>You lose 20% of capacity in a year if you have 100% state of charge but only 6% loss of capacity at refrigerator temperatures.
Source? The common figure for smartphone batteries is "at least 80% capacity after 2 years", and that presumably includes cycles, not just leaving it charged.
From the article, Table 3: 100% SoC @ 25°C leaves only 80% of the original capacity after a year.
It's easy to look at that table and think that it's remaining charge after a year; it's not. It's lost capacity.
This is known in the industry as "calendar aging". So far as I know, stockpiles of lithium ion batteries are stored at a relatively low state of charge and in a cold environment for this reason among others. It's common to order a laptop battery or similar and get a unit that was manufactured a year back. It would be terrible to get a new battery that already had diminished capacity, which is what would happen if you stored them in a non-conditioned warehouse in a hot climate.
Otherwise you're proving his point, which is that there's no middle ground, only "ICE raids terrorizing people" and "sanctuary cities/states where local governments refuse to do any sort of immigration enforcement and specifically turn a blind eye to immigration status".
Yes, well I don't think we should deport people and I think immigrants improve the US, so I would be in the latter category. He's "waiting to hear of alternatives that don't involve deporting illegal immigrants", and I have one: don't deport anyone.
Even without getting into a debate of whether we should do immigration enforcement at all (a sibling reply goes into it in better detail), there's the practical effect that most people do, and if Democrats don't oblige, people like Trump will get in power instead.
I think the Democrats are also culpable for supporting anti-immigrant policy and sentiment. I absolutely believe that I'm in the minority, as this country has a deep history in racial bias (in fact, it was founded on that).
The question is about deporting illegal immigrants specifically, i.e. people who are in a country in violated of its immigration laws.
I think the main benefit is the same as with any law: if you have a law with no consequences for the people who break it, you don’t really have a law. If we don’t have immigration laws, we have an open border and with an open border, we can’t regulate the rate at which people enter the country. This rate can easily exceed the amount that the country reasonably accommodate, which negative impact on housing, healthcare, welfare, transportation, civic cohesion, and education systems.
Immigration law is standard around the world, with deportation being the standard response to people who violate that law. The more interesting question here is how you think a modern country will function and continue serving the needs of its citizens when it stops enforcing its immigration laws.
What if a law only has consequences for the people it's intended for?
Let's say you have a requirement that all TVs should be registered, so you can make sure every TV owner has a TV licence. You find an unregistered TV, but the owner has a TV licence. Does it make sense to confiscate the TV? What purpose would that serve?
Let's say you have a law that all people entering a country must be scrutinized to ensure no serial killers get in. You find a guy who hasn't been scrutinized, but he's not a serial killer. Does it make sense to confiscate the guy? What purpose would that serve?
>Let's say you have a law that all people entering a country must be scrutinized to ensure no serial killers get in. You find a guy who hasn't been scrutinized, but he's not a serial killer. Does it make sense to confiscate the guy? What purpose would that serve?
To ensure that people go through the checkpoint in the first place? For instance, the point of airport security checkpoints is to make sure that no terrorists get on planes, but if there's no penalty for you jumping the fence, why would people even bother going through the checkpoint?
And all of this is ignoring the other purposes of immigration policy, eg. preserving jobs or whatever.
So the is implication is that we should get rid of airport checkpoints, because our actual goal is to catch terrorists? What about speed enforcement cameras? The law might be that you drive 20 in a school zone, but isn't our goal to actually stop dangerous drivers? Actually, why even bother stopping dangerous drivers? The actual thing we care about is stopping accidents. If you're doing street racing at 4am, who's going to get hit?
So what are you trying to imply then? As we seen with airport checkpoints and speeding cameras, it's clearly okay to punish behaviors that aren't directly harmful, so why is it so baffling for you that Americans want enforcement actions against people who entered the country illegally?
> I think the main benefit is the same as with any law: if you have a law with no consequences for the people who break it, you don’t really have a law.
How do you feel about ICE raiding citizens homes without warrants? How about door to door raids?
If ICE cannot even follow the 4th and 5th amendments then they should be jailed themselves.
Boss, they already require judicial warrants. They're blatantly violating constitutional rights. Do you think we have constitutional rights or not? Do we have laws or not?
Great, since we are all in agreement, let's see if we can put it clear terms.
Administrative warrants are civil in nature and do not give authority to enter a house or any private space. Using them as such is in violation of the fourth amendment.
>Sideloading is a neologism to scare users and lawmakers, it just means "Installing software" and should be a basic right.
No it's not. The term originated far before this debacle, and carries a meaningful distinction than just "installing". Specifically it means installing from a non-first party source. You might not agree the restriction should exist, or that even the concept of first party source at all, but for communication purposes it's worth having a simple word to describe that concept, rather than something like "installing from a non-first party app store".
