DreamlandLividity @ DreamlandLividity @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

586

Joined

2 yr. ago

I get the instinct but that is why GrapheneOS only runs on Pixels. Pixels have hardware needed to verify you are running the genuine GrapheneOS. Still safer and cheaper to buy stock and spend 10 mins installing Graphene of course.

This did not sound like an isolated incident at all. You don't get sales responding to a legal/engineering issue by accident. It may have been unintended by leadership, if they put too much pressure on sales not realizing how it was corrupting the company, or the leadership may have tacitly approved of this. Hard to tell.

It would be fine if it was just "lured", but this made me very sceptical of cloudflare: https://robindev.substack.com/p/cloudflare-took-down-our-website

You may want to read: https://robindev.substack.com/p/cloudflare-took-down-our-website

Oh so it's my device issue. My apologies.

Well, I would say it is a combination on both. Your device reveals it is slower. No need to apologize. :)

If I test it on my phone, Vanadium is also a lot faster, it's just that IronFox is not so slow I would care.

I don't feel it is particularly slow, but I have a Pixel 7. It may be slow on 7 years old HW unfortunately :( Chromium is probably better optimized.

I got used to bottom bar on Firefox and since then, I am unable to use Chromium based browsers on mobile. It is just so bad to have the bar at the top. So Bromite is not an option for me.

I run IronFox for Android and Librewolf on Desktop. Since they are both Firefox forks, migrating is not that bad.

Because the fascist does not endanger their cushy seats. If Trump wins, they will win next election after people are sick of Trump.

If they let people like Mamdani replace them in their own party, they are never getting elected again.

"Vote blue, no matter who!"
"Wait, no! Not like that!"

It is a lot harder to notice incorrect information in review, than making sure it is correct when writing it.

I was hesitating due to this as well, until I realized that my payments are something I want google to have data on least of all. So I got a debit card and turns out it is no inconvenience at all.

Based on what data?

Sure, but it is not a study general public, like us on lemmy, should care about. It needs a follow up before making decisions.

Yet you can already see people calling for phone bans...

No joke, YandereDev has been making more progress than Thor on Hartbound and he at least does not pretend to be experienced Blizzard game developer.

I'm not gonna go out of my way to review bomb his game or send him messages or at him on twitter. But I am not gonna stop calling him a narcisistic idiot whenever the topic comes up. People should know. That is not harassment, that is countering misinformation, at least IMO. A meme like this is not harassment in my book either. He is a public figure.

are somehow valuable are should be protected.

No. I believe that what isn't harmful shouldn't be banned. You don't get to decide what is valuable or enjoyable to other people. If it does not harm someone, it should be allowed. We are not robots that are programmed to value things equally. What is insignificant to you can be important to others.

I thought that only other kids watch those videos and that everything about it is harmful. It basically trains easy to influence kids to fight for internet points

You can make this point about almost any entertainment for children. Having pretty clothes. Having fancy toys. Playing videogames. Playing sports.

Parent your children properly if you have any instead of trying to put them into bubble wrap.

That is not to say there are not specific things that are too harmful, but we won't ban everything because maybe, some of it it could influence kids badly.

As for phones, if we have science proving that they are harmful to kids I don't see how they are different from cigarettes or alcohol.

Show me research that show a dumb phone only making calls is harmful and I will admit you are right. Otherwise, it is not phones that are harmful, it is something specific on them. I have no issue regulating apps harmful to kids, like lootboxes, idle games, login rewards, etc. But it is not about phones.

You don't know why it would be good to stop exploiting children for clicks and ad revenue? Do you think a 12 yo can consent to live streaming their life for the whole world to watch?

The question is not whether you can find one kind of video/streaming that is exploitative but whether all of them are. Is it exploitative to share video from a spelling bee competition? Is it exploitative to share a school theater video? If not, only ban the things that are.

Whether to give phones to children and how is a parents decision. As for the research, it is the same as above. Clearly these issues did not exist with early smartphones. So it's not the phones, it something on them. My money is on social media and the "idle" games. Parents have the option to prevent installation of those.

You don't ban pipes, because they can be used to make pipe-bombs. You ban making pipe-bombs. Your proposals are so broad they would ban way too many things that are ok.

Most people could live without youtube period. But what the fuck would be the reason to do it?

Even so, the much more ridiculous one to me is the second one.

No one.