Wouldn’t be surprised if it also did automatic scans for CSAM or some other BS like that. The article’s conclusion is really funny, too:

In any case, it’s nice to see Google delivering some new safety features in its Messages app. Hopefully the company publishes documentation on how Android System SafetyCore works so other messaging apps can implement their own version of Sensitive Content Warnings. Google Messages is popular, but there are certainly other messaging platforms that could benefit from this tool.

They are quite the optimitsts. Oh and yes please, put the spyware in more apps! We aren’t tracked enough!

Yeah, it’s also that “it just works” now, and one undisputable (though unfortunately self-fulfilling) advantage of Windows is that chances are if you do encounter an issue you’re not the first one and someone has already solved it.

Being an early(ish) adopter of anything like that is always a bit of a risk and pain.

My point is, don’t get causation and correlation mixed up. Sure, in this case, it also happens to be somewhat better for the environment. But it would never happen if it also wasn’t more profitable, which it undoubtedly is.

It’s partly not even about the price of the chargers themselves; it saves even more in “hidden costs” like just the fact that now you can have a single SKU for the whole world (or large parts of it at least) instead of keeping 10 different ones (per phone variant). Stuff like having to keep way less stock variants for RMAs, much simplified shipping, etc.

Slimes as in SlimeVR, open source trackers.

I think it all should work, but I’m afraid of just having to solve issues in general with stuff I don’t have to solve any issues with now.

Sure, the Index should work fine, but I’m not so sure about accessories, my Slimes, etc. Also on an nvidia GPU…

Really hope Valve does indeed release the new headset, because my Index is getting very dated.

Lol have you noticed any drop in price since chargers were removed? There wasn’t any. If anything the prices increased, profits increased, and you now get a more expensive phone without a charger (and often even a cable).

Since arbitrations are charged a fee per customer someone figured out that you can do an effective “class action” against valve by having many people submit the same arbitration claim against valve and costing them so much through the arbitration fees that it it was almost impossible for them to cone out on top regardless of the outcome of the arbitration (iirc).

It’s not even that they’d have to pay for it; usually the filing party has to pay. Valve tried to be the good guys and while they did push for arbitration they said that they’d pay your arbitration fee for you, basically allowing you to file a legal complaint against them at their expense.

And then some fucking legal company figured out it’s a neat loophole on how to bleed them through arbitration where the point isn’t really the result but the costly process. Guess that’ll teach Valve to try to be better than others. :|

The animations are stuttery for me on … Fedora Linux.

I bet they’d be smooth as butter on Windows. x)

…and VR. VR is already finicky on its own, gaming on Linux can be finicky in different ways, and the issues multiply if you have two things like that.

By definition if inflation doubles and the value of your estate doesn’t change, your actual wealth didn’t change.

Why did you cross post this? It’s already a thread.

That’s just the reality of doing business on the Internet.

That’s just not true. You can absolutely get by on the internet remaining pretty much anonymous, as it is. Very few services need (and verify) your personal data; when they do it’s basically always when it’s government-mandated, and it’s for things that have a “physical” equivalent.

i.e. creating a bank account online requires your actual ID, but so it would if you tried to do it “offline” in a physical bank (and you largely have a choice on whether or not you do it online).

Then you have stuff like online shopping and such where most people probably use their actual personal information but you don’t have to and it’s generally not checked.

This is an unprecedented change, where suddenly for access to a free service someone needs to ask for and validate some very private details. And it fucking sucks.

While Australia’s new legislation is ham-fisted and poorly thought out, the intent isn’t wrong and there’s broad consensus for it (77% approval in Australia). We need to do something about the uncontrolled exploitation, manipulation and endangerment of minors by social media services.

That’s the issue though; I agree that something needs to be done, but you need to do it more or less correctly on the first try or you’ll probably make it even worse.

What you’re exercising here is called whataboutism, and it’s a really shitty thing to do.

Someone still needs to create that digital token from your ID, which means someone’s still using and storing your data, and potentially selling it or having it leaked.

Who would realistically buy Chrome that wouldn’t degrade the consumer experience?

Hopefully noone, so it would lead into more fragmentation in the browser space, which is a good things.

The manifest v3 changes primary give a lot of security and privacy changes that stop extensions from doing a lot of questionable things in the background on all your page you visit. But that does stop ad blockers from doing a lot of what they currently do - blocking in page elements and modifying the pages you visit.

It also killed a lot of other genuinely useful extensions.

And if security is their main concern they should have spent resources on making sure the extensions they themselves redistribute are safe, not on killing a huge chunk of extensions. Sorry but you’ll have a very hard time convincing anyone that getting rid of ad blockers wasn’t their primary motive.

But it does not block them from blocking page requests so ad blockers like ublockorigin lite can still function in a more limited capacity to block ads.

It completely changed how they do this, and made it way less effective and more limited. All completely unnecessary from a security standpoint.

Nah, not if it’s corporations or whole countries.

Algorithmic patents amount to patenting maths which, by very longstanding precedence, is not a thing, for good reason.

You absolutely can patent “math” (well, more like physics) IRL. What matters though is that the invention actually has to be novel and non-obvious, and IMO it should also be harder to patent if it’s in a segment like software where costs of development, iteration and “research” are generally extremely cheap. Like, it should have a way higher bar for the “novelness”.

And I would not allow any kind of software design patent (use copyright or trademark to protect that).

…and that’s how it still works.

Considering those scanners usually register as keyboards and just do a dumb input “typing” it shouldn’t even be hard, lol.

The worst part would probably be picking a barcode scheme where the inputs make sense…