Not to mention that the "concession", such that it is, will presumably only work if you sign into a Google account. Presumably, this will require that you have Google Play Services installed.
Of course, many people who want to de-Google their phones won't want to do either. This is an attack on people who want to keep their lives separate from Google.
It's worth noting, though, that that config option was only introduced in kernel version 6.8! Before then the option didn't exist and you could write with impunity to mounted devices (as root, obviously).
I have to wonder how this will impact their partnership with Motorola. Presumably, Motorola will have more difficulty if they're found not to be complying with relevant law...
I hope GrapheneOS isn't completely banking on their partnership succeeding. If Motorola devices ever became the only devices that GrapheneOS works on, and it's being done with Motorola's blessing, then it could be more easily legislated out of existence.
I wholeheartedly support GrapheneOS but, because of that, I very much hope they don't box themselves into a corner that's then easy to 'wall off'.
Having said that, the hardware being restricted to Pixel devices was always a tenuous proposition based on Google's design choices. If Pixels remain supported whilst adding Motorola, that's only a good thing.
Google's Pixels have been one of the most open Smartphone hardware lines though. Only a small handful of vendors support Android Verified Boot with custom keys.
But that's why they said it was tenuous. Google's Pixels have been one of the most open Smartphone hardware lines so far, but Google could change that at any time.
GrapheneOS did not wall off itself or anyone else. The lobbyists who wrote those laws walled themselves off. I think they need to pay for the damage they caused with those laws privately. That way they will stop acting as lobbyists for private entities such as Meta.
I think that's worse than reinstalling because there could be a non-persistent exploit in the secure element allowing a malicious OS to fake attestation
Why dont they just offload the legal burden onto the users with a "Enter your * or decline" and move on? Taking this half compromizing position is easier to defend i think.
Not really, thousand of sellers are selling products in places they "shouldn't", law and enforcement of law is very different (average Aliexpress seller will sell you counterfeit product and ship to the US and just wouldn't care), and some website/business owners just have balls, GrapheneOS could just relocate the company to some offshore jurisdiction and sell only through a bunch of third-parties that wouldn't care about local laws at first.
Well, it is also time to fix those laws. I don't think lobbyists should be allowed to cause us harm here and force us to surrender our data to private entities.
are you sure GrapheneOS will be preinstalled on these devices? as I understand there will be two options for these devices, own Lenovo ROM or GrapheneOS, all they have to do to avoid market restrictions is sell it officially with Lenovo ROM and let user install officially supported Graphene by themselves
Before yt-dlp started recommending Deno as its JavaScript runtime, I had no idea it even existed.
Since then, I know that it's there and that it's more secure than Node in some applications, and I can see using it being a good option. But it sounds like it might be too little too late? Going by this article, at least.
Same, I remember googling Deno and going "Oh this new thing looks neat" - and then I haven't heard/seen/read a thing about it until this post. But I keep hearing about Bun and of course nodejs.
Feel bad for them, they obviously just didn't capture a real userbase. I expect if yt-dlp hadn't started to require it they'd have just silently flamed out.
If you haven't already, check out https://pouet.net/ . It's almost certainly got the demos that you're interested in.
Now, remembering the titles of these demos might be another matter, but there are people who might be able to help with that too. Do you remember some scenes/effects from the demos that you were interested in?
It does matter, because the store page isn't just for buying - it's also for seeing system requirements, reading any applicable EULAs before purchase, and reading reviews. You can't do those from any other page on Steam.
Since the bundle is a separate purchase option and not replacing the option to buy TTD on its own, it also allows people to easily find out what they're in for by providing a description of what OpenTTD is, as opposed to just buying TTD on its own.
This looks like a great project, but there's one big problem that I can see...
If it's based on BitTorrent, then surely that means that anybody who has the content that you want to see (or who advertises that they have the content you want to see...) will be able to see your IP address? Like how the movie industry can catch people who are sharing movies on BitTorrent?
Obviously, an attacker wwould probably need to use a separate BitTorrent client to do this, because I'm sure the IP addresses won't be displayed in the app itself, but that seems like it could potentially be possible.
I really hope I'm wrong on this, because other than that seemingly-big privacy flaw, this seems pretty great otherwise.
"Information requested and retrieved in a Personal tab is not shared with anyone else. No record of your activity is recorded on BitTorrent. Use Personal tabs for logging into social media and other accounts. Also use them if you do not want to be associated on BitTorrent with any of your browsing activity in Ceno."
i wish the faq had even the tiniest bit of information on how this works, but it does not. they probably use their "injectors" to proxy the data or something. i am guessing it is discussed in more detail somewhere in the whitepaper (https://gitlab.com/equalitie/ouinet/-/blob/main/doc/ouinet-n...) but i dont have the time at the moment to read through it.
You know, this makes me wonder... is anybody actually prompting LLMs with pseudocode rather than an English specification? Could doing so result in code that that's more true to the original pseudocode?
You can give the macro-structure using stubs then ask the LLM to fill in the blanks.
The problem is that it doesn't work too well for the meso-structure.
Models tend to be quite good at the micro-structure because they've seen a lot of it already, and the macro-structure can easily be promoted, but the levels in between are what distinguishes a good vs bad model (or human!).
I'm with you on this, but I do want to point out that a big reason that people will update bundled libraries like that is because they don't want to put the effort in to see whether their bundled library versions actually have any critical vulnerabilities that affect the project. It's easier to update everything and be sure that there are no critical vulnerabilities.
In other words, the Microsoft Windows update process as applied to software development.
Of course, many people who want to de-Google their phones won't want to do either. This is an attack on people who want to keep their lives separate from Google.
reply