Thought Crime is serious so it should be automatically reported to the authorities, any thoughts of self harm or unaliving oneself will also be reported to the nearest health facility. In addition thinking of words that typically get people cancelled or even thinking about certain gestures will get you banned as well.
This is false, the situation in the United States has definitely been less favorable however the situation in many developing countries has gotten even worse and thus there are more people who will want to work in the US since they do not have the luxury of living
White Collar hiring and salary growth has picked up in China, India, ASEAN, etc. Living standards for the average person won't be hot, but if you are working in a STEM field you are earning on the higher end, and by mid-career you can afford to insulate yourself from some of the worst aspects living in gated communities or suburbs.
Azerbaijan might be a different story, as you guys might be getting some contagion from Turkiye and Russia's economic slowdown.
It is correct that reforms are needed. It is interesting however that this generation has the lowest mental toughness, since the standards did not necessarily increase but the people changed and could not handle the stress, wait until the tough times come.
* 25y of constant combat deployments around the world
* 2008 recession
* 2026-ish recession
* Loss of company pensions and stability
* Massive housing crisis in availability of type of homes needed, and costs - builders are only incentivized to build upper middle class+ housing in many areas
* Gig work where people are working 3 jobs with no benefits or retirement becoming more popular
* College financial cost unsustainable
* Massive increase in school and public shootings
* Covid
Any ideas of stability in US society that may have come from their parents simply do not exist anymore. The path of a middle class life for most people in the US is gone.
A gazillion more things I'm not thinking of.
I'm getting close to 50, and any time somebody talks about how "x,y,z generation is weak", not even 99% of the time, but 100% of the time, I know the person saying that is simply incompetent.
> any time somebody talks about how "x,y,z generation is weak", not even 99% of the time, but 100% of the time, I know the person saying that is simply incompetent.
Don't assume incompetence when simple malice can explain the observations... especially when the topic is a blame game.
Isn’t this list seen as reasons intentionally directed perseverance has eroded, since these events condition people to just react and survive on a shorter-term horizon? You two may be using different definitions of mental toughness. Just observing you two interact.
I mean, are you really trying to say that the 2010s were worse than the 1930s or getting drafted into armed combat in the 1910s, 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s? To me, that's just playing into the stereotype of millennials.
I didn't say anything along those lines. In fact, I want to highlight something in particular that I said that makes me wonder how much you wanted to react vs how much you actually read:
"Any ideas of stability in US society that may have come from their parents simply do not exist anymore."
I alluded to the 25 years of constant background combat deployments that most people aren't even aware of happening unless they are extremely impacted by it.
It seems like you're arguing against the statement that "This generation [which we'll assume refers to millenials] has the lowest mental toughness".
Then - again, by my reading here, so correct me if I'm misinterpreting you - you attempt to support your counterpoint with a list of events which - while certainly not great - pale, in my opinion, to the day-to-day fear of atomic war and the very real knowledge that even as things stand (e.g., without atomic war), your birthday could still be picked tomorrow, and within months you'll be shipped off to the killing fields. Simply put, it's possible for a thing to be bad, but not as-bad as another thing.
I don't think previous generations were under any illusion of societal stability, except possibly the baby boomers - and they had 'Nam, JFK/MLK, Kent State, Watergate, and COINTELPRO to snap them out of that.
Even with all the events you mention, US society is still far more stable than it was in the past. Of course, it'll seem much less stable if one only chooses to focus on the unstable, but I think it's fair to label that a you-problem.
> this generation has the lowest mental toughness, since the standards did not necessarily increase but the people changed and could not handle the stress, wait until the tough times come
A bunch of people in every generation say this.
My grandparents said it about those who got to skip growing up in the depression. Their grandparents about selling everything they owned and moving to America. Some days as I trudge through the snow to work uphill both ways I think of them.
I was searching for some ancient quotes describing the same sentiment and found a page with several quotes, including this one from Aristotle (4th century BCE):
"[Young people] are high-minded because they have not yet been humbled by life, nor have they experienced the force of circumstances.
