rickdeckard

> "It seems absurd that the government is blaming SpaceX for not securing its property against trespass and vandalism/arson, especially when it seems likely that the violations are by foreign-state-sponsored actors"

I think neither private companies nor tax-payers would appreciate if the POLICE would run security for a for-profit corporation, as it means that all corporate access-permissions would de-facto be managed by the government administration (which would be financed by the taxes of citizens and other corporations...)

Also: Would be even more ironic for Starlink to now demand big-BIG-government after their CEO keeps pushing for small-government for years now. But it fits the typical "Privatize profits, socialize costs" view...

I don't know why it should be the governments job to secure private properties of corporations against vandalism/arson. It sounds much more absurd to me.

Starlink providing services to a customer (which made them a target in this case) is not a matter the local government of that site needs to protect them against.

--> Is it a local governments' job to secure the local properties of e.g. Lockheed, or the job of Lockheed as a for-profit supplier to the military?

--

Edit, as I expected this to be much more widely known: If you are operating in the business of critical infrastructure (for which Starlink qualifies, explicitly "digital infrastructure"), you have obligations to protect your facilities against physical and cyber attacks and have resilience and business continuity processes in place.

If you decide to operate in a business segment for critical infrastructure, it is not the governments job to secure your business, YOU have to comply to the requirements of operating in this field, and the government can audit and shut down your business if you're not in compliance.

In the EU, where this incident took place, this is well-defined under the CER-directive, and further extended for IT under NIS2 and CRE.

In the US, it's covered by CISA and CIRCIA (Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act)

> "I still don't understand why the highest entropy APIs aren't gated behind browser consent"

Because it's known that interrupting the user-intent with a unrelated consent-popup doesn't help.

Older people may remember that this was the approach of Java J2ME, where you couldn't provide a fluent user-experience as the user first had to answer huge popups about individual API-permissions with "Always Allow", "Allow now" etc.

Huawei has a Google Mobile Services (GMS) equivalent called HMS, which acts as a compatibility layer and prevents Apps from throwing errors when running on their Android APK-support layer.

However, as I understood, in China HarmonyOS next has no Anroid-emulation layer (which is probably a wise decision if you want to drive domestic app-developers to support your platform...)

wow, how awesome it would be to play those games with Trackmania-like reload-times (if you restart the race in Trackmania, you're immediately at the starting line again).

I assume it would require some additional patching in those GT / NFS games though...

Just noticed my comment indeed got flagged.

Don't know why, it was really meant in good faith, but okay...

> or to PC

So consoles only, Fortnite-like-but-paid or are we ready to try the revenue-maximizing "companion phone app" thing again...?

First, I really appreciate what you guys are doing and it's angering me as well how Google stays silent on AOSP further and further. So please consider the following as well-intended observation:

At the core the post has accurate information, but the statements keep mixing discovered facts with emotional exaggerations, which creates the noise-element.

And this later forces you to roll back on parts of the statement. Not on the facts but on those speculations, which weakens the overall force of your statements.

For example, the journey of this post is:

  1. No MTE-support found: "It appears Google cut an important security feature to save money"
  2. MTE-support found: "It still has at least bare minimum support for MTE at a hardware level. We think they removed most of the hardware acceleration from the CPU cache to save money. They ruined the performance so it ended up being fully disabled in firmware.
  [..] We expect performance must be quite bad for Google to have decided to entirely strip out support for it"
  3. No observed reduction in performance: "Our own testing doesn't show a substantial reduction in performance so far."

The reason for this uncertainty is clear, Google is not communicating openly.

But jumping from facts straight to exaggerations and indirect accusations is not helping your cause, it's diluting the whole message.

--

> "Android 17 QPR1 is the latest major release of Android for Pixels"

You probably know that already, but the latest release seems to be QPR2 Beta 6 of one week ago, and includes the Pixel 11 series as supported devices [0].

[0] https://developer.android.com/about/versions/17/qpr2/get

"We think", followed by a quite fueled accusation.

It has no MTE right now, okay. Is there any evidence on the rest?

It's meant to say "Apple prefers if companies are not able to enter relationships with Apple customers without Apple being in the middle", which is not typical for most companies

Quite a bad signal-to-noise ratio in this link.

It's an emotional discussion about Google not supporting MTE on Pixel 11 (old news of August, GrapheneOS had to roll back that statement in September [0]).

Now the question is whether MTE will be enabled by Google as part of a future OS-upgrade, to which there is no definite answer AFAIK

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49536384

> "OpenClaw amd Muse and stuff give people a real reason to buy a Mac but Apple doesn’t like it."

Yeah, because a year down the road they might give the same people a reason to upgrade to another box, not from Apple.

Apple needs to ensure that they stand in the middle of every supplier relationship their customers have.

That's quite difficult when they don't provide direct value to both, so the natural conclusion is for Apple to present itself as a care-taker, the only one who prevents the user from taking any harm...

> "We are committed to ensuring users clearly understand these risks before granting such access"

This "you are entering the wilderness, I will not be able to protect you anymore if you proceed" framing reminds me of the alternative AppStore case, where Apple (and Google) applied scare-tactics in the UI to discourage users from giving permissions to alternative stores.

It's the constant risk for Apple that its customer base voluntarily invites any company to interact with them directly, because it's Apple's prerogative to broker the access to its users.

So as always, for the sake of "privacy" Apple needs to take action to protect the users from "themselves", and make it undesirable to grant others the same access Apple has...

This. I'm quite confident that they look at the Mac as a "profit-leaking" product they gradually need to bring on-par with their other products, but can't make any big steps to avoid alienating the userbase.

But I'm sure the day of the iOS-based iMac will come, and pandora's box will be opened. Businesses will love it, especially those with Kiosk use-cases, and not before long we will read everywhere (including here) how superior the security is to a Mac for everyday use...

Kudos to the memory supply-industry on converting their market in a way that a handful of large-scale customers moved from mere supply-forecasting to outbidding themselves to BUY future production of chips for years to come.

I would now like to open the floor to investigations in this industry to determine whether this is hindering free-market forces and is ripe for regulation, as no-one is able to actually compete with these handful of companies anymore.

...anyone?

...ah yeah, right, I forgot. They also found a circular financing scheme which enslaved the entire global economy and organically prevents governments from properly governing their industry.

"We will produce as many Oreo's as we can, but soon Oreo supply will be much tighter than ever before"

- Oreo CEO, suggesting you to buy every Oreo you can get

> "Total value of $67.5 Billion"

Look at what you're replying to.

As already stated, this is the ESTIMATED RETAIL VALUE of the wine, NOT the Sales Revenue.

You then conflate this with the EXPORT VALUE of Californian wine, which is not the retail value but the price the winery is selling the wine for to a foreign buyer.

Apart from that the value also doesn't matter, in the context of AMOUNT of grapes purchased the QUANTITY of wine produced is more relevant than the VALUE created with it.

> "You literally have this situation. Only 2% of California wine goes to the export market at all, and people are literally arguing that [..]"

Again, it's not 2%. You literally need to read the sources you cited yourself. They provide good data to educate yourself and see where you're trying to force a conclusion without the proper facts.

And nobody is "arguing" what you state. The OP stated "It's a shrinking market, but it surely doesn't help that people are