jeroenhd

Apple's cameras always look overprocessed to me. Not to the extent that some Chinese smartphone manufacturers replace your skin, but the general vibe of Apple's pictures is just off.

Some people really like that style, though. I think it's a matter of preference, and it seems like the people who like that style are exactly who Apple is optimizing their image algorithms for.

This particular iteration seems to increase the hallucinations a bit more than previous models, though. Unless one of the models did actually have one eye with eyelashes and one without for the iPhone shoot.

I disagree strongly with "iCalendar works". Basic sync to Google Calendar causes weird artefacts and notifications (like getting event invites for events that are already accepted).

I also strongly dislike the iOS Calendar UI, though that's possibly also because of iOS itself being rather unintuitive. Floating buttons in four corners of the screen just isn't very clear. In my opinion Google Calendar, even on iOS, is much better. More reliable on iOS too, but Google's app syncing better with Google's servers isn't really a good comparison.

I have no problem syncing with DAVx5 across various iCal sources on my phone. iOS seems pretty funky about its protocol requirements (and if it fails to understand the protocol, it's hard to tell why it failed). Apple practically invented the protocol, they should offer some kind of explanation of why it's not working.

That said, I do think Google should invest more into getting third party calendar support into their GCalendar apps. I don't want to need a third party app even if the app works fine, it should be part of the standard calendar app.

The USA is already holding the record for greenhouse gas pollution per capita and they elected the lunatic that raved about climate change being a hoax. I'm surprised this didn't happen earlier.

The fact these regulations didn't make it through the normal law making progress (senate/house) doomed it before it even took shape. With presidents like Trump undoing everything his predecessor(s) did just to feel powerful, legislation like this is doomed from that start.

It's not just normal consumer memory. Everything with a chip in it is getting more expensive because of the AI circlejerk. When Bitcoin screwed over consumers, at least normal memory prices weren't affected (though that time a shitcoin based around storing large amounts of data made the rounds, hard drive prices did take a brief hit).

Everything is affected by the endless thirst for RAM by AI companies and the accompanying hyperscalers. I'm honestly disappointed governments aren't doing more to keep the price of consumer goods in check.

I guess the AI companies telling the world how good they are at accidental cybercrime and fraud is creating enough FUD to let the AI industry run wild.

It is on breezewiki. Right above the gallery section.

U+E000–U+F8FF, U+F0000–U+FFFFD, and U+100000–U+10FFFD can already provide you with your own emoji, as that range has been reserved for private use. Extending the range further might make sense if you need even more space in your program, but that's a lot of space already.

> because who says "an history lesson"?

People speaking dialects that don't pronounce the "h" in "history". Which used to be a lot more common when this rule was written down. I've heard several English dialects that pronounce "historian" like "istorian", and who would say "a istorian"?

English is full of obscure rules that were written down ages ago, often because one particular guy wrote down his personal preference and others accepted it as fact ("less" vs "fewer", for instance).

English speakers still can't agree whether the h in "herb" is pronounced or not. I don't see why anyone would be surprised that other words beginning with h are also subject to debate.

> Denmark never denied an approval

Which makes it telling that the USA is seeking the ability to go without approval. Sounds to me like they're planning something outrageous that Denmark wouldn't approve of.

Very strange! Whatever the bug is, I hope Amazon fixes it.

It's quite crazy to just surprise a user with a passkey in any event, even if they get saved and don't reprompt you. Suddenly spawning an OS popup without any explanation, which may or may not try to ask for biometrics, is crazy.

Sailfish has a Linux-based OS with some Android compatibility.

Ubuntu Touch has left behind UBPorts which uses Android's hardware layer to provide a usable UI on existing Android devices.

There's the Librem phone with an open source stack, though its hardware doesn't come close to a cheap Android phone these days.

There are projects like PostmarketOS which work to get mainline Linux on phones. From there, you can run Linux on phones through desktop environments such as Phosh and Plasma Mobile which are touch optimized.

FirefoxOS died but was forked into KaiOS, though the modern iteration of KaiOS is an Android fork.

Samsung has TizenOS but I don't think any phones run it anymore. It's probably the closest equivalent to Android in the way it has been developed.

If you want to throw money at something, Sailfish may be the project to keep an eye on. All the other volunteer-run operating systems are worth donating to, of course, but Sailfish is actually trying to be a real third option rather than an open source proof of concept or alternative for shitty vendors stopping updates.

The community is providing Google with nothing. A fraction of a sliver of market share running GrapheneOS isn't going to make Google care.

The community potluck has been replaced with a Google Play-shaped stock exchange over a decade ago.

The thread states that Google is putting out patches that affect other Android vendors too.

They're not treating GrapheneOS very differently from other vendors, except that Graphene isn't relevant enough to sign a contract with because they don't make phones (or money, really).

Google should be putting out the code and patches like they used to, but the constant badgering of Google on this issue feels off. I don't see anyone complaining that Samsung isn't supporting their security-focused fork enough, or complain that Apple is delaying the bootloader unlock process by a day.

Despite their very worst, selfish intentions, Google is the very best vendor of commercial open source software. While Google's open source project collapses, there's plenty of space for other vendors to step in.

We should bemoan Google's fall from grace, but only because they're on the way to becoming just as bad as every vendor but Librem if they keep this up another decade.

I just ran https://github.com/CakesTwix/Android-CVE-2026-43499 on my Pixel 9 Pro and it seems to have been patched. I did get a system update not long ago, though.

