Pika

I’m all some Debian dereritive, whether it’s Q4OS or just Debian,

my apologies, apperently I need to clarify. It’s because that’s a big overstep. There is a big difference between telling the DoD we don’t want to do buisness with you, to telling the DoT you don’t want to do buisness with them. Refusing buisness from the DoD or the Pentagon shouldn’t impact your ability to do buisness with the other branches. It’s abuse of position.

This isn’t “oh my company doesn’t want to do buisness because you won’t agree to give us the keys” this is a “ok so myself and my parent company along with any affiliates with us are not going to be doing buisness with you for not giving us the keys to the kingdom.”

That’s my mentality of it anyway, I don’t think it violates the first amendment but, but I still don’t think it’s right.

I don’t agree that the government should be able to do what they’re doing regarding the company, but I don’t understand how it’s a violation of free speech.

It seems they’re trying to clarify that AI projects are a creative project used for expression of motion. And that seems like a stretch to me? I don’t know, I don’t fully understand it.

Like I agree that they were within their rights to refuse to do business with the US government, and I don’t agree that the response to them refusing it should be the US government blacklist their company for contracts. But I don’t see how those factors make it a violation of the First Amendment.

Samsung uses a pretty standard factory reset procedure unfortunately. The A50 should be following the same reset sequence.

The reset sequence requires the phone being powered completely off, and then volume up and power on being held during the power on process. This will open the recovery/boot menu for the device. On this menu she would then have to use the volume keys to accidentally select the erase data partition or factory data wipe option, and then also confirm that same option to actually have it wipe.

The fact that she’s managed to do it 3 times now is actually impressive in a twisted way since there is like 5 separate options on that boot menu and factory data wipe isn’t until like the 4th or 5th down, and the default option on that menu is wisely reboot.

I can’t really give you a very good alternative because that same process is usually fairly universal across all android devices. Outside of corporate controlled devices or custom implementations, most are going to use the hold volume up to access recovery menu shortcut which will allow for a factory reset.

I would like to know the percentage between if they break the law and regardless if they break the law

I was meaning more of their Android by default phones, like most retailers are going to only sell the android version

they specify the grapheneos devices so I’m assuming they have a dedicated graphene OS product line.

is this only on their graphine devices? or are they leaving their android stock devices unlockable as well

deleted by creator

I feel like it’s mostly temperature. I expect that they want to continue using untreated water to be able to have cooler temperature. That way they’re not having to spend money and time cooling their coolant down.

That’s my expectation anyway.

Reading the datasheet that someone else posted earlier on, it seems like that’s the case while they’re going to be doing temperature control. They’re making sure that the temperature stays within the criteria that they currently are required to do. And as such, means that they’re not having too cool it as much.

I lack the use case for this service but, it looks good on paper. Nice!

If I understand the project right, this would be a great opening for non-profit communities to make a page for the town and add the services, instead of the typical static pages

Basically many domain providers will hold onto domains for a little while after it expires.

Some like namecheap also advertise the domain names to peddle-man companies that will somehow buy temporary access to the domain after your extortion recall window expires.

To continue the namecheap example, when your namecheap domain expires, it gives you a lapse window where you can pay like double the cost of the domain renewal to reclaim it. If you don’t reclaim it during that window they give it to a middleman whom will somehow buy a 2 or 3 months domain lease for it. They will put it on a “site for sale” broker page and will charge you easily 100x what you paid for the domain if you wanted it back.

I would recommend just keep checking on it every few days to see if it gets released.

I have the docket link which is here but its a mess because the original case was dismissed back in 2021, but then amended and merged to contain a larger case.

I used to have the actual document number somewhere if i can find it I will let you know as well. Sadly when the case started getting media attention valve started filing for seal motions on newer evidence, but I don’t /think/ they retroactively sealed anything.

The case is well worth a read, the intent on it is of course valves potential monopoly on video game storefront but it goes into detail about other providers as well. It aims to focus on the valve 30% cut system they use and whether valve uses their market position to abuse or not. I don’t personally think they do, because I feel their choices are fair in a business mentality, but it’s cool reading about others POV’s on it.

The Wolfire versus Valve antitrust case.

They submitted evidence of email chains from Valve customer support stating that they want Valve to have the best deal available and that they will not choose to do business with companies that do not give them the best deal.

On top of that, they also went on record stating that the steam product key page under the Steamworks area is meant to be intended for all products on Steam, not just keys.

It’s a textbook example of, hey look, this is our policy that’s written down, but we don’t actually follow it.

I just want to add in that what Valve has as official policy and what they actually practice differ in this case. Because yes, their policy states it’s for keys only. However, they have admitted in court that if the publisher has it as a cheaper price elsewhere, they will delist your game

Honestly, swap background play out for queuing, and I would up dove on that so fast.

Makes no sense to give background play without music capability. and I have to admit the mobile queuing system is a godsend to the mobile YouTube experience.

I believe they are talking about this.

If you have it at all exposed to the internet, you should probally terminate it

As a summery: Multiple endpoints on the software don’t check for authentication and an unauthenticated person can retrieve your complete settings configuration including your API keys and your password and also change your current configuration, Just by sending a simple POST request.

That’s wild to me that that was something that was able to be done.

So I get what you’re going at, but I did want to add that secure boot doesn’t require Windows 11. And that the main issue with Battlefield 6 isn’t the fact that it has secure boot enabled because you can use Battlefield 6 on Linux with secure boot. The issue is it won’t pass the anti-cheat, which is Javolin if I remember correctly, breaks itself when in a Proton environment.

Being said, I don’t think secure boot is the threat everyone thinks it is. Microsoft was originally not going to let alternative platforms be allowed on the secure boot environment. However, they started facing legal threats regarding it, including a potential ban in Australia and part of the EU stated they were looking into investigating it in regards to anti-trust, so they ended up caving to avoid having a judgment in court. I don’t foresee Microsoft going back to making it so they’re the only one allowed again,and if they do it’s almost certain they’ll be anti-trusted

I can see the concern on a Google attestion style system, but I don’t ever foresee it getting that bad because people will just not use the system. The only reason it’s working somewhat well for Google is because it’s integrated into Android as a whole and practically forced upon developers if they want to use the existing integrity systems. Being said, I’ve only ever seen it in banking apps. I don’t think I’ve ever seen it on a website to website basis.

Before I go full tin foil hat on this theory, I want to know how they plan on making it so the signal is sent client side without the client being able to fake the signal.

Like, this sounds like something that any type of OS that allows you to install a program will be able to bypass quite easily either by always sending the adult signal or never sending the adult signal

Like reading the bill, they explicitly forbid any type of personally identifying information being transferred. It sounds like it’s just a DOB check and if you say you are > 13 or whatever age they have it as it sends a signal.

I’m happy it isn’t allowed to send PII but like at the same time, I feel like just having websites put an age check prompt up does the same thing

even then, the ruling that you show here stated that CA sided with Georgia in the case as well, they stated that future business should hold to CA’s laws due to the customer being a CA resident, but that due to the company residing in Georgia, they are not liable for past damages. It was basically a case of “we believe our law is correct but we have no jurisdiction to actually chase this and if it goes to federal court it will be tossed due to federal law favoring one party consent”

I don’t think this will matter overall. I don’t know if any states that are no party consent meaning that you can’t record ever, only one or two party consents.

The feature itself isn’t illegal, its using it when you are not supposed to that is. I assume the feature will roll out as normal and it will be up to the user to determine whether they are allowed to use it or not.