>No it's not. The term originated far before this debacle, and carries a meaningful distinction than just "installing". Specifically it means installing from a non-first party source
It's amazing how many confidently wrong people are springing up out of the wordwork to present revisionist history about the meaning of "install" like it's ancient wisdom. Pre-mobile computing treated "install" as neutral and primary and had no built in relation to centralized distribution. Sideloading as a term of art originally, in practice came into usage for transferring media to devices, and some cloud file hosts briefly used it to mean load a file to an online drive without downloading it to computer. It's usage was varied, irregular, and not at any threshold of popular acceptance for one meaning or another.
Windows, Dos, Linux, and online self-hosted services had no notion of "sideloading", or at least no usage of that vocabulary and did not use this notion of "install" that is now being retrospectively declared a longstanding historical norm. Even now, that's not a term used in Windows or Linux. Even Apple, who very much in practice utilize this controlled distribution model but even they don't use this sideloading/installing verbal distinction. In Apple's lexicon installing is neutral with respect to where an app comes from.
So it's staggering to see a specific term of art that deviates from historical precedent that only is used in an Android context and only relatively recently in the history of computing be referred to as if its observing a longstanding precedent across all of computing. It's nothing of the sort.
>So it's staggering to see a specific term of art that deviates from historical precedent that only is used in an Android context and only relatively recently in the history of computing be referred to as if its observing a longstanding precedent across all of computing. It's nothing of the sort.
None of that refutes anything I said. You're basically arguing "back in the good old days, all installs were not from first party source and there was no distinction", but that doesn't mean no such distinction exists right now. Otherwise it's like arguing "immigration" is some "neologism" because back before the advent of the nation state, people just moved wherever, there wasn't random lines that turned "moving" to "immigration", and the word "immigration" is coined by statists that want to impose their worldview on the populace.
>but that doesn't mean no such distinction exists right now
A distinction only exists if people parrot the verbiage coined by corporations with a business interest in creating artificial moats. They have no obligation to, especially media outlets who have the right (and IMO responsibility) to use accurate vocabulary.
>How is that different from "installing software"?
It's easy to see this play out if try to replace "sideloading" with "installing software". If you apply it to OP's headline of
>Google confirms 'high-friction' sideloading flow is coming to Android
You get
>Google confirms 'high-friction' installing software flow is coming to Android
which isn't at all accurate. You still need the distinct concept of "installing software not from first party sources", otherwise it sounds like google is making it a pain to install all apps, which isn't the case.
Sure, you could argue it helps to express a distinction but that doesn't mean it has to live inside the verb install. Historically installing software was the general act and provenance was handled with qualifiers eg installing from "third-party sources", "manual install" etc. Android is alone among computing platforms in collapsing that qualifier into a new term that implicitly recenters the Play Store as the default meaning of "install."
In other ecosystems the store path is described as "store install" not the other way around. Android chose the inverse framing and that choice isn't neutral.
>Sure, you could argue it helps to express a distinction but that doesn't mean it has to live inside the verb install.
Right, which is why they used "sideload".
>In other ecosystems the store path is described as "store install" not the other way around. Android chose the inverse framing and that choice isn't neutral.
No, this is just being non-neutral in the opposite direction. Given the fact that installing from the play store is the default experience for the overwhelming majority of the user, calling it "store install" is even more obtuse.
"That’s why they used sideload" is exactly the point being contested. Historically, install was the unmarked, neutral verb for adding software, regardless of source. The distinction, when needed, lived in qualifiers about provenance. Introducing a new verb for non-store installs does more than merely describe a difference, it reassigns conceptual ownership of "install" to the store path.
And neutrality here isn't about mirroring current usage frequency (which is unique to Android and recent relative to the history of computing), it's about continuity with prior computing norms. Even when one distribution path dominated in practice, it didn't get to redefine the base verb.
> Specifically it means installing from a non-first party source
What "first-party" source? Apple invented out of thin air the notion of a "first-party" software source or that computer users can only install software approved by a central authority.
The idea the manufacturer of a product is a "first party" is BS.
You are the first party. If I own the device, I am the first party.
The manufacturer is now a second or third party after you own the device, and for most ideas, a third party, especially if they don't truly offer real support of the device.
Exactly. I'm sick and tired of all the apps/websites that mandate 2fa. All of that adds friction when I'm a big boy who knows how to choose secure passwords. For that matter, why even invest resources into fraud detection or law enforcement? All of that money is coming out of somewhere, and why should my tax dollars go toward catching fake nigerian princes when it's just helping idiots anyways?
I'm sympathetic to that argument, but to invoke it you have to argue why the anti-fraud measures outweigh the benefits, not just drop a link to it. Moreover that's giving too much credit to the OP, who doesn't even recognize there's some sort of a trade-off, only that "fool and their money is soon departed".
Everyone I know on iOS just uses Messages, they don’t feel a need for other apps.
People on Android I’ve run into seem to have a half dozen apps and use anything but the built in messaging.