...
They think they know everything, and are always quite sure about it."
Did the standards actually "not increased?" It is very easy to just assume younger people cant possibly have more challenges then we did. And very hard to admit when they actually face harder competition then we did.
Extremely good decision, and it is also cheap the regulatory hellfire they would need to experience to expand in europe is mediated by just purchasing a European company there. This is the best strategy for any US company wanted to either start or expand in Europe, just outright buy a European business there and don't change logos or marketing material to signal that it is actually owned by an American company to appeal to EU customers. Many European companies are actually being owned by US companies and Americans via trust and off shore shells, also as the European Upper Class goes to study and settle in the US their inheritance becomes American in that the proceeds will go to the IRS. Europe is increasingly being owned by American despite what seems to be happening with sentiments now, people do not realize that the actual military arm of NATO is controlled by a US 4 star general the communications network and missile defense system of NATO is under US control.
well it may seem like it but they don't pay taxes to the US Federal Government and NATO is good for the US to offload the costs while maintaining control over the military equipment.
Some of you maybe thinking why would the German BND help the NSA without the German Governments Knowledge? The answer is not CLASSIFIED, it could be:
1) The NSA can do it themselves but they are asking for it for convenience
2) There is a lot of intelligence sharing among the agencies and they can cut them off easily
they don't understand, it's as if they don't want to understand even statements like the US going out of NATO tell you they do not know how much of NATO the US really controls the military decision maker is a 4 star US General, most of the missile systems and RADARs are under US control all the communication system of NATO is under US Control, without the US it would be scattered military units and a considerable number of EU made equipment with a lot of US made Equipment in different countries.
Of course, even Europe cannot launch cheaply anymore. Arianespace is crawling to space; they are left for dead. The only serious players are the US and China. It's reached a point where it has become like trying to manufacture a state-of-the-art 5nm chip in a developing nation: possible, but at an absurd cost. You might achieve an initial parametric yield of only 10%, meaning only a tiny fraction of the chips coming off the line meet the basic electrical specifications. Even then, the functional yield (the percentage that actually performs the intended computation correctly at the target speed) might be even lower, say 5%. You'd be throwing away 95 out of every 100 chips, and the cost per usable die would be astronomical due to the sheer expense of acquiring and maintaining the lithography equipment, cleanroom facilities, and specialized expertise – resources that are heavily concentrated in a few leading nations and require years, if not decades, to build from scratch.
SpaceX didn't spend an absurd amount of money getting Falcon 9 to where it is. It was a lot, but pretty typical, even somewhat cheap, for developing a brand new rocket. Repeating their feat should be even cheaper, since you won't be taking detours trying out parachutes and such before settling on the final architecture. It's a relatively straightforward application of known technology, not bleeding edge stuff like 5nm chip making.
An organization that can produce Ariane 6 should be able to produce a Falcon 9 clone with similar effort. The real problem is overcoming the of the old, slow, expensive way of doing things.
Don't get me wrong, that problem of overcoming the old, slow, expensive way of doing things is huge for any established launch organization. I don't expect Airbus or ULA to get there. But it's not because the technology is so difficult that they can't do it. A new rocket company with a couple billion dollars in funding would have a good chance.
Note that in doing so, they'd be reaching where SpaceX was a decade ago, and by the time they got there, it seems pretty likely that full reusability will be working a year or so from now, at least for basic earth-orbit flights.
The old slow way of doing things is deeply embedded in the organizational DNA of Arianespace (and ULA.). It would actually be easier for a brand new company to do it than one of these legacy behemoths (particularly Arianespace, which is dragged down by the international way in which they build.)
Arianespace is so thoroughly broken that they genuinely believed that reusability, if they could even accomplish it, would be bad for their business because it would reduce the number of rockets they build. Bonkers.
