dingledork69

Not everyone agrees with your particular definitions.

There isn't a singular definition of open source that everyone agrees with.

Just don't use it for baking. It often seems to skip steps, even when summarizing existing recipes.

Many companies refuse to test their software on low-end hardware, because effort. I've seen testers test software, get annoyed at how slow it was, and instead of letting that be a test result they just switched to a faster machine.

Sure, and when they release the mind reading necromancers we'll all be totally screwed, too.

Get an old android phone and flash some degoogled rom on it. There's plenty of them floating around.

> How do you access said apps?

Sent to you via bluetooth file sharing (an OS feature) by someone else who already has it. Or tor, vpn, etc.

Shame they don't offer something like an electron app with guaranteed persisted storage. Or even just a .zip containing everything, to be served from a local web server.

Maybe install it into a separate browser profile & make a backup of it just in case

s/belong/has as much right to as their fellow humans/

How is any of that relevant? If i memorize your work and dissect my brain and run strings on the output you won't find anything either. Same happens if you put it in a .zip file. But both, and the language model, can spit it back out and infringe on your rights.

It's possible to care about issues that infringe on people their rights even if they do not affect you personally.

The company that trains/owns the AI steals the content.

Did you read the thread? That's not at all what's happening. People boot the device into fastboot, connect it to USB, install an USB redirector and the guy in china does something and it's unlocked.

You are confusing Verizon's motives with Google's motives. Verizon disabling the bootloader on phones that users are still paying off, or bought at a discount together with special terms of condition, is something that might be defensible.

Google however made it so that any Pixel phone bought anywhere, even by customers who pay 100% of the price themselves with no carrier involved are not actually owned by those users until they connect it to the internet and Google blesses the device.

Password reset flows are far more user friendly than Google is once they decide to suspend your account.

And it depends on the user being willing to connect it to the (public) internet without a firewall in between.

I wonder if any of the countries that implement a country-wide firewall block this domain. That would disable bootloader unlocking for the entire country.

So google is going through all this effort and some guy in China will just bypass the bootloader lock for $30.

There is absolutely no way that the intelligence agencies don't have this same capability, which makes all of this security posturing utterly pointless, other than to prevent regular users from owning their devices.

So you don't own it when you buy it. At best Google still owns it and they graciously allow you permission to change the bootloader after you submit to their terms of service. Also, better hope their servers are online and reachable, and that you have functional internet.

Even if you buy it yourself you don't get to own it before having google bless your device, which you can only hope they will.

That just sounds like "you don't get to own your device"

> So my actual process involves a program that does the Wikipedia search (it just fetches the same URL as you fetch when you type in the Wikipedia search box) and compares the list to the previously fetched lists. It selects only those articles that weren't in one of those lists in the previous six months and generates a web page linking to them, in alphabetical order. I browse that page and proceed to edit them in order. I edit about 60 articles a week this way, typically within a few days of the article being created or edited to require it.

Sounds like it barely takes any effort.

First, you should never trust the client.

Second, you're creating e-waste when you go out of business. This is not something that should be legal.

That's only relevant for device manufacturers who want to prevent the device owners from controller their hardware. This is evil and not a use case worth supporting.

Normal users care about secure boot because it protects their disk encryption.

No. You'd still lose access to the encryption keys so the data would still be safe. But it would allow you to start over without throwing the entire device in the trash and buying a new one.

So they are requiring users to agree to their TOS before allowing these users to submit removal requests? That can't be legal.

If you do something illegal you don't get to justify it by saying the alternative is infeasible. You either figure out a way, or stop doing the thing altogether.

Java/Maven

It's called an analogy. If you'd think for a few minutes you'd see the two situations are pretty similar. Of course one is far more extreme than the other, but both put the blame on the victim. Stop victim blaming.

Do you also think women should not be allowed to wear revealing clothes, lest they get raped? I hope not. People deserve to be themselves without getting raped, or bullied.

I did. You can mince words, but it's still blaming the victim. Telling people who get bullied in the workplace to just accept it and to get a new job is insane.