The worst are DHL, UPS, etc. customs payment mails. Even the real ones look like phishing mails and in some cases they don’t link the payment request to your account, so you cannot circumvent it by logging into your account and checking wether it is legit.
I was nodding along until the third point. As a parent it can be really hard to deny your kids to smartphone/tablets when other parents don’t care and all their friends play Roblox, use WhatsApp to communicate, or watch YouTube.
Your kid will be the odd one out, missing some shared culture, left out of conversation or meetups they arrange in IM, etc.
The government should absolutely forbid social media and addictive games to kids under 16, otherwise it’s very hard as a parent to escape these little addiction machines and you can only try to limit damage.
Of course, we have to find a way that is not damaging privacy at the same time.
(If you don’t have kids or have kids that are under ~10, you do probably not know what the pressure is like… yet.)
Did you read my comment? The issue is not being able to say 'no'. The issue is basically Sophie's choice: it's saying 'no' but then your kind misses out on a lot of social interactions with their peers vs. saying 'yes', but then your kid has a risk of getting addicted to this crap.
Missing out on social interactions weighs heavily on kids too.
Making everything harder is that even primary schools sometimes allow kids to play kids to play Roblox or use ChatGPT. For parents it's an uphill battle if even their role models think it's fine to play addictive games or make Tik Tok videos. We picked plenty of battles of not allowing videos of our kid to be uploaded to Youtube/Facebook, etc., luckily there are consent forms now, but you have to be constantly vigilant, because sometimes the consent forms are ignored or you get e-mails saying 'if you object, react by the end of the day'. If they play at friend's houses, they typically have access to the same games as well. Do you also want to say 'no' to playing at other kids' homes?
It has been shown scientifically that social media, certain games, etc. are bad and nearly as addictive as heroin. Maybe it's time to make a law to forbid use by kids, just like we have laws that you cannot sell alcohol, drugs, or cigarettes to kids?
And again, we should find a privacy-preserving way to do it.
Missing out on social pathology is a good thing, not a bad thing. You should absolutely teach your kids to defy any peers or self-proclaimed authority figures who are expecting them to engage with that crap. It's called having healthy boundaries.
Well how do you tell your kid "no" when he asks for candy, when he can get as much as he wants at friend's houses, school, the library, or basically anywhere outside your house?
Edit: better exaple would be cigarettes, since that's something we as a society recognize is bad for kids and generally require proof of age if there is any doubt. Imagine if all your kid's friends smoked, and there were cigarette vending machines at school, and all you could do was say "no."
So? There is a fundamental difference. The app stores have effectively become utility companies through the Android-iOS duopoly and it is neigh-impossible to make a new competitive ecosystem. Utility companies are regulated because they can distort the market with their power otherwise. E.g. if the power lines are owned my a single company (which is the case in many countries), if they were not regulated, they could pretty much ask any price. What are you going to do to compete? Roll out a completely new power grid? The Android/iOS duopoly is the same, the fact that they could ask for an insane 30% (!) of every transaction before the regulatory squeeze started should tell you enough.
The newspaper market is very different, because there are many players and you can always go to a competitor. There are even newspapers that make all content available and ask an optional donation (e.g. Taz in Germany or to some extend The Guardian, who do not seem actively block ad blockers).
IANAL I wonder how that is legal in the EU, at least for private individuals, since under the GDPR you need consent for collecting such data. (A timed opt-out is not consent.)
Whoever is submitting the code is still responsible for it, why would the reviewer care if you wrote it with your fingers or if an LLM wrote (parts of) it?
The problem is that submitters often do not feel responsible for it anymore. They will just feed review comments back to the LLM and let the LLM answer and make fixes.
This is disrespectful of the maintainers' time. If the submitter is just vibe/slop coding without any effort on their part, it's less work to do it myself directly using an LLM than having to instruct someone else's LLM through GitHub PR comments.
In this case it's better to just submit an issue and let me just implement it myself (with or without an LLM).
If the PR has a _co-authored by <LLM>_ signal, then I don't have to spend time giving detailed feedback under the assumption that I am helping another human.
Fairphone is a mess software-wise though, both stock or with /e/OS. Ancient kernels, old firmware bundles with many known CVEs, way behind on regular AOSP updates (which are needed for fixes for vulnerabilities not marked high or critical). They only do the minimal ASB patching most of the time. Hardware security is similarly bad, e.g. the Fairphone 6 does not have a secure enclave but relies on TrustZone which runs on the same CPU as the main OS.
Also, it seems relevant to mention that the software is mostly maintained by a Chinese company (T2Mobile), which might be relevant depending on your threat assessments.
For security/software updates it's pretty much:
GrapheneOS > iOS > Pixel OS >> Samsung flagships >> pretty much everyone else.
Oh, please, stop this tired ‘victim of corrupt bureaucrats‘ framing.
People have real choice in EP elections. There are parties that will always stand up for citizens’ rights. If they had enough seats, they could have voted this item off the agenda.
Yet, people continue to choose the same conservatives and radical right over and over again, because they are enraged about immigrants and identity politics. Blame the voters.
Why continue with the increased migration that the majority of the population has generally opposed then? One could have avoided those discussion points.
Also what you group as the radical right doesn't tend to be supportive of this idea.
They full well know they are at times at the receiving end of web control legislation and drives atm. Same for 'radical left' groups.
It's the conservatives that at times make some fuzz about migration to draw votes from the former whilst keeping said migration going since it favours some of the companies they (and a load of other established parties) draw support from.
Yes, there's lots of blame to pass around; but the system does reward corporate psychopaths which leaves US citizens having to choose — as South Park aptly put it — between a douche and a turd sandwich.
There is a famous German comedian that invented a figure known as "The Kangaroo". It once said:
"Whether left-wing or right-wing terrorism – I see no difference there."
"Yes, yes," calls the kangaroo, "the ones set foreigners on fire, the others cars. And cars are worse, because it could have been mine. I don't own any foreigners."
A lot of it is compliance. To get some types of customers you need to pass some security compliance certification or checks, which often have requirements like only giving access to crucial infrastructure when devices are up-to-date, the possibility to remote-disable/erase a device when it is stolen, some kind of anti-virus installed (yeah, I know), etc.
I can understand the underlying reasons, you would be surprised how many employees have bad security hygiene, which becomes an issue when they have access to high value information, tokens, etc. But since they often somewhat draconian rules, they tend to have bad side-effects (similar to password reminders). E.g. Linux users will often set up ClamAV to fulfill the anti-virus requirement. However, ClamAV parses untrusted data in C code without any sandboxing, so it probably opens a new attack vector (as opposed to Windows Defender, which as far as AFAIR uses sandboxing or a micro-VM to parse untrusted data).
reply