A few months ago while on a trip I ran into an older couple that wanted some picture I took in a place they weren’t physically up to going. They were not tech savvy at all. Had they been on iOS, they would have just been using Messages and it would have been easy. They had Android, and the guy opened about 5 or 6 different messaging apps, not really knowing what any of them were, it seemed like a real mess. I sent them using Messages over RCS, assuming they’d go to Google Messages, or whatever the default equivalent standard app is for Google (they seem to have changed it a dozen times). It could be that the pictures were taking a while to send, my phone showed they sent, but he had no idea where to look or where they might have went, despite having so many messaging apps. I hope he is able to find them or they came through with a notification once he had a better single.
Having one good app that everyone uses is better than the default app being sub-par, or so constantly in flux that the users and smattered about to dozens of different apps that can’t talk to each other.
For this particular exploit, it's not really because "iOS apps are truly sandboxed", it's because iOS is more restrictive with background activity, so you you can't keep a server running in the background. If your app is in the foreground it can create a listen socket just like in android.
Color me surprised. But if you run the app using the sandboxing feature that it provides surely it will only be able to see other apps installed within that same sandbox?
What is "the sandboxing feature" you're talking about? The standard app sandbox built into android allows apps to discover each other for various purposes, and grapheneos doesn't do anything to attempt to plug this.
Apologies. I was thinking of Android user profiles which are available from mainline and (AFAIK) prevent the linked workaround from revealing any apps not installed in the same profile. So it's an example of an unfixed leak in Android but not (as I had previously implied) something that Graphene corrects.
Honestly the state of anti-fingerprinting (app, browser, and otherwise) is fairly abysmal but that's hardly limited to android or even mobile as a whole.
>Apologies. I was thinking of Android user profiles which are available from mainline and (AFAIK) prevent the linked workaround from revealing any apps not installed in the same profile.
But there's no evidence that stock android leaks apps installed across profiles? The link you provided doesn't discuss profiles at all, and stock android also has private space and work profile just like grapheneos.
> Meta devised an ingenious system (“localhost tracking”) that bypassed Android’s sandbox protections to identify you while browsing on your mobile phone — even if you used a VPN, the browser’s incognito mode, and refused or deleted cookies in every session.
That's only one example, and as I explained in a sibling comment[1] doesn't even seem like something iOS designers were specifically defending against. In light of this, I think it's fair to say this example is poor and that another one is warranted. For instance, I'd consider the app tracking transparency changes to be something where iOS was doing better than Android on, but Android has since reached feature parity on that because you can delete your advertising id, which basically does the same thing.
As someone mentioned upthread, that's fine until some software you rely upon starts using something not present on older versions. It's one of the points that I keep in mind with most "what OS?" discussions, the OS by itself isn't really that useful but what it lets you do is. When win7 +3 year extended support ended that was the time chromium framework dropped support, and when projects using it updated then they would also need to drop win7 support (or "your mileage may vary" territory). I expect 2028 onwards may see another gradual win10 migration wave.
The support you're paying for is security updates against 0-day attacks. Once you stop receiving those then your machine becomes open season for botnets
By definition no support protects you from a zero day attack, A one day attack? sure if the supporting org is on their toes. Most of the time it will be weeks to months. if it is patched at all.
>A one day attack? sure if the supporting org is on their toes. Most of the time it will be weeks to months. if it is patched at all.
You should look at the CVE list that's fixed every month. Surely you agree it's important to have those exploits patched, especially since baddies can reverse engineer the patches to find the original exploits?
Yes, but they can only be analyzed, patched and distributed "After" the attack is known.
A zero day attack is where there have been zero days since the attack mechanism is discovered(by the victim, not the attacker obviously), there is no after. There is no time for a fix to be developed. When you get hit one day after the attack vector is known that would be a one day attack. if you get a fix one day after the attack that would be a one day patch. If the vulnerability gets discovered and patched before the attack occurs, then there is no zero day attack. only multi day ones on people who did not get or apply the patch.
I’m not so sure if you are using a web browser. Even the best enterprise firewall with SSL decryption and the best whizz bang features probably wouldn’t stop some novel zero day RCE. WannaCry was so bad that even WinXP and Server 2000/2003 got updates.
Microsoft security patches doesn’t protect you from doing that. Unsupported Win 10 behind firewall is perfectly fine, as long as you use an updated browser
Even that won't last forever. Notably, Edge is only guaranteeing updates until October 2028 [1], coinciding with the end of Windows 10's 3-year ESU period. Previously, Chromium ended support for Windows 7 at the end of its ESU period (which was also the end of support for Windows 8.1) [2]. However, Firefox continues to support Windows 7/8.1 by providing security updates for an older ESR version of Firefox 115; they appear to be re-evaluating whether to continue support every 6 months, currently set to end in March 2026.
>2. Elon's Trillion Dollar Payout is tied to a certain number of FSD Subscriptions.
That wording is misleading because so far as I can tell, that payout is in tranches, and the FSD subscriptions milestone is only tied to one of the tranches. Therefore it's not as if 1 trillion dollars is riding on whether he gets enough FSD subscriptions, only 1/12th of that.
Source? The common figure for smartphone batteries is "at least 80% capacity after 2 years", and that presumably includes cycles, not just leaving it charged.
reply