j4hdufd8

Maybe you want https://comma.ai/, founded by geohot who famously made the iOS and PlayStation jailbreaks

I don't think https is responsible for that. Google owns the data, it doesn't matter how it is transported. It does, however, matter how it is stored (which I hope is encrypted in a way only you can retrieve it)

Are you okay getting ads for shit holistic medication because you had a mental health conversation with AI?

> But there are people out there (myself) that are on the opposite end of the spectrum, and we are mostly ignored by the companies. Companies just assume people only ever want to deny them their data.

What? I think you're exactly the kind of person that companies pay attention to, and why they pull moves like this

Can you elaborate how the other fallacies were mis-applied, please?

I am very happy if it made a few people think and/or get upset!

My comment was totally AI generated, obviously. But as you lovingly touched on, it is irrelevant :)

Whether or not the arguments are AI generated is itself a logical fallacy.

Insinuating I cannot think is also a logical fallacy.

Man you guys are really bad at this.

I did not mention the petition. I am merely offering feedback on the grandparent's argument about Google's policy (which itself also does not mention the petition).

It is absolutely a debate. Why are you here if not to debate?

Yes Google mandates a locked bootloader in order to meet Google Play Integrity's remote attestation. More generally it mandates a perfectly clean and valid secure boot chain. Among a variety of other requirements.

These manufacturers gladly took in AOSP back in 2011 when it was still truly a great open source project - exactly as the name should require it to be - and also when security requirements were much much lower. Of course to keep up with device security it turns out you need complete control over the whole stack and regular updates anyway, so now these manufacturers are in a pickle of a situation.

It is not so simple!

Play Integrity's highest level of attestation features requires devices to be running a security update which is within a sliding window of 1 year.

LOTS of Android devices have not released a security update in many many years. This forces users to unnecessarily upgrade to higher end OEMs.

Google is effectively pushing out Xiaomi, Huawei, and many others that offer excellent budget options. Google is not just offering you the comfort of not having to fill out CAPTCHAs on your phone, most importantly they are playing monopoly.

Sure tough business but, risky compared to what? Intel?

Yeah why not fund a new foundry startup?

Who is funding these crazy headlines?

Isn't TikTok selling ads too?

Implying these study apps will reduce attention spans and tolerance to frustration?

Why not? What's your point?

So you mean that, banking aside, you never had problems by not having a phone number?

Curious why this is allowed? NDA do not apply?

haven't read it but probably the former

> which using QUIC won't help with curious why not?

This is what venture capital is, why u so mad?

There are already phones like that. Go for it.

> On Linux never required

Oh okay! Would you mind running a really cool program I have here for you?

I wouldn't tell you because I know people that pay more than your unlock businesses.

It's not physically possible to buy a device you can't root. You can however buy a device that is not easy to root.

like?

> Before long we end up with what is seen in the Android system.

Please elaborate what is seen in the Android system.

Just to be clear, 96% decreased odds of cognitive decline = good? Rather confusing way to put it

which startups?