> Amazon prompts me to create a passkey everytime I log in, even when I logged in with a passkey, because my passkeys live in Bitwarden rather than my OS or browser.

What setup are you using? Because I don't have that problem on Linux + Firefox at all

3/16 GiB of RAM on the P9Pro is dedicated towards on-device AI models, which WebGPU probably can't access.

You can add a passkey (preferably a physical one) to authenticate. You can also add a software passkey but that kind of defeats the purpose.

Actually keeping your recovery options recent is the trick. Print out your recovery codes or store them somewhere safe. Check regularly (yearly, maybe more often) that there's a way to access your critical accounts.

For Google, you can also grab the cheapest Android phone you can find, sign in, and maybe boot it once a month or so to keep the tokens active.

If you've set up your account to only accept one source of 2FA and you lose thst source of 2FA, you lose your account. Same happens when you set up your account to only accept your password and then lose your password. If you lose your recovery email/2FA backup codes, you lose access, unless you're special enough to convince customer support that you are who you claim you are and not just a bot trying to hack you.

If you've lost your account and haven't set up any recovery mechanisms, you're probably out of luck. Your best bet will be looking for an old browser session with enough trust from Google's side to get access without reconfirming your 2FA trust.

The UK has a land border with Spain in Gibraltar

IE6 itself rarely broke. It was usually malware abusing all the extension functionality that broke IE6.

The non-standard browser runtime was a massive pain for anyone working in tech, but when it came to the implementation quality of that non-standard browser runtime, IE6 wasn't all that bad for the user.

It was insecure as hell, of course, but so were all browsers at the time. Focusing on quality was a bit easier when complex security considerations weren't really necessary.

An associate state is not a member state. It's a funny name to give a country with a specific kind of trade deal and understanding.

Mercosur, sanctions against Russia and Belarus, defence of France after the AUKUS fiasco, an intent to cut down reliance on natural gas, an ethics commission following the Qatari corruption scandal, the European green deal, European defence plans, she's done plenty of good.

She's also done plenty of bad things on the political theatre, but it's not like everything she does is destined to be a failure.

It would be rather foolish, but they can continue using the GBP. Or they can start using the Euro before joining. They wouldn't be able to mint their currency, but plenty of small (often island) nations use foreign currency already.

Scotland is already a separate country, technically speaking, so I don't think it's comparable with the Basque situation. Furthermore, with the UK leaving the EU, they've opened doors that non-EU members can't use to work around such issues.

I don't think it'll happen soon, but the desire for independence does seem to be there to a significant extent already: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/09/13/irish-scots-...

The largest problem for an independent Scotland trying to join the EU would probably be that the EU doesn't just let anyone join. You need to have a strong enough economy and a grip on national debt to join.

The collapse of the USA as the world leader was already happening, but plenty of countries were under the impression the USA and the other western countries were working together to save the sinking ship.

The USA did plenty of offensive stuff before that (like a full campaign labeling the French as cowards for not supporting their baseless war in the middle east), but it took until Trump and his unhinged behaviour for the world to see how bad the situation really was.

The US invaded South America and is treatening to invade Greenland, just like Russia is invading Ukraine.

The EU is offering enhanced trade relations with Canada and Georgia.

Those are completely different things.

They won't need to if they start electing normal politicians and put in the effort to fix the damage they've done over the past decade.

Calling for Canada playing "under the wings of the US" is like calling for Ukraine to play "under the wings of Russia".

The US government has repeatedly called for invasion of Canada. Canada would be insane not to find allies against the American threat.

It all depends on when or if Apple actually activates this system. Unless Apple can prove when a compromise first took place, they would have to retro-actively classify all iPhone pictures taken before discovery of such an exploit as "potentially fake".

Plenty of certification bodies refuse to revoke their given certifications because of brand damage or effects on their customers. That's why cryptographic verification of things like Secure Boot are basically broken on most systems by default.

If an independent security researcher does it and Apple rolls out fixes a month later, I can see it happening. If it turns out a government agency hacked the platform "at some point", I have my doubts Apple will retroactively reject all of their iPhones' signatures.

The lower bound is specified by the device, you don't need support from the timestamping server for that. Determining if this timestamp is or isn't suspicious can be done at verification time. The timestamping feature itself makes sense from a verification perspective (though the privacy implications are questionable, of course), but I don't think it necessitates an Apple-specific setup.

This approach does have one benefit, which is that Apple gets all the (meta)data to determine if something is or isn't "real", rather than letting the verifier decide beforehand.

I can only imagine the outrage if Google or Microsoft added a "upload all of your photos to us and we will mark them are real or fake" protocol, even with all of the verified compute gaff.

A bunch of them already offer one. Have been a while, actually; the S25 and Pixel 10 came with exactly this.

The timestamping server is the hard part, especially with the verified compute component. It's just not something I see Samsung doing.

I expect Google to show up with a blog post titled "extending C2PA with timestamps for industry-leading authenticity confirmation" any time.

You'd need to jailbreak the camera sensor chip and the phone's secure element. Which isn't exactly impossible either, but it's harder. I don't think it has been done yet (but I'm sure it will be at some point).

That's also why the approach is fundamentally flawed. The open-ish C2PA protocol has been "defeated" by tricking phones into signing arbitrary data already. The even-more-closed Apple version can be defeated the same way and relies on Apple to be the sole arbiter of truth.