handedness

Stay boring, Vlad.

My experience is the same as yours, and I run a huge number of apps for work purposes. A few have required disabling exploit protection but otherwise work fine.

With only one brief exception, all of my financial institution's apps have worked fine, too, including some banks I see drive-by complaints about on here.

Anyone curious should refer to the tracker: https://privsec.dev/posts/android/banking-applications-compa...

My example was that specific user, if you didn't notice.

I send and receive iMessages perfectly fine on my non-iOS devices. It's doable, much more so than running ancient hardware is, but there are reasons I don't bring it up with people who haven't asked.

The PinePhone Pro wasn't a compromise, it was unusable. Maybe that's improved since then, but it was a horrendous experience.

I set the IT policy for my devices. I sleep fine saying I can't install crapware on it. It's my primary business device and that comes with sensible restrictions.

A committed Windows user who just noted they depend on iMessages probably isn't a great prospect for your proselytizing, anyway: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38855086

I've previously tried living out of a PinePhone Pro, and if those web apps require much JS at all they're going to be in for a bad time. By benchmarks and your previous accounts, it sounds like the Librem 5 is only going to be worse from there.

But you nod towards a useful point there at the end. I've found I don't need to present ancient hardware to get some entities to provide web apps or other means, I just say something handwavy about my phone being locked down by my employer's IT policy, neglecting to mention that I'm my employer. Bigger orgs aren't worth bothering with, though. You could show an airline an employee a flip phone and they aren't going to have any flexibility on the matter.

I tried Tidal nearly a decade ago, and the audible fluttering effect caused by their audio watermarking totally ruined certain types of music, like choral recordings, strings and such. It was obviously apparent on $20 ear buds driven by any device, far beyond the more stereotypical audiophile gripes.

I opened a support ticket but they never responded. After that it was difficult to take their lossless claims seriously when the labels were providing such garbage source material. Their whole value prop was totally hollowed out.

I don't know whether the labels still impose such horrible practices, but I largely gave up on streaming services after that experience and now focus on keeping good digital archives of my physical library.

You may be unfamiliar with its history. It was, for several years, a GrapheneOS feature. ("Magical" is up to the reader.) After much encouragement from the GOS team, Google, and separately Apple, implemented it years later.

GrapheneOS's implementation of it still remains the most robust. More info:

https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/113450215897626825

https://www.techtimes.com/articles/300621/20240115/grapheneo...

https://www.simplymac.com/ios/new-apple-security-feature-reb...

https://9to5google.com/2025/04/16/android-auto-restart-secur...

If it's intellectual engagement you want, how about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

It's far better to respect people's ability to reach their own conclusions about things. If someone sends me media and tells me in advance what I should think of it, it devalues my estimation of them more than it does of the media in question (which I try to keep an open mind about).

Just wait until people hear about that Che fellow!

If it were a small amount of money, it wouldn’t be an issue.

I'm not speaking for or against anyone's views for or against anything here, but it's worth noting that Brendan Eich's $1K donation caused quite the stir.

You can't call comprehensive replies "disingenuous walls of text" and then later complain about a lack of thoroughness when people stop finding it worth the time. You've done it extensively with me and others. That's not an attack or accusation, it's there to see with years of history of you doing the same things to people from casual observers (me) to some of the most qualified participants in the industry.

I'm comfortable with others taking in everything and drawing their own conclusions. That's my only motivation for engaging at this point.

For example, Fairphone has something approaching 200 employees. They're punching well below their weight on the security side, both in terms of hardware and software. Defend them all you want but their approach to security is objectively poor. Repairability and sustainability are good concepts, but not if the device fails at being a decently secure device, which it does. If there's a good reason they can't spec out a better device to be made for them and properly support it, I haven't seen them state it. I wish they would because they've made some pretty neat devices over the years. But a neat device with poor hardware security is an absurd build target to burn finite dev hours on. Something which has been explained to you many times.

Purism, on the other hand, likely can't produce a phone that has security remotely approaching any one of a number of contemporary phone options (beyond just Apple/Google). As you say, they're too small and probably spread too thin. They could stand to dial back their claims to match their reality. They still haven't made a dent on significant issues they themselves flagged more than a half decade ago. Its modem runs on a bus so untrustworthy you probably run a disposable sys-usb Qube on your computer. But that's OK, because you only run trusted software, etc. To each their own.

