Android is Linux. It uses a Linux kernel paired with a BSD based user land. Also there is an AOSP version of Android which is Android without all the Google bits. LineageOS and some other security oriented firmwares derive from it. That isn't to say Google are necessarily happy about this entirely but at the same time, they open sourced most of Android and probably see it as a useful antitrust defence and the impact of flashed devices barely more than background noise.
The issue of bootloaders is an orthogonal matter since Linux or not does not mean bootloader or not - many black box devices use Linux but you won't be flashing them any time soon - TVs, set top boxes etc. I would argue that regardless of OS, there should be a right to repair law (e.g. in Europe) that allows people to maintain devices beyond their warranty. And if Samsung et al don't want to do it, then they should have an obligation to unlock devices upon request.
It's only "not obvious" if you subscribe to the same conspiracy nonsense that QAnon loons do. Trump was shot at, the bullet grazed his ear, another person was shot fatally and another two were critically injured. Trump was lucky that the assassin sucked at shooting and we're unlucky for the same reason.
Code signing offers slight protection from malware but not as you might think. If a company signs an installer, or executable then it tells you it came from them but not what it does. It could still be malicious, or it could be inadvertently bundled with malware in DLLs or scripts and you wouldn't know. You're just hoping the company has done its due diligence and you trust them to run.
Microsoft does have an antivirus system on top and fingerprints downloads too and applies some kind of trust score that is better if an exe is signed. There is probably no single mitigation that stops malware infection but apply lots of smaller mitigations in in depth and most people will be safe.
The irony is Microsoft still lets people run files ending with .scr way too easily. Much of the malware on torrent websites is a file ending with .scr knowing the OS will hide the extension, e.g. movie.mp4.scr appears as movie.mp4 in File Explorer and people click through and get infected.
It really should be a 3 level setting, disallow/allow & check/allow. Where the latter option is available but users are strongly advised to only select it if they are sure. Because I would not be surprised if a lot of sideloaded content comes from warez sites and is infested with malware so allowing & checking is still preferable and protects people to some extent.
Some people just don’t appreciate the irony of killing turtles with fish-shaped plastic, what can you do
PLA isn't food safe in 3d printing mostly because of layers on a print trap foreign material / bacteria and water can also seep into microscopic gaps into infill and it becomes a breeding ground. I doubt it would be useful for anything squeezy but it might be useful for single use forks and other utensils. But paper / wood can do those things already so I don't see PLA being much use. For sachets I expect the answer is paper with some kind of biodegradable lining which gives a product a shelf life of a few years but does degrade in time.
Also, some "biodegradable" products are only compostable in specialist facilities where it can be shredded and broken down with water / heat / pressure. I think PLA is a bit like that. If you print something out of PLA and stick it out in the garden or even toss it into a compost bin it'll still be there in 10 years although it might be faded, warped & brittle. Maybe it eventually biodegrades but it's not quick enough.
I've never seen these things before but it does seem like a waste of plastic. Even sachets of sauce shouldn't be handed out in most circumstances, at least for dine-in food in fast food places - use dispensers and paper cups. I wonder if there is a biodegradable sachet material which has a couple of years shelf life but degrades thereafter.
That's definitely part of it. International visitors have collapsed and the consequences are felt by places like Vegas. But Vegas is fucking over domestic visitors too so it gets hit twice. The value proposition has completely disappeared.
Their lawsuit will fail for the simple reason they only have to age verify UK citizens, not everyone. But it does go to show how stupid this law actually is. If the UK wanted to block 4chan (for example) to under 18s, then ISPs should provide optional filtering software with every account that can be enabled per device to do it. It would be far more effective than expecting websites around the world to police the UK's own laws.
I don't really buy the "small incompatibilities" argument. The project strives for total compatibility, even down to the most esoteric parameter that nobody has ever heard of. And even that seems like overkill to me - there are alternative implementations of core commands on Linux and other *nix systems like BSD, Solaris etc. where the compatibility is way worse. For example, busybox is used in embedded Linux, and a containerized images like Alpine Linux.
