aesh2Xa1

You can bank without Apple iOS/macOS or Google Android/Chrome.

You can also vote with your wallet regarding banking. Put your deposits in another bank.

GrapheneOS accepts donations and, to my knowledge, they spend it in hiring full time engineers.

They have replacement portions for Play Services already (attestation, an app store, and location), but it'd be interesting if they also offered something for push notifications.

If you have it to give you can spend your budget on a donation and fund the effort directly.

Some apps offer direct APK downloads from their websites. If Google Play Services is detected, they use it for push notifications. Otherwise, they fall back to an internal background connection. WhatsApp is an example.

You still need to supply Play Services:

GrapheneOS uses Sandboxed Google Play. LineageOS requires flashing a package like MindTheGapps. There is also microG, an open-source reimplementation of Play Services APIs.

Could you share your case's details? It sounds like you wanted better L3/IPv6 support and figured out a clean way to achieve it.

It does mean on the property and including inside facilities.

Maybe that's at the gym or by the pool, and maybe you're actually not comfortable becoming a swimsuit model.

* Given that for-profits can be given tax-breaks for (hopefully) good reasons [which are not altruistic];

* therefore non-profits can be given tax-breaks for (hopefully) good reasons [which are not altruistic].

A defense contractor designing missile guidance qualifies for the Exempt Purpose of "scientific."

A megachurch with a private jet qualifies under its "religious" category.

These do not specifically require altruistic intent. Congress chose to subsidize certain categories of activity (religious, scientific, educational, and so on) because it wanted more of that activity produced, regardless of the motives of the people doing it.

I think your position seems reasonable, too. Though intuitive, it isn't the reality.

The tax-exempt status is granted for Exempt Purposes, but not as a matter of altruistic intention: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz...

For example, ask your favorite LLM search engine: Can you list non-profits/501(c)(3) that are US defense contractors?

Draper Laboratory and Energetics Technology Center are registered 501(c)(3) corporations. Their primary output is weapons research. RAND Corp, whose name you'd likely recognize, is also a DoD contractor and 501(c)(3).

The NRA Foundation and the Heritage Foundation are also registered as 501(c)(3).

Try using iperf3 version 3.16 or better. There used to be a multi-threading problem otherwise.

https://software.es.net/iperf/faq.html

I think they don't mean propaganda, but "entertainment." OP is referring to Fox's legal defense here:

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-...

This legal defense effectively frames the show as opinion/entertainment, not journalism, to shield it from defamation claims.

I think all three of us would agree about your propaganda stance, too.

1st, this is unlike CAR-T as there is no extraction, engineering on that extraction, and then reinjection.

2nd, the only injection is intravenous. It uses a kind of virus that has been specifically engineered to cross the blood-brain barrier. That virus has a payload which infects/alters astrocytes already inside the brain, and the astrocytes become aggressive at clearing amyloid plaques.

3rd, I agree that the road to a marketable therapeutic could be a long way off.

@strcat, you've mentioned GrapheneOS will have access to internal code to do hardening below the OS layer. Does this mean Motorola devices will offer stronger security than Pixels, where you're limited by what Google exposes?

Is Motorola contributing engineering resources directly to GrapheneOS, or is the partnership purely about hardware enablement on their side?

The dealbreaker was data usage for AI training, not UI:

"We are going to use your email to train our LLMs. I'm not okay with that... my confidential commercial information is NOT okay to use to train your models [...] So... goodbye Gmail."

The title is Bye Bye Gmail.

No, you probably haven't read the conversation piece. The post is ultimately about switching providers because Google's service crosses a line from (1) targeted advertising to (2) using personal and confidential information for model training.

A service to clean up the UI does nothing to solve the issue at hand.

The founder of GrapheneOS commented on this a few days ago here on HN, and basically said it doesn't impact GrapheneOS.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46550366

I wouldn't apply the usual "but mice" appeal to purity in this case.

For one, the paper specifically studied brain structures that are directly homologous in both mice and humans (retrosplenial cortex). The researchers specifically targeted evolutionarily-conserved circuitry.

Second, there is already human research on the topic, too, and this paper is reporting on a likely mechanism to understand "why" rather than "if." Here's one from a Yale researcher:

https://news.yale.edu/2025/09/23/psilocybin-breakthrough-men...

Aorus/Gigabyte is also making their monitors into smart TVs. The next size up is a Google TV.

https://www.aorus.com/en-us/monitors/s55u

This law demands a surveillance architecture, not just porn regulation. Once the norm and mechanism to de-anonymize content use exists, it can be expanded to any content, including political dissent, and for both accessing AND contributing to content (like, for example, on HN). The line should be drawn here.

The vague potential harm of sex doesn't justify the concrete harm of abolishing digital privacy. Further, it's just sex. Equating imagery of legal, natural activity with physical danger is an error.

It is blatantly dangerous to justify stripping citizens of their anonymity. The lawmakers who proposed this are oppressors. They are the danger to our children.

I am not challenging the safety release mechanism. The OP already demonstrated that.

I am challenging the result of that release in your poorly framed experiment.

You explicitly sought to test 'a different side of the spectrum.' You cannot equate a holistic character judgment with a narrowed, specific medical safety protocol judgement.

A clean account without memories will solve the tie-breaker issue. It will not solve the poor experimental design.

That comparison is flawed. You guided the LLM to judge a specific medical policy, whereas the OP asked for a holistic evaluation of the candidates. You created a framing instead of allowing the LLM to evaluate without your input.

Furthermore, admitting you have 'memories' enabled invalidates the test in both cases.

As an aside, I would not expect that one party's candidate is always more correct over the other for every possible issue. Particular issues carry more weight, and the overall correctness should be considered.

