Maybe we should spell it: D-A-Y-O-F-W-I-N-D ?

The competition doesn’t need to be open, they just need to motivate Google to be open.

…but could that actually happen? I’m not sure what WOULD motivate Google to be open. Even if there were three or four more major mobile players (all with equal market share), and Google had the only platform that allowed unblessed software to be installed, I’m not sure that would pressure Google to continue to be “the open choice”, but more likely to take this same action as “the odd man out”.

At a fundamental level, there is an illusion/concept planted in the human mind that “force answers everything”, and when they run out of ideas (or all the ideas that they have would require too much [re]work to their liking) the tendency is to fall back onto “just use force” as an easy “solution”.

If I had to guess, I would speculate that their motivation is a long-term play to squash the general perception that Android has more malware (and is therefor less secure) than iPhone. Just about every article I’ve seen to that effect includes (1) enable unknown sources, and (2) install this malware app; so they probably see the current hurdles as insufficient and intend to perma-ban dev accounts that they find signing malware apps.

Nope. Here’s a hint: https://www.cgaa.org/article/scam-insurance-phone-calls-and-emails-to-work-emails

Read it again, more carefully… :)

I guess AI is best measured by how much power it consumes… ?

After getting their way, I am not sure why would they turn around and go back home without accomplishing the errand…

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_(psychology)

How is this not satire?!

I wonder if this ordeal has made people stop buying (or maybe, start panic-buying) Tylenol.

I guess “death panels” are fine if they are machines?

I thought they already gutted much of AOSP. Like removing the dialer or contacts and stuff.

Sounds like a philosophical question.

I would say simply to avoid buying phones from ad-companies, but more generally… if you buy hardware from vendors that respect ownership (i.e. that have user-unlockable bootloaders) then you don’t really have to worry about this kind of thing, as even if the company turns evil later, you can probably flash the phone with a 3rd party rom.

I don’t know if this is what you mean, but I find that “Westworld” hits a lot harder post-ChatGPT.

I remember it taking a lot more suspension of disbelief on release, but now much of it falls into the realm of plausible.

Maybe not the “computable consciousness”, but the glitchy hand-wavy “we don’t know how it works either” aspect… at the time it seemed like a mcguffin cop-out, and now that’s like all the new business models.

Layman: “Does it have five gees or four like my old one?”

I seem to recall owning a microsoft tablet that could not have secure boot disabled. Why do you suppose it would be hard when (much like phones) there are already products (like chromebooks) that have done this?

So… microsoft has positioned itself between common users and Linux… and as an authority of sorts.

Is that suse-on-a-phone just a tease, or something awesome I have yet to discover?