Funnily enough the European Launcher Challenge just dropped recently, supposed to be modelled on NASA's procurement process that ultimately lead to SpaceX being a thing. But the EUR169m contracts aren't likely to get you a Falcon 9 clone, and there isn't exactly a ton of private capital for newspace sloshing around in Europe
If anything Europe has the opposite problem: the launch startups are all far too small to do anything on a Falcon 9 scale. SpaceX did't get to Falcon 9 early either. Sure, Arianespace probably could build a Falcon 9 clone, but it's not something they'd want to self fund, and there's quite a few ESA members that don't want to see most of their budget contributions go to funding the development of a foreign launch monopolist...
> SpaceX didn't spend an absurd amount of money getting Falcon 9 to where it is
That's part of the genius of SpaceX's approach, which culminated in achieving what no one else has achieved on a comparatively shoestring budget.
Credit where it's due: Elon Musk (a) comprehended enough of the technical challenge to ask great questions (and see through BS answers), (b) set and maintained a ruthlessly efficient operational vision, (c) repeatedly took existential financial risks to achieve the next milestone, and (d) set a company vision that motivated people to work extremely hard to achieve what was previously impossible, and (e) worked his butt off solving problem after problem alongside employees.
Love or hate him, very few leaders have ever existed who led companies to accomplish similar feats.
Building rockets as cheaply as they did is the impressive part.
The EU can certainly throw money at the problem but that doesn’t necessarily manifest cheap rockets. It’s a product of leadership and culture. My experience with the EU is one of a top heavy bureaucracy that’s not overly conducive to this type of cowboy rocketry. Consider the absence of an EU version of Silicon Valley, it’s just computers and with the internet people can program from anywhere…
Luckily for you, the linked site has upcoming schedules to trivially look this up. India has 6 launches upcoming in 2025, Rosskosmos has 8 and Russian military has one more. So Russia is launching 50% more than India in 2025.
Money doesn't change hands for Russia launching astronauts or NASA launching cosmonauts. They're basically bartering for the sake of knowing the station will be manned even if one side gets grounded.
"Money doesn't change hands for Russia launching astronauts or NASA launching cosmonauts"
did you see my parent comment or not??? I am not trying to question their ability for them get to space, it doesn't matter if you CAN go to space but you didn't have money for it
its clear that NASA and Roscosmos collaboration days is numbered and would not continue in the future because geo politic
And Isar Aerospace is also European and is set to launch tomorrow (although they seem to think it will explode at some point). But I don’t know if they will be particularly cheap.
I hope they make it closed source and make us much money out of it as possible for shareholders that is their job and their duty, why are they giving this away for free they have already captured market share by claiming opensource and building a community now all they have to do is make it proprietary and the old opensource version slowly wither and become unstable, then they can charge money for the operating system just like mircrosoft but this time on phone millions and billions of phones, $$$$$. /S (I obviously do not agree with this)
As much as I - a Pixel 7 (GrapheneOS) user - would hate that, doing so would essentially put Android on equal footing as iOS and would give me a serious reason to consider switching to an iPhone. Apple's hardware is just so much sleeker, faster, and better than Google's mediocre Pixel line.
They are completely different. One of them lets you have the sexy blue text boxes in iPhone group chats, and the other makes everyone see you with the green box of shame.
Unless you live outside of the US in which nobody gives a damn and they all use WhatsApp. After moving, I only get sms messages from the doctors office and my friends back in America.
They've got a billion-strong userbase and yet the Android app still dumped literally every attachment I received into my camera roll until I manually added '.nomedia' files in the right places.
And, oh man, the API for businesses is a Kafkaesque nightmare. Maybe it was good before it got Zucked, but I had to fight with their support for over a week to get an automated ban-hammer overturned... only for it to get auto-banned again two days later. We hadn't even deployed the damn thing yet!
Every Android "gallery"-type app I've ever used defaults to a view that mixes together every known album/folder on the device.