It does include employment. It's discussed in terms of "employment" or "jobs" thresholds and trends.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession

> In the United States, a recession is defined as "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the market, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales."[4] The European Union has adopted a similar definition.[5][6]

That's interesting, and I think I've seen that writing style before, although it might have been in infosec circles. What do you mean by the mimicry and viewpoints?

It does seem to be used to signal prestige more than in-group membership in general. I perceive it as mildly haughty.

Also, I don't think acrolect is the right term here, because the all-lowercase style is both not a creole and is not a closer approximation to standard English than some lower form of all-lowercase.

If you need a linguistics term call it a register.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_(sociolinguistics)

Not to be that guy, but feed/enclosure are direct costs.

Externalities are costs/benefits to someone uninvolved with the chicken/egg transaction (noise or free insect control affecting your neighbor are negative and positive cases).

Cellular radios also have this capability. There's work done to track individuals in this way (matching your walking pattern/gait).

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44416761

Signal processing is probably a general problem. This month we had news about transcribing speech from sound waves jiggling a regular computer mouse.

https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/07/mouse_microphone_secu...

I think you're relating coal as a percentage of all energy rather than relative to itself year on year.

The data here shows that coal consumption is simply increasing in China. Therefore, I believe it is inaccurate to say "they are building more plants but starting to burn less coal." It is more accurate to say "they are building more plants and burning more coal, but they are not increasing their coal use at the same rate they increase their use of other energy sources."

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-coal?tab=line&...

Our World In Data gets that information from https://globalcarbonbudget.org/. I believe that the next update will include 2024 data, and should be available next month.

My reason for challenging the phrasing is just to be precise. This is a complex topic, and the distinction between a falling percentage of energy mix versus a rising absolute amount of consumption is a key detail that's often missed.

I looked up the amount of blood lost due to a menstruation cycle, and the answer is around 50 ml.

OP's linked paper has "the iron-reduction patients had 300ml of blood removed at the start of the trial and between 250 and 500ml removed four weeks later."

A blood donation removes 500 ml, so about a year of menstruation all at once. You can donate every two months, besides.

So, yes, if there is an effect then we might expect the magnitude of the effect to differ. Or else we'd expect a paper cut to also have the same effect.

Sex biological difference could matter as well.

Yes, but the relative amount per volume blood should be the same. I think that's why he's asking.

If so, the answer is that the body replenishes plasma in a day and red cells in six weeks (redcrossblood.org FAQ). The relative amount does change quickly.

The details are skimpy. In a CNN article we can see photos and mention that these were housed in apartment units and perhaps other rentals.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/23/us/swatting-investigation-ser...

EDIT:

While the headline on NYT highlights an attack on the towers for disruption, the CNN piece gives more weight to two other uses: (1) criminal communication network and (2) swatting.

I think those two make sense. The SIMs would probably hold US numbers and would appear authentic for accessing the US operators' networks.

Reputation harm.

An anonymous individual might also have multiple anonymous accounts, for example. Without that anonymity, other projects might ban their contributions, and users might not use their software.

To add on, the fundamental question is which risk is more palatable for something we "can't afford to fail?"

Is the risk of a hospital closing for purely financial reasons more or less acceptable than the risk of a state-run hospital being inefficient but guaranteed to exist? For critical infrastructure, I think that's a conversation worth having, and it's one that hand-waving about an all-encompassing 'market' obscures; dismissing a legitimate critique by framing the market as an all-encompassing force is just a rhetorical move.

Your comment seems to suggest that any attempt to change the market results in unfavorable results, but this doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I think you replied with a valid philosophical point, but you leaned too much on using it to challenge that anything could be done (when you yourself presented the idea that a mechanism was needed).

There is no such unmanipulated free market anywhere:

Perfect Competition: In reality, we have monopolies, oligopolies, and immense barriers to entry.

Perfect Rationality: Behavioral economics has thoroughly demonstrated that people do not act like perfectly rational, self-interested computers.

Perfect Information: There is almost always a significant knowledge gap between a seller and a buyer.

Since no truly free market exists, every economy is already a managed one. The real debate isn't whether we should intervene, but how we intervene and whose interests those interventions serve. I read selimnairb's point as that, for essential services, the rules should serve the public interest of stability and access, not just the private interest of profit.

We can examine the risks case-by-case. Here, the government is investing in a foundry. We could view the leverage this gains the US government as increasing the risk for political engineering above the previous risk of financial engineering. In financial engineering, Intel might prioritize its obligation to shareholders. In political engineering (if Intel were nationalized), Intel might keep an inefficient fab open to save jobs or just to win votes.

In the category of financial engineering as a risk, you might lump activity like stock buybacks put above R&D as exemplar of Intel. In fact, a criticism of CHIPS and this new government intervention often centers around the idea that Intel's leadership should not be rewarded.

Finally, a related case on the topic of Intel and national security: China's state-directed economy prioritizes national goals over private profit. After entering "the market," part of its core strategy has been to compel service to national interests rather than shareholders, and it seems that strategy has arguably driven its recent economic rise.

I agree with your point about OP's statement regarding "where is not not needed Windows in any way, to the Remote Device Management baked into firmware as Apple does with its hardware" I also read that to mean that the firmware solution is self-contained and complete, even though that's pretty misaligned when you consider the meaning of a "remotely" managed device (remotely managed by what?).

But it's still entirely factual in my own description. When a device checks in during initial setup, the firmware-level boot process can receive policies that block alternative OS installation, and that absolutely is a feature of the firmware.

Anyway, I tried to interpret OP's meaning, and provided more detail on how Apple's firmware is special.