There's probably that, too, but there exists a long history of "lengthy 'it's not this it's that' explanations trying to display superior knowledge of what the real genuine thing from somebody else's culture is."

It's just human nature and it happens at every level. I've seen, firsthand, primitive villagers in Asia do it about the culture of another village five miles away, I've seen people all over do it about something on the other side of the planet. I don't think it's particularly exclusive to a particular hemisphere.

Again, you're misreading. He stated that security is a necessary condition for privacy, you assumed that he's conflating the two things (he clearly doesn't), then...essentially agreed with his point. It's just totally defective.

My comment, which you accuse of not advancing the conversation, was that your comment was internally incoherent. Like some (not all) of your comments, it sets discourse back significantly and the discussion would be much better off without such things.

You admit to holding a preconceived notion that he thinks security and privacy are the same things, which might have something to do with why you consistently fail to interpret some of even the simplest comments. You'd already reached your conclusion about him and didn't truly read his comment, but responded to your preconceived notion of it as soon as you saw the slightest opening. You do that a lot. It doesn't advance discussion.

You're in the second half of your first decade doing exactly the same thing here year after year with an absolute litany of people, including multiple elite developers who are doing incredibly difficult and important work, highly qualified people whose opinions you completely disregard repeatedly. Searching this site for your old threads shows a certain imperviousness of thought. You already have your talking points and you're not budging from them.

Which is fine, some people are just like that, and I'll continue to weigh in on high-traffic threads to make sure you don't harm important projects with your usual comments, but engaging directly with you is as tedious as it is pointless and I won't be doing that much.

I'm not sure what your motives are, but either way there's no upside to doing anything beyond making sure casual readers of high-traffic discussions won't see your more defective comments go mostly unchallenged (as many others have already wisely moved on from engaging with you).

We don't assume bad faith 'round these parts, so I have to ask a genuine question: Have you been diagnosed with any reading and/or learning disabilities? His comment was straightforward, clear, and three brief sentences long, yet you got something out of it that completely wasn't there.

You ask the same questions again of the same audience, year after year after year, either misunderstanding or totally disregarding the numerous simple, clear and direct answers you receive.

What's going on?

I didn't miss the context.

You can't simultaneously claim (incorrectly) that they're incapable of shipping secure hardware while claiming that they intend to ship a secure and private device. (Maybe Fairphone 7 will be the one.) Even if that is is their intention, they're doing a good job keeping it a secret, as their site's main traffic drivers talk solely about environmental ethics and the climate.

Several companies are shipping devices with worthwhile hardware security, and the standards are fairly well enumerated at the link I provided. If Fairphone's intention is to ship reasonably secure hardware then they're failing miserably at it. Same goes for their choice of OS.

Again, that link wasn't for you. You've been told all this stuff for many years. It's for anyone who trips over the thread without already knowing the sheer tonnage of misleading and often downright factually false statements you continually dump in these threads.

There is plenty of it in ancient literature, both Western and Eastern. Humans' fundamental attachments remain more or less remain recognizable over time and place.

There is, though, something especially cheap about how it is mostly done today. At least we got treasures like the Cantongqi/Sandōkai out of it in the past. (Or maybe I just committed exactly the same error by invoking the Sandōkai.) I'm sure it was done similarly back then, but likely mostly in actual conversation.

Maybe enough of today's commented noise will filter down to a small number of some particularly astute internet comments which will be studied in the year 3226, but I doubt it. Today's best thinking is still found in books and articles. Which has always probably been true, but it used to require some additional amount of work to hear foolishness.

Thanks for your report. I'll give it another look.

It really is.

The Pixel tablet is a mere 3 years old, and still supported, for whatever that's worth. I don't use a stylus but I believe it supports USI2. I'll rock mine as long as I possibly can.

> Maintaining one's data as private requires that it is protected as a baseline. So you're conflating privacy with security, as I expected.

That's a totally defective reading of their comment.

These are separate matters, although I agree that privacy can't exist without security.

He didn't conflate them, he stated something very similar to your formulation above.

not purely on code correctness

This assumes a lot that isn't the case about platforms you regularly misunderstand.

Providing all hardware features required by GrapheneOS is not feasible for a small company.