It also seems a bit rich to complain that uutils might get extended. GNU coreutils came into being because of dissatisfaction with the commands that came with the default *nix. Same for bash (vs sh), GNU cc (vs cc), GNU emacs (vs emacs) and so on. Was there somebody back then complaining about devs "spamming commits" that extended functionality?
And other Rust applications won't only work with uutils. That's absurd. They'll test the capabilities of the OS they're built to run on either at build time with feature flags or at runtime by probing commands. Just like any other high level application.
As for license, MIT is used for plenty other things in a typical Linux dist, e.g. X11.
The biggest point of concern for a Rust rewrite is dependency integrity. Rust uses cargo to manage dependencies and absolutely everything in the Cargo.toml/Cargo.lock files has to be reviewed. The crates.io repository is beginning to support package signing and The Update Framework initiative but every single dependency of uutils would need to be carefully reviewed and signature validated for it to be considered trustworthy. Basically everything needs to get locked down, and wherever possible dependencies expunged altogether.
I think the issues is that you can’t pick and choose exactly what you want in your new vehicle. You can’t say, get just a simple AM/FM radio and get bluetooth. You buy a package of accessories.
This was a Toyota RAV 4 IIRC and despite the vehicle having no subscription to this thing, it occupied the right hand side of the infotainment system and was prominent in the menus too. I had the car for nearly a month and I played around in the settings but saw no way of getting rid of it.
I don't live in the US but the last time I rented a car there the UI was festooned with functionality for Sirius XM that couldn't be removed or hidden. Not small icons, but big fucking chunks of the screen. I find this kind of thing intolerable. It's one thing to plug a service but if people don't want it, then hide it away and don't nag them about it ever again.
Someone should launch a Project Poison which offers information to websites to protect themselves from scrapers and to poison and devalue AIs and companies that ignore their restrictions. I'm sure there are plenty of ways it could be done - nonsense about niche subjects, libelous facts about celebrities and people with money, false attribution for quotes & art, images captioned with things they do not contain, offensive slurs. Just feed AIs with sufficient trash and it will output trash.
No, YOU don't understand end to end encryption, and you don't understand browsers. You say you could "write down a base64 encoded binary blob on a website". Yes you could and how do you decrypt it? The asnwer is with a key (asymmetric or symmetric) that the recipient must have in memory of the receiving software - the browser that the filter has already intercepted and compromised. So "moar layers" is not protection since the filter could inject any JS it likes to reveal the inner key and/or conversation. It could do this ad nauseum and the only protection is how determined the filter is.
But this is also a nonsense argument just on a practical level. The problem is kids connecting to adult websites, or websites with some adult content. The filter doesn't need to do much - either block a domain outright, or do some DPI to determine from the path what part of the website the browser is calling. The government thinks it reasonable that every single website that potentially hosts adult content should capture proof of identity of adults. I contend that really the issue is kids having access to those websites at all, and that proxies can and would be a far more effective way to control the issue without imposing on adults. No solution is perfect, but a filter is a far more effective way than entrusting some random website with personal information. Only this week somebody found an app that was storing ids in a public S3 bucket compromising all those users. Multiply that by hundreds, thousands of websites all needing verification and this will not be the last compromise by any means.
Or the terrifyingly-random bullshit that happens when someone chooses to depend on a free service such as Hotmail as their primary mission-critical address. (This article is about the developer getting locked out of their Hotmail, and the generally-broken state of Hotmail’s account recovery process.)
That could be it. What is certain is that these big corps really don't want to pay human beings to sort out issues so if you get caught in the middle of some BS you may have no recourse out of it.
I honestly do not know what you are saying. Deep packet inspection through a firewall that does mitm interception demonstrably happens. It is not up for debate.
Wait... they opened it so they can close it?