Sort of. This is apparently done on-protocol so anyone can issue verifications, but they're only shown in the official client if they're from BlueSky or someone approved by BlueSky.
A better way to do this would be to let users subscribe to verifiers the way they can labelers. Better still would be for the label to indicate what the verifier has verified about the account, like "nytimes.com says this person is an employee of the New York Times", which is something labelers can already do.
So I really think they should have just leaned into labelers.
The thing about this age range is there are a bunch of social changes people go through. Some of them are automatic at a specific age, like being able to legally buy alcohol. Others may not happen at quite the same age, like getting a driver's license, graduating high school, or moving out of the parents' house.
I suggest some introspection to be sure she likes you for you more than for social advantages you might have, and to check local laws to make sure a sexual relationship isn't illegal. Other than that, the half your age plus seven rule of thumb others have mentioned seems pretty reasonable to me.
I think the existing domain-based verification system is a better way of doing that. Something like Mastodon's verified links might be a nice addition. This more centralized system is... not what I hoped for.
Are the contents of your Signal conversations on an iPhone private with regard to mass surveillance conducted by governments and ISPs? Probably. Apple uses security and privacy as marketing points, and there are a whole lot of people looking for vulnerabilities in its products who are incentivized to disclose them (possibly with a delay for patches). Signal itself takes steps to prevent data leaks to less secure parts of the OS and other apps.
Would your conversations remain private in the face of a targeted attack against your device by a nation state willing to spend a significant amount of time and money when you're using Signal on an iPhone that's presumably used for purposes other than secure conversations with a small set of people you know? Almost certainly not.
Anyone doing a poll would be negligent not to include the previous nominee and former vice president. That's not to imply she's a good choice, only that she's an obvious choice.
This would be a valid complaint if it was forced on you, but it isn't. You can both ignore the warnings and disable the feature entirely.
As to why it does that, it's using heuristics based on the APIs the app calls and maybe a bit about how it calls them. If there are enough patterns similar to malicious apps, you get a warning.
The actions of a lunatic cult leader who promptly killed the entire cult including himself afterward aren't really comparable to the actions of governments attempting to retain the appearance of legitimacy.
They really are stupid when it comes to undermining their own case, aren’t they?
No, they are not. It's a mistake to think of them as stupid, as that leads to underestimating the threat they pose.
They don't care about winning this case in the conventional sense. Trump and his allies couldn't care less what happens to Kilmar Abrego Garcia; what they're after is the power to exile or imprison people without due process of law.
A hashtag on Mastodon won't make a post visible to Lemmy users, but tagging a community (with the double-@ format) in a toplevel post will post to that community.
And is he seriously asking the Trump administration to self-identify who should be punished for all of this? Does he honestly think that the DOJ is going to hand over a list of names to be sanctioned? Because if so, I want a lifetime supply of whatever he’s smoking.
He's asking, and he almost certainly believes he's legally entitled to an answer. He almost certainly believes the DOJ will not cooperate, but potential noncompliance by defendants shouldn't influence rulings.
The only thing for the judge to do is issue rulings and orders as if things are normal.
I’ve read that it’s because fairphone has to pay a fee for each unlocked device, but it sounds a little weird so no idea if that’s real.
The posts seem to suggest that Google is charging them a fee in that case, but that would be a little surprising given Pixels have a no-fuss unlock, and Google permits third parties to redistribute its proprietary add-ons to Android free of charge for installation by end users.
In any case, you've convinced me this probably isn't Fairphone being evil, though some sort of public explanation would be nice.
I don't understand why this requires a code rather than a toggle in developer settings like a Pixel. That doesn't seem like openness and a commitment to treating users fairly since they could change their policy at any time.
These are just weird little guys. Sure, they're dangerous individually; sometimes they kill people, but the idea that they're a threat to the stability of society is laughable.
Good. I have yet to see a preloaded AI feature on a phone that I want to use. The one I actually want is correctly deciding of I want to be disturbed with a given notification.
Zak @ Zak @lemmy.world Posts 10Comments 1,261Joined 2 yr. ago
Sort of. This is apparently done on-protocol so anyone can issue verifications, but they're only shown in the official client if they're from BlueSky or someone approved by BlueSky.
A better way to do this would be to let users subscribe to verifiers the way they can labelers. Better still would be for the label to indicate what the verifier has verified about the account, like "nytimes.com says this person is an employee of the New York Times", which is something labelers can already do.
So I really think they should have just leaned into labelers.