Supporting all hardware required by fsflover is not feasible for a small project.

What do they need to support to convince you?

I know you're already aware of this because it's been provided to you before, but for the folks reading at home, here are the device requirements: https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices

I made the same mistake after being burned by the PinePhone, buying a heavily discounted Pixel 6 to test various Android forks, which eventually included GrapheneOS. I quickly knew I'd found home upgraded to a 9 Pro XL.

It's complicated. The Tensor G2 Pixel tablet was a solid device, and you can still buy it new from Google (with no choice on color or size in my country), but production has been discontinued and the two direct generational successors were canceled, in sequence. First it was skipping a generation, then it was canceling it entirely. The rumored "Pro" version also appears to have been axed.

I've used mine daily since it came out, and it's a great experience. I'd recommend picking it up for anyone who wants GOS on a larger screen. An iPad it isn't, but my iPad Pros have sat almost totally dormant since I got it years ago.

It lacks horsepower compared to the latest Pixel Pros, but that hasn't been a practical concern in anything I've done with it so far.

Seedvault is still woefully insufficient, but it sounds like there's work being done to replace it. I can't imagine the enterprise crowd will overlook that and I'm hoping the Motorola partnership enables faster development.

My end-run around Google's absurd unwillingness to certify GOS for Google Pay has been Garmin Pay, which has worked virtually everywhere I've ever tried it.

I'm hopeful that an OEM Motorola device will get certified for Google Pay.

I've settled on running CoMaps in the Owner profile, with Google Maps/Waze/etc. in the Owner profile's Private Space for when they're necessary.

I run a litany of Google (and other corporate/business apps) apps in Private Space under the owner's profile, which is only unlocked when I need it for something. That space's connection can go out over a WireGuard tunnel if I need those apps to be on any specific networks, while the rest of the phone's traffic is unaffected. The file systems stay functionally separate (although that's not a major concern given how file encryption is handled, plus the dream that is Storage Scopes), and that space has its own camera app and such.

The Owner profile itself doesn't run Google Play Services, so when that Private Space is locked and dormant it's effectively a degoogled stack.

Some will invariably argue that an old pocket-sized Linux PC with a cellular modem is a superior experience, and for some specific things it may well be, but GrapheneOS is the only viable option for someone looking for a user-respecting modern phone with very few limitations.

No invention was able to steer the psychopaths away from waging wars.

Nukes and MAD did a pretty good job of that.

Your model, that psychopathy is the necessary precondition to war, is a popular one, but it's not grounded in reality or history very well at all. It's a harmful view when broadly held, on balance.

Nations have interests, and nations sometimes go to war to pursue the geopolitical imperatives they rationally believe serve their interests. Computer-controlled drones notwithstanding, there's nothing new under the sun. The unprecedented (and likely transitory) period of peace and prosperity during the Cold War was the anomaly, and we're now reverting back to the mean.

it's easy to speculate how there are less wars when you live in a place which haven't seen war for decades or cenuries, but it's a complete game changer when it's 150 km from where you live...

I can appreciate how having skin in the game makes it feel different, but that's like saying, "I know crime isn't down, because somebody broke into my car last week." That's faulty on several levels.

By many--most, even--measures, wars since WWII are massively down globally. I don't expect that to hold as the US strategically disentangles itself from the globe, though.

Many analysts of very sane mind imagined exactly that war 20 years ago, or longer.

The geopolitical fact is that Russia lacks strategic depth, which has bitten it badly multiple times in the past. From their view, that's something to be remedied to prevent future occurrences.

For Russia to gain strategic depth, there are a few lines which it needs to control. There are ~6-10 gaps, depending on how you count them, and on what net importance/counter-productiveness you assign to some of the more marginal and fraught ones. Holding any is better than holding none.

The big surprise is that Putin left Ukraine so late, when many of his best-trained ex-Soviet personnel had already died. Had he done it even just a few years earlier, the outcome would have likely been very different. The only analysts who thought it wouldn't happen thought so precisely because he left it too late.

Regardless, the best time for Europe to get serious about this war was before it started, unfortunately, and there was ample warning.

I hope you can stay safe so near to it.

The context for the downvoters is that at the time, Lance attributed his performance to treatment for TC. (And being down even one T would almost certainly improve saddle comfort.)