I'm not sure that is true. It is true that you don't get aliased by the NAT, but one of the features of IPv6 is that you don't have to stick to a single address. Your system can choose different source addresses for every connection if it wants to. You will of course still be on the same /64, but that is the same amount of tracking as IPv4/NAT provides.
While sibling comment is correct that the simple answer is "yes", I'd like to add that Google uses Clang as the preferred compiler for Android. There's a little bit of drift between Android's version of Linux and mainline, but the effect is still that building Linux with Cland is being extensively used and tested.
In Australia, if they had an Australian presence they couldn’t do that, but given that they don’t, and each individual is importing a device, the Australian consumer protection laws don’t apply.
Google analytics is against the law because they are American which means that they have to give up any data the us government asks of them. That’s the only illegal thing they do, and they are not better just for being American. They are better because they are better.
There is so much wrong with this. There are legal processes for the US gov't to request that data legally. Any other means of obtaining that data is illegal even if it is done by an entity within the gov't. This isn't the CCP.
Google Analytics isn't better at anything other than their marketing has convinced everyone that it is a must have. If you believe 100% of the data from GA is accurate, then I have a bridge to sell you.
Giving EU customer data to the US government is literally illegal for a company. There's not any process that somehow makes it legal without the collaboration of an EU member state.
The problem is that companies with a presence in the US can be forced to break the law of either the US or the EU. It's illegal to hand over the information to the US government, but it might also be illegal not to.
How does that work exactly if there is no international branch of a company in the EU? If a company is online with a presence large enough to attract European visitors, are they required to open an office in the EU? If not, are they supposed firewall visitors? That's assinine sounding.
Do you mean, who's stopping them from not collecting personal data? No one, that's the point. If you're not collecting personal data none of this applies and you can serve whatever you want to people in the EU.
If you mean, who is stopping them from handing over data to the US government? That's exactly what this court case is about. They can't conduct commerce in the EU unless they have a mechanism to avoid that, and progressively more strict enforcement gets imposed by courts if they keep trying. (Eventually, presumably being detained if they try to enter an EU country, though I seriously doubt it would escalate that far in practice.)
If you have no business in a country then its laws don't apply to you. Google & others specifically break EU law because they have offices and branches across EU yet wipe their asses with consumer/privacy protections.
It depends. Based on your description, it sounds like the company in question wouldn't actually be subject to the GDPR. Simply attracting European visitors isn't sufficient; you have to be clearly intending to offer goods or services to those visitors. What that constitutes isn't black and white, but stuff like providing EU contact details on your website or specifically advertising to EU subjects might count.
Those are consent popups, not cookie popups, and no they’re probably not. (There needs to be a “Reject” option.) But the larger issues with bigger players get pursued first.
Not only there needs to be a reject option, but it must be the same size, weight and color so as not to influence the decision of the user. And be truthful, in most cases there should not be a banner at all: 99% of websites don't need cookies and when you do they're covered by other areas of GDPR (such as providing a requested service) which don't need explicit consent.
In all cases where you see a banner for accepting cookies, the company behind it is doing something nasty to the users. (i have yet to see a counter-example to that)
No, you pretty much can't - not as an US-american company at least. That's what this problem is all about, and why the privacy shield deal between the US and the EU failed.
Google could trivially re-domicile to Ireland if they wanted to. Just do a reverse merger, and have the services within the US provided by Google LLC, which becomes a subsidiary of Google Ireland Limited.
The CPU/RAM/storage seem roughly reasonable for that price? And in general, I'd say it's only a rip-off if its price is out of line with what it costs to make or maybe if it's out of line with anything compatible, in which case it's beating everything else by virtue of 99% of phones not having its features (kill switches, nearly-mainline kernel, non-Android distro support) and what phones do compete on features lose on price (Librem 5) or specs (non-pro Pinephone).
It looks to me like his reply is based on the assumption of using it as a daily driver and yours is more focused on it as a dev device.
For me, it's not beating everything else by virtue of 99% of phones working as daily drivers out of the box. From all I've heard elsewhere, and even in comments in this thread from owners it clearly does not pass that bar.
It's never been marketed as anything but a development device. I don't think you can judge a device by holding it to a bar that it never set out to meet.
Well yes but maybe it's not so expensive if I think about it as a small desktop (and with a touch screen!) that can fit in a pocket and can be carried over between places where I have everything I need to use it. Maybe it's not even so big anymore ("160.8 x 76.6 x 11.1 mm") and so heavy ("Approx. 215 g"). Those data are from the very bottom of https://www.pine64.org/pinephonepro/
If I think about it as a phone it's heavy like a stone (hopefully everybody agrees), too large (probably I'm almost alone on this one) and too expensive.
As a smartphone I'd also have to carry with me an Android one. As they write in their page "If you depend on proprietary mainstream mobile messenger applications, banking applications, use loyalty or travel apps, consume DRM media, or play mobile video games on your fruit or Android smartphone, then the PinePhone Pro is likely not for you."
Furthermore I'm definitely not buying a phone that heavy.
Translation: "We didn't provide the necessary API support, so now we're going to whine about ad-hoc brute force solutions that developers would never have had to resort to if we'd done our jobs."
Why isn't there a function I can call that enforces full CPU power, but only while my application is running? I never wanted to change global system-level settings, but if that's the only affordance provided by the Win32 API, then so be it.
It would be nice if it were that simple. Unfortunately, power settings under Windows are incredibly (and unnecessarily) complex, and I doubt that one in twenty users even knows the options are available. Worse, the Windows power settings tend to revert magically to "energy saving" mode under various unspecified conditions. This phenomenon almost cost me an expensive session at an EMC test lab once, when data acquisition on the device under test repeatedly timed out due to CPU starvation.
It's entirely reasonable for performance-critical applications (not just games!) to be able to request maximum available performance from the hardware without resorting to stupid tricks like the measures described in this story, launching threads that do nothing but run endless loops, and so forth.
I do agree with those who point out that this should be a user-controlled option. On the application side, this could be as simple as a checkbox labeled "Enable maximum performance while running" or something similar. Ideally, the OS would then switch back to the system-level performance setting when the application terminates, rather than leaving it up to the application to do the right thing and restore it explicitly.
Sometimes those are the user’s performance settings, but more often the user has no idea what these performance settings you speak of are and they just don’t want to see your game stutter. It would be nice to be able to distinguish these cases, and this user would love if games could temporarily disable aggressive power saving automatically when I’m running a game and put it back the rest of the time.
Alternative translation: "Our documentation is weak and our engineering teams aren't held accountable for it, so we're blaming third-party developers instead of doing our jobs".
Or perhaps when i set "Disable power saving" for USB devices Windows would actually do this. It's bad to be in a Teams meeting and from time to time your USB Bluetooth adapter to be disconnected.
I think Hanlon's Razor can be applied here - i.e. never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Particularly considering his comments were just echoing all the other comments in the thread - and the message "hello there" is strange and doesn't really make sense to me (if they have the power to edit a post, they probably have the power to delete it outright, which would have been less suspicious and not generated this post).
