Titles are really a trap cannot reveal the real work, everything it's related to the size of company, type of organization and sector.
A "top" position in a small company could be a mid one in a big tech but with a narrow field compared to the small one when sometimes you need to refill the coffee machine. At same time the flexibility of small one helps to solve problems of big ones.
An alternative, open and freely accessible OS for mobile computing is always good for a healthy market.
Most of us have a limited view of the global market and don't know which areas prefer de-Googled OSs. If all of India or Africa decided to ditch Google, it would be a massive shift. We cannot forecast if the West will slowly decide to move to other solutions inspired by tech-savvy users or by becoming more privacy-conscious. It will take time, but desktop Linux is also slowly growing.
Governments that require age verification for operating systems to protect children also drop bombs on civilian neighborhoods, fight wars that orphan millions and tolerate child labor, exploitation, poverty.
History teaches us governments are the best at protecting children.
The thing that everyone here ignores is that the friction isn't just for safety. It's by design. For some reason, everyone is giving Google as much benefit of the doubt as possible. But no, they want to drive out small developers in general, and this is just one piece of the puzzle. Google has already put up unrelated barriers to publishing apps on Google Play, required every app developer to dox themselves to every user (meanwhile Apple is far more permissive and allows an opt-out for non-commercial apps), they downrank apps by small developers, use alternate UX that disincentivizes installing lesser known apps, put up big scary warnings like "This app isn't installed often" or "Fewer people engage with this app" on the pages of those apps. The only explanation is that they want more money and less upkeep and moderation with the pesky small developers, and the real money-makers are the big corporate apps. They're recreating "the rich get richer" in their microcosm.
Friction does matter. Yes, criminals will create fake accounts with stolen IDs and stolen credit cards. But creating 1,000s of these is hard. Creating polymorphic banking trojans is simple.
I don't know if this trade off is worth it, but the idea that it won't affect this abuse at all is false.
If you can convince someone over the phone to install malware thru a million "don't do this" screens, you can convince them to just give you their login credentials. Which is both easier, cheaper, and, I imagine, more effective.
Well they do both, and as I said I imagine most phishing is traditional, through the phone or email. Casting a wide net is just good business, but simply eradicating malware won't make phishing no longer possible.
And I'm being extremely generous here, because this won't erradicate malware. It will make a specific subset of malware harder to distribute. I imagine most malware is distributed through the play store, and naturally that will be unaffected.
Western memory manufacturers decided to chase the AI bubble, abandoning the consumer and low-requirement markets entirely.
Chinese manufacturers are now capturing that entire segment with full vertical integration. When this bubble stabilizes, because it will (it's not going to grow to infinite), Western companies won't recapture those markets.
They've already ceded competitive advantage for the next decade. This is a structural shift, not a cyclical shortage.
It's another step in the transformation of Western industry that began in the '80s: the shift from real economy and human-centric production to financialized operations.
You're speaking like Hetzner is raising prices to fund Nvidia-laden datacenters, while in fact they're mostly providing cheap servers and their growth is mostly happening because of US admin's insanity.
Memory is going up for everyone, dude. And the people moving to Hetzner aren't exiting US clouds to leave for chinese ones.
Not long ago, Italian Supreme Court (Cassazione, ord. 34217/2025) established a critical principle reflecting a broader trend in personal data management: the "digital image" of a person must reflect their actual current situation through complete and accurate information. The court rejected deletion but endorsed contextualization, articles must explicitly note the acquittal (assoluzione) or dismissal that concluded the investigation. An article mentioning "investigation for [crime]" without noting "subsequently acquitted" is factually incomplete, therefore false.
This principle applies directly to search engines and data processors. When Courtsdesk was deleted before reaching AI companies, the government recognized the constraint: AI systems can't apply this "completeness" standard. They preserve raw archives without contextual updates. They can't distinguish between "investigato" (under investigation) and "assolto" (aquitted). They can't enforce the court's requirement that information must be "correttamente aggiornata con la notizia dell'esito favorevole" (properly updated to reflect the favorable resolution of the proceedings).
The UK government prevented the structural violation the Cassazione just identified: permanent archival of incomplete truth. This isn't about suppressing information, it's about refusing to embed factually false contexts into systems designed for eternity.
I wonder if the bow drill principle for boring holes evolved from fire-starting techniques, where the same reciprocal motion was already understood and mastered in that years.
Just speculation, but it suggests how practical problem-solving builds on existing techniques rather than appearing fully formed.
Given that humans must have "always" known that carving a hole in something is easier if you use your wrist to reciprocally rotate the tool, I'd be inclined to suspect that both hole-making and firestarting with a bow drill were invented more or less contemporaneously.
I think archaeology requires a multidisciplinary approach that has only recently begun to emerge. For too long, especially in past centuries, archaeologists focused on history and languages while neglecting engineering, chemistry and the practical techniques that enabled survival and innovation.
That's why the general public views our ancestors as 'primitive,' when in reality they possessed techniques many of which we've lost or still don't fully understand.
> That's why the general public views our ancestors as 'primitive,' when in reality they possessed techniques many of which we've lost or still don't fully understand.
Well stated. We often forget that people in the past had the same exact minds and abilities as the people of today and were in no way inferior or "primitive". I think this accounts for a lot of presentism that leaks into our understanding of history.
On the other hand, it's becoming pretty clear that the dark ages were not an exceptional period and that mostly, humans don't advance or even regress ... because they just don't see the point.
A "top" position in a small company could be a mid one in a big tech but with a narrow field compared to the small one when sometimes you need to refill the coffee machine. At same time the flexibility of small one helps to solve problems of big ones.
reply