

I’m pretty neutral about the mere existence of software I’m not interested in using.
I’m pretty neutral about the mere existence of software I’m not interested in using.
Microsoft Edge was a recent surprise. It’s surprising both that Microsoft would create it and that any Linux users would run it. Since its Chromium based, there should be no need for developers to test Edge separately.
Mobile check deposit is a moderately important use case in the USA. It would be possible to do that via the web, but banks usually don’t.
Regardless, any apps refusing to run will annoy users, and they would likely blame the one brand of phone where that happens instead of the app developer or Google who actually deserve the blame.
Correct, but it is necessary to unlock the bootloader to gain root access without exploits.
Their goal is to ensure OEMs only bundle Google-approved Android for which Google charges licensing fees and which funnels users into Google services. If a phone won’t run your banking app, you probably won’t buy it.
Many devices, including Google’s own Pixel devices have user-unlockable bootloaders. No security vulnerabilities are involved in the process of gaining root access or installing a third-party Android distribution on those devices.
What’s going on here isn’t patching a vulnerability, but tightening remote attestation, a means by which a device can prove to a third party app that it is not modified. They’re selling it as “integrity” or proof that a device is “genuine”, but I see it as an invasion of user privacy.
Google can’t exactly make root access and custom ROMs easier to use in 2025.
Sure they can. They’re in a much stronger position to dictate terms to app developers than they were in 2010 when it was not yet clear there would be an Android/iOS duopoly.
They don’t want to though, because their remote attestation scheme means they can force OEMs to only bundle Google-approved Android builds that steer people to use Google services that make money for Google, and charge those OEMs licensing fees. A phone that doesn’t pass attestation isn’t commercially viable because enough important apps (often banking apps) use it.
I’ve encountered a number of outlets in American airports that should be replaced due to wear. They have very little friction on the prongs after millions of uses.
Trying to pet something I shouldn’t.
AC units do not typically pull in outside air.
Heat is bad, but the battery could be positioned below the oven. Disposable would be cheaper.
The burner valves operate mechanically. It has an additional shutoff valve that closes when there’s no electrical power. A battery backup for the igniters would be a great feature though - a Li-ion battery stored at half charge would last pretty much forever.
I encountered an infuriating example of the opposite a couple years ago: a gas stove that wouldn’t work without electricity.
A gas stove normally operates with a mechanical valve to control gas to each burner, and while modern ones have electronic igniters, it’s possible to use a match or the like instead. These assholes went out of their way to add an electronic valve that shuts it off when there’s no power. It’s probably in the name of safety, but the scenario where someone leaves the valve open without igniting the gas is possible even with power by failing to engage the igniter correctly, and gas is smelly.
I should be able to use a gas stove when there’s no electricity or the igniter is broken if I supply my own source of ignition.
For your example of a flashlight, consider one with USB charging. If the charging port or circuit fails, I should be able to easily take out the battery and charge it in another charger (Li-ion charging is pretty standardized). If the battery is dead but the USB port works, I should be able to use it as a USB-powered lamp.
I don’t like it because:
That seems likely to work.
# ls -l /dev/video0
crw-rw---- 1 system camera 81, 0 1974-07-26 10:09 /dev/video0
Android doesn’t handle users and groups like standard Linux, but the user account assigned to Termux is not a member of the camera group.
I prefer the American version of freedom of speech, which places very strict limits on the government’s ability to punish speech. Display of any flag in this way would be protected. We’re currently seeing that play out with the US president taking various actions against people who have expressed opinions he doesn’t like and getting blocked by the courts at every turn.
That said, Hezbolah is bad and Liam O’Hanna is an asshole for supporting them.
Not currently. I’d have one again under the right circumstances.
Hydroplaning on a motorcycle
That’s a little less surprising to me. Organizations are likely to pick competing communication software if Teams is not available to everyone. Web browsers are generally interoperable after Microsoft lost the war to popularize one that wasn’t.