That works fine (and is in fact easier than remembering the exact album) when I get to pick and choose exactly what I photograph/save, but it became borderline unusable once WhatsApp started vomiting hundreds of stupid GIFs and throwaway screenshots into it.
If by most you mean 50% then sure. But the other 50% countries prefer to use different app. Be it Facebook Messenger or Telegram... In my eu country nobody has WhatsApp and its not uncommon. Network effects are at play so it's what became popular first.
I appreciate that I was a bit too confrontational in my first reply and should have just added that WeChat, Line and Telegram are also used (plus many others), not just WhatsApp.
Why I think I (over) reacted is that it was, to me, an example of only partial escape from US American insularity. They understood that ppl outside the USA don't use SMS much, but only suggested a US American messaging platform as what was used instead.
Not true at all. This effect is pretty common in countries outside of US. It makes sense. WhatsApp is just another messaging app thats popular depending on a local whim. Where as iMessages get sent automatically between iOS users.
On [1], If you only look at countries with decent GDP per Capita. iOS will have anywhere from 40 to 65% market share. Even in China iOS is well over 30%.
When you consider Africa + ASEAN + India has 3.5B population and has very low iPhone market share that sort of Skew the figures.
Because it doesn't show an accurate representation. iOS is growing at a faster rate than ever before in developing countries, Apple achieved 11% shipment market share for the first time in India in Q424.
I'm sure there are dozens of people in Germany who actively prefer iMessage but I haven't met one yet. Whatsapp achieved pretty much total market capture here back when SMS still were costly and the network effects that arose from that are among the strongest I've ever seen. I'm pretty sure if someone was to do a survey, almost everyone would say Messages is for SMS only and I think most of them wouldn't know it can do more than that.
Yet i write with most of my German friends using iMessages because its automatic and i dont have Telegram or WhatsApp because nobody uses it in my european country.
I didnt say this is so prevalent. Just that it exists.
My experience from few european countries is that middle class - tech/business/law people have iOS. Go to tech or business conference and its all iphones.
So its really easy to be in such circles. I live in EU country and its all iMessage or Signal. Nobody uses WhatsApp if something its Facebook Messenger or Instagram messages.
In my understanding, animations cannot be fully disabled on iOS (please tell me if I am wrong) while they can on Android. This leads to much better usability since you don't have to wait after every interaction.
I play videogames and I can tell the difference between 60 and 120herz screen. Always amused me that a so called premium device had worse hardware than a flagship killer.
Apple apparently finally caught up with their latest phone?
Almost anyone can tell the difference between 60 and 120 Hz.
Seriously, if you haven't upgraded your desktop PC to a higher refresh rate screen yet: It's the biggest "feels like a new computer!" upgrade since we swapped HDDs for SSDs and the days when your new CPU was 2.5x as fast as the old one. There is no turning back after having experienced the buttery smoothness, and the impact is IMHO higher during regular usage than during games.
I upgraded to 144 hz on my primary monitor in 2016 and it's absolutely noticeable and makes things feel so smooth.
Last week I went to 240 hz and while it's noticeably even smoother, it wasn't nearly the upgrade, so there's certainly diminishing returns. Though I did go from IPS to OLED and THAT is really nice.
This is usually the point where someone will chime in and say something dumb like "The human eye can't see more than X frames per second" which is just hogwash. It's not about individual frames, but the fluidity of motion. At 60 fps, an object moving across the screen is moving 4x as many pixels per frame as 240 fps. When you get used to 240 fps, 60 fps feels like it's strobing.
I recently bought a 240 Hz OLED monitor as well, but to my dismay the 80 Gbps data rate mode is actually optional in DisplayPort 2.1a. Even though I have a DP2.1-capable GPU (9070 XT) and monitor, it's not possible to do 4k 10bit HDR at 240 Hz with DSC off. Since I don't want compression to be on I've compromised to sticking with 180 Hz, which as you say due to the diminishing returns above 120 is still plenty.
