RedComet

"- One object going out of scope may mean calling free once, but it also can trigger calling free billions of objects, even for the exact same object

- Even freeing one object can have largely varying running time, e.g. to coalesce free blocks or, because it happens to be the last block in a virtual memory region, to unmap a block of virtual memory, blocking the program potentially for an arbitrary time"

So, like C, C++, or anything else that you wouldn't call garbage collected.

The squeaking [spare] wheel got the grease.

It is painfully obvious that the "age assurance" push is to limit anti-zionist propaganda.

I wonder who or what will abuse this infrustructure when they fail.

"or the culture shifts to reinterpret the thing"

Yes. You see it already.

"Actually it is good that I can't run programs that haven't been approved by Google on my own device."

Are any of those actually pauseless like he asked for?

"99% of apps would request it & not function without it"

Apple could refuse to publish them, then. Isn't that why we are forced to go through the App Store? Because Apple ensures every app there works in the best interest of the user?

Even that is overkill if all you're interested in is if a change occured.

I think something like a per boot delta added to a (per app?) random base would preserve such functionality.

Volume creation date is pretty egregious. I don't see any reason that and Pasteboard changeCount should be so granular.

The "Installed Apps Probe" leak also surprised me. It is better than the current state of Android, though.

You didn't write it, though. And it is slop. If you had actually wrote it, you might learn from some of the criticism or be able to engage with it on an objective level.

On the contrary, you're only defending it because it is AI. If it were some other feature that many didn't want or ask for, you would empathize.

Wouldn't it be something if, given all the surveillance already in place, law enforcement punished the scammers instead of the innocent?

The keyword is "intentional".

Here's to hoping for a smaller phone with a fingerprint sensor on the back and a removable battery, as it's a given graphene will get the chipset right.

If the owner of a device can't sign and install their own software, then your definition of PKI doesn't "work" at all.

The first party must be able to entirely decide that "some third party" for it to be anything more than an obfuscation of digital serfdom.

Strange claiming you "called it', people were saying this far earlier than 8 days ago.

"once you set the watch up"

This does require an iPhone though, right?

The sideloading change doesn't protect against abusive household members, though. Simple lock screen hygiene and periodic reminders about invasive permissions (e.g. accessibility & location) would do more. And let us not even pretend that is the true motivation for the change. An incidental consequence that you find defensible is simply that.

A straw man in your favor, maybe. Shall we compare the 100 least popular of each store?

Those are more likely to be outright malware on Play.

Let's ignore all of the preinstalled programs, which are signed by Google and do a great deal of spying.

Do you think the 100 most popular F-Droid apps do more spying than the 100 most popular Play store apps?

They are signed, though. Just not by Google.

It sounds like we largely agree, then, so I'm not sure what you were arguing in the first place. That because the companies are legally able to do this and that [hardware-based] jailbreaking is possible in theory, it can't be opposed?

To your other point, firmware is another battle entirely and currently has less practical value.

It was an analogy. You're moving the goalposts and ignored the latter point.

And I'm not a foss advocate, I just want to be able to run software of my choosing and without spyware, as has been the case since the advent of personal computing.

As a side note, legality seems irrelevant to your position. What if a world government mandated optional sideloading + unlocking? Wouldn't you then argue against that law?

By analogy, if food was sold with poison in it, "hey man, you bought it, just remove it if you don't like it. not a chemist? crack a book buddy". And now imagine you had no means of producing your own food and all food sold contained poison.

If unlocking an iPhone and running e.g. AOSP on it were feasible, people would be doing it. And you know that. Your argument is disingenuous.

You cannot (generally) install and run apps that aren't (recently) notarized, though. They do owe the service inasmuch as they require it for installing and running apps.

Not very "carbon friendly". But the recycler they mention will probably kindly ship it do a foreign landfill.

The malware excuse is just a palatable false pretense. "We have to protect granny!" Of course, she is getting fleeced by plain scam calls, not somehow sideloading apks onto her idevice, but the truth doesn't help advance their narrative.

Cell carriers will just start requiring the attestation as well. And eventually, even an internet connection will - wifi routers will have to attest to ISP equipment, etc.

The final phase is "AI" monitoring everything you do on your devices. Eventually it won't just be passive, either, but likely active: able to change books you read and audio you listen to on-the-fly without your consent. It will be argued that this ok because the program is "objective".

Will you elaborate?

If all major platforms do so in concert, it actually is the same.