
We no longer own our devices.
We're in a worse state than we were in before. Google is becoming a dictator like Apple.
If google wants a walled garden, let it wall off it's own devices, but what right does it have to command other manufactures to bow down as well? At this stage we've got the choice of dictato-potato phone prime, or misc flavour of peasant.
If you want walled garden, go use apple. The option is there. We don't need to bring that here.
Sure, they'll keep building it forever — this is just a delay tactic.
Macs blocked launching apps from unverified devs, but you can override in settings. I thought they could just do something along those lines.
Maybe this sounds dark but see also how the net is tightening around phones that allow you to run open firmware after you've bought the hardware for the full and fair price. We're slowly being relegated to crappy hobbyist projects once the last major vendors decide on this as well, and I don't even understand what crime it is I'm being locked out for
We're too small a group for commercial vendors to care. Switching away isn't enough, especially when there's no solidarity, not even among hackers. Anyone who uses Apple phones votes with their wallet for locking down the ability to run software of your choice on hardware of your choice. It's as anti-hacker as you can get but it's fairly popular among the HN audience for some reason
If not even we can agree on this internally, what's a bank going to care about the fifty people in the country that can't use a banking app because they're obstinately using dev tools? What are they gonna do, try to live bankless?
Of course, so long as we can switch away: by all means. But it's not a long-term solution
It seems like a finite solution though. Having a second phone is not something most people will do, so the apps that are relegated to run on such devices will become less popular, less maintained, less and less good
Currently, you can run open software alongside e.g. government verification software. I think it's important to keep that option if somehow possible
Wow, this really pulls back the veil. This Vendor (google) is only looking out for numero uno.
The angry social media narratives have been running wild from people who insert their own assumptions into what’s happening.
It’s been fairly clear from the start that this wasn’t the end of sideloading, period. However that doesn’t get as many clicks and shares as writing a headline claiming that Google is taking away your rights.
There may have been exaggerations in some cases but these hand wavy responses like "you can still do X but you just can't do Y and Z is now mandatory" or "you can always use Y" is how we got to this situation in the first place.
This is just the next evolution of SafetyNet & play integrity API. Remember how many said use alternatives. Not saying safetynet is bad but I don't believe their intentions were to stop at just that.
I suspect they mean you have to create a android developer account and sign the binaries, this new policy just allows you to proceed without completing the identity verification on that account.
No, until this post, Google had said that it wouldn't be possible to install an app from a developer who hadn't been blessed by Google completely on your device. That is unacceptable. This blog post contains a policy change from Google.
A simple yes/no alert box is not "[...] specifically to resist coercion, ensuring that users aren't tricked into bypassing these safety checks while under pressure from a scammer". In fact, AFAIK we already have exactly that alert box.
No, what they want is something so complicated that no muggle could possibly enable it, either by accident or by being guided on the phone.