Still quite frustrating that the display industry did it again in specifying a standard that makes most of what's interesting about it optional, so everyone can print it on their boxes without delivering the expected value.
Psychology more than anything, to be honest. I know it's supposed to be visually lossless, but it does touch and nudge many pixels, and I just want the raw image. I do dabble in graphics and UI frontend at times, and I don't want to take chances. It's something that spending a little more time digging into the algorithmic details of DSC might address for me, but I haven't so far.
DSC has Rate Control, so the very minimal compression needed to go from from 180 Hz to 240 Hz will be negligible except in artificial scenarios like random noise. DSC is intended to be visually lossless up to 3x compression levels.
Meh, I turned back. While 120+hz is nice, there are more compelling attributes of a monitor that I wouldn't compromise on in the name of refresh rate. Aspect ratio, size, resolution, picture quality, and viewing angles are all things I personally value more than refresh rate. If I could get my exact monitor that quite nicely meets all of those criteria, but with 120+hz, I still wouldn't value it so highly that I'd pay more than $500 to replace it, but I would pick it over 60hz if needing a new screen and everything else was already matched or better.
It's an impactful and noticeable upgrade in addition to everything else being awesome, but for me it doesn't come close to being the the most important. If all else was equal or better, and I had to pick between 6k resolution or high refresh rate, I'd have a hard time picking refresh rate, but I'd prefer both.
High refresh on its own is not enough to constitute a better screen. While Apple could certainly stand to bump the minimum refresh rate to 120hz across the board, I wouldn’t want that to come at the expense of the other more important specs as has been common outside of the Apple sphere, particularly on budget devices. If one has to choose, a color accurate screen is preferable to a fast but less accurate one in most circumstances for instance.
Apple phones have had ~120hz screens for many years now. Only on the Pro models though, not the cut down economy models, that’s how they force people with disposable income to buy the Pro.
The camera - the only reason I would buy an iPhone is for the better camera.
Sure, the Pixel 8a camera is not bad for the price but it's still noticeably worse. The kind of difference you notice when someone with an iPhone shares photos with you.
Apps and the whole phone experience are a sh*tshow on both sides and I hate both with a passion. I'm still waiting for a decent linux experience on a phone - possibly with stupid banking apps support.
I'm in a similar spot. There are a few pixel exclusive features that I would certainly miss but I spent a few decades not having a personal assistant robot screen my calls and texts, I can survive without it in the future.
Tasker used to be in a class of its own but I believe shortcuts is now as powerful and it even has a user experience that isn't hostile! That might be a net benefit...
I hate the iOS keyboard and method of text selection but I could adopt.
I'll have to re buy some apps or find alternatives but that's not an impossible hill to climb.
The biggest pain points are file management and notifications. Having spent a decade plus on a blackberry before going Android full-time, neither dominant platform is even close to good with respect to notifications but Android is far less crappy than iOS.
File management is probably a deal breaker. Every time I have to download a file on my iPad and try to use it in another app or even just get it off the damn thing, I spend 5 minutes swearing before I just give up and attach the file to an email and then go to a PC to pull the file out of the draft folder...
my chief grief with Apple is the same as yours, I solve it by using a home server w/ self hosted pwas to do everything this pocketable "computer" should be able to do. Sometimes I wonder about flying to the EU to reactivate my phone there if that's possible but knowing Apple there'll be some terrifying kafkaesque twist
> Sometimes I wonder about flying to the EU to reactivate my phone there if that's possible but knowing Apple there'll be some terrifying kafkaesque twist
IIRC you needed to be like in the region like every 30 days, else it updates to your current location (but don't quote me on it, I might be really misremembering the company/product)
It’s important to compare apples to apples. Certain phone models have different CPU’s etc. I’d love to see a benchmark of iPhone 16 Pro Max vs Pixel’s top of the line model.
