> With Android 16, you can now activate Advanced Protection, Google’s strongest mobile device protection. It enables an array of robust device security features that protect you from online attacks, harmful apps, unsafe websites, scam calls and more. blah blah
let me guess: Advanced Protection will continue to gain features that restrict the freedom of users in the name of security and some time from now it will be mandatorily enabled for everyone. classic google!
To me it seems like Google trying to mirror the iOS Advanced Data Protection and lockdown mode. Just ways to put security front and center to counter Apple's "we're the privacy company" schtick.
requiring a user to own a PC in order to sideload apps (with adb) would, in fact, count as blocking sideloading, albeit partially. so i don't think that's the right limit
if someone is unwilling to pay for access to an entire collection of articles, i'd find it very unlikely that they pay for a single article. unless it's an outrageously low price like 10 cents or something
Well, it certainly should be well under a buck -- I refuse to believe they're earning more than 25 cents per visitor from the circus of bullshit sticky autoplaying video ads festooning the pages anyway. I'd just click "Pay 49 cents" if they had Apple Pay or another 1-click option that doesn't share my information with them, AND it meant zero ads. Of course even the paywalled sites that sell subscriptions mostly don't turn off their ads, so I assume they'd like to double-dip.
you missed the point. password managers are one of the many use cases for this feature; that they just so happen to be mostly implemented as extensions does not mean that the feature is only useful for extensions
They're talking about it but to actually see the thing they're talking about you have to pay before the part of the article that links to it is clickable
or you can just google it? it's not like the source code is exclusively held by 404media and you must pay them to view it, or something. would you have the same opinion if e.g. the article was the same but just didn't link to the repo?
I think Unicode is messy and is not the best way to do i18n and m17n and l10n and a11y and many other things (although there are also problems with existing implementations that do not have to do with the character set, the character set is one of the problems), and I also think that it is not good to insist on using one character set for everything (especially if that character set is Unicode).
UTF-8, UTF-16, UTF-32, UTF-EBCDIC, etc are encodings of Unicode. EUC-JP is not an encoding of a subset of Unicode; it is an encoding of JIS, which is a different character set. The PC character set is not a subset of Unicode; it is the PC character set. Being able to be mapped to Unicode in some cases does not make it Unicode (nor does it mean that these mappings are necessarily "clean", but even if they are, that still wouldn't make non-Unicode character sets to be (subsets of, or even supersets of) Unicode).
let me guess: Advanced Protection will continue to gain features that restrict the freedom of users in the name of security and some time from now it will be mandatorily enabled for everyone. classic google!
reply