Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)WA
Posts
0
Comments
309
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • From the arstechnica article:

    Let's talk about that industry-leading 8–10 years of Android support, which doesn't necessarily mean 8–10 major OS updates. For now, Fairphone is promising "at least five operating system upgrades" because that is how long its weird Qualcomm chipset will officially be supported. Fairphone says Qualcomm will support that chip "until 2028" and after that, "Fairphone commits to extend support until 2031 and is aiming for 2033, giving users a total of eight to ten years of software support."

    Normal Android OS update development has a chain of custody: Google makes an Android release, then the SoC vendor, in this case Qualcomm, takes that release and integrates its drivers and proprietary code, then the phone vendor, Fairphone, adds support for the rest of the hardware and ships it. Qualcomm, in an effort to boost its profits and force an artificial upgrade cycle on the market, opts out of this process after a few years, which usually forces these devices to become e-waste. Fairphone, through a herculean development effort, has been the only Android OEM to keep going even after Qualcomm drops support.

  • From the article:

    "Google previously ran a pilot program that let political emails bypass the Gmail spam filter. Google said in a January 2023 court filing that "the RNC has chosen not to participate in Google's FEC-approved Pilot Program"

    Firstly, what the hell, Google? Also, on brand for GOP to refuse a solution (to a problem of their own making, with spam-style emails) in preference for pushing an unfounded grievance into the ground.

  • I feel it actually creates an incentive for the tweeter to create their own outlandish and missing headline. So it's even worse. Plus it will be harder to determine if you've already read the article as the description is likely to be different most times when you see the article posted by different people.

  • Didn't we originally think the same ("you're protecting nothing") when it came to the ocean, the Rain Forests, lakes, streams, the Arctic, etc? Until we learned otherwise. By that time, the profit motive was too entrenched to ever allow things to change.

    By way of example, what if the moon were mined to such an extreme that it changed its orbit? Wouldn't that impact it or the earth itself? What if the moon were no longer there at all because that suited a future trillionaire's aim to add another billion to their bank account?