It's not going to be possible because Apple hasn't come out with an equivalent to Gemini. It would be like if Siri also had full LLM conversation capabilities, and access to all your documents/email/etc, and direct integration to run web searches, analyze web pages, etc. And it's fast enough to have a real-time conversation[1], as if you were speaking to a human on the phone. Oh, and that's on my Pixel 7, which is two years behind.
> doing so would essentially put Android on equal footing as iOS
No it wouldn't. Google as an org is bad at product and the fact AOSP exists is not why.
I've built AOSP based products multiple times over the years, and closed source Google Play Services has spent years picking off ever increasing swaths of the user-facing functionality covered by AOSP. I mean the writing was on the wall with Doze, but we don't even have a calculator anymore last I checked.
Google just can't make good products like Apple can.
Apple's worst products come from moments where they act like Google (becoming developer driven with weak top down direction), and vice versa. Fortunately for iOS users, neither org defaults to acting like the other.
The Pixel line has never, IMO, been the best hardware in the Android ecosystem. It might be the best hardware/software combo, but Samsung's hardware has always seemed better.
Pixel 7, or any android in that era would definitely be slower than iPhone. ( Google Pixel itself uses mediocre SoC ) But the recent ones are catching up fast and latest Samsung is Snapdragon Elite is actually faster than iOS.
I think that is partly because Google had to optimise the hell out of its software due to slower CPU performance. And partly just Apple's iOS has fallen a lot in quality.
But they can already do that, because most people and apps (outside China and maybe some other regions) expect Google Play/Play Services to be present.
The Fire devices seem like they are on life support from a technical point of view (even if Amazon is making money from them). Their fork is really out of date.
Why would a second company freeloading kernel and services from Google change Google's OSdev roadmap? Google could just say to Meta 'fine, fork and maintain it yourself, you're a grown-up company' and continue on with whatever nefarious rug-pull closed source pivot to Fuschia gambit that they might be plotting.
I doubt at this point corps are not looking at that option. But then I don’t know what kind of contract these corps have with Google. I have worked at Samsung and they are such a large incompetent but aware software clusterfuck that they would rather want an almost readymade OS on which they will smear paint and sell. Can’t speak of other OEMs.
What apps? I think only android auto requires it. All the rest works just fine with occasional glitches.
Of course that most probably greatly depends of what kind of apps you are using but usually microG is just enough.
Many banking apps will outright refuse to run on rooted devices, much less google-free forks.
There are ways around that but those ways are unreliable and could break at any given time -- I am not risking losing the ability to pay for things online just for the sake of running an android fork. (in my country, all the banks switched to requiring 2FA from their app if you make online purchases with your visa or mastercard)
I think banks requiring you to buy hardware you don't actually own (a blessed android phone) to run software you can't control (this banking app) so you can access money you worked to make is absolutely ridiculous and dystopian. Why do you allow a bank to do this to you?
I sincerely hope there is some alternative option in your country. In mine, I can still perform banking activity by going to a physical branch, by calling in, or by using the website with a physical 2FA token (i.e. not my phone). The bank keeps trying to get me to switch over to their app but I will continue to protest this until it's no longer possible to not use an app at which point I will likely switch banks.
Right, but if Google's Android becomes closed source and a well-funded FOSS fork becomes available, that changes the situation. If Samsung, Xiaomi, Motorola, HONOR, OPPO, etc. all agree to use a new FOSS fork as their base, well Google's new closed-source Android becomes irrelevant. Samsung alone is large enough to be able to maintain a fork of Android, and a large enough percentage of the smartphone market that whatever OS it's running will be supported by banking apps.
> Samsung alone is large enough to be able to maintain a fork of Android
Samsung would rather not - they threated this card once before, while negotiating for Google to get rid of Motorola, and their bluff got called. Samsung tried to prop up Tizen as an Android alternative. Samsung since closed a number of its US OS offices - why sacrifice profits when they have a cozy arrangement: Samsung & other Android partners will continue to get the Android previews before anyone else: open source or not.
I agree with you: they'd rather not. If Google's Android became closed source to the public, but Google gave Samsung and other OEMs the right to modify it (including a hard fork later on if they desired), then I agree with you that they'd almost certainly continue with Google's Android — they'd lose nothing and eliminate future competitors.
My comment was in part addressing the higher up comments in the thread stating OEMs couldn't do a hard fork. My thoughts are that they have the marketshare that if Google's terms were bad enough, they could. They'd love to take some of the Play Store revenue, but currently dropping the Play Store would tank hardware sales as competitors would keep it. But if Google's terms were to get bad enough that multiple OEMs wanted to hard fork, that calculation could change. I don't foresee Google ever putting forth that bad of terms though, in part because of the option to hard fork.
Samsung recently deprecated their built in SMS/texting app and put an advertisement to tell us to switch for Google Messages in their app. They threw in the towel and not only will not maintain an android fork, they don't even want to maintain their own apps anymore.
In my country one bank had a 2fa app. Then they backtracked on security, but kept policy: they included the 2fa in the regular bank app. Now you don't have to use 2fa if you are using the bank app, because the bank app generates its own authorization, in the same device (app) without user interaction!
Fake admiration off. We also don't have to use any 2fa when we access banking through the website. (works on FF on Android)
That is sad. I do not have a problem with my 2 banking apps and Revolut.
But I am running MicroG version of Lineage OS.
So no google, but still works. I think this is worth a try, considering how many adds you have to see on Android running full Google (which I have just one to be able to use Android Auto inside my car).
How and why, any idea? Do they have some kind of backend check verified with Google that might return “naah, not a Googled device”? By the way which apps?
Hasn't this been the plan for like a decade now? I know some of their products run Fuchsia, like the Nest displays, but no word on main Android devices
If they did ever have such a plan, they've clearly long since abandoned it. I bet they entertained the idea at one point but it was never seriously put into action.
if it really is, they should take note of exactly what happened to Oracle when they acquired solaris and mysql and turned them into proprietary applications.
Whatever investment they had made in them literally evaporated in a week as mariadb and galera showed up. OpenIndiana basically made continued solaris development at Oracle a moot point, not that it wasnt already with Linux on the scene.
RedHat has tried something similar with CentOS, Encumbering it to try and drive sales, which backfired just as predictably. Rocky is a treat to run.
Rolling up Android into a proprietary walled garden would be a disaster. This isnt apple. What you could expect is a massive developer exodus from the open community to other friendlier projects. If your interest is western security/hegemony in technology then it would be a shame to see all that intellectual capital suddenly captured by a FOSS project from a marxist leninist country thats all too happy to give it away for free (DeepSeek anyone?)
>What you could expect is a massive developer exodus from the open community to other friendlier projects
You act as if anyone to a first approximation cares about indie developers. Most of the popular apps on Android and iOS are from the big corporations and pay to win games. They could care less about ideology.
On the other hand, this would breathe new life into the world of open source cellphone software that isn't Android. It has existed in a limbo of free and corporate for over a decade and everyone gave up on alternatives like FirefoxOS.
If you actually read the article, they explain that it isn't actually that big of change to how it was done.
" For a while now, Google has been developing most parts of Android behind closed doors in its “internal branches,” with the “AOSP branch” only having certain other aspects of Android’s framework (including Bluetooth, kernel, and some other core components). As such, it’s been quite a while since the current state of AOSP is at the same level as Google’s internal builds, leaving developers and others to wait on Google to make a public release to get all of the new changes.
With this change to move everything to its internal, private development branch, Google isn’t changing the speed at which these new builds arrive. Rather, this will potentially streamline the process and prevent conflicts when merging the branch"
Vibe coding is the future cannot wait to see vibe coded medical devices, autopilot software and other mission critical systems, it's going to be ok we will vibe code the tests as well. I will entrust the lives of my 2 daughters and 1 son to a vibe coded ml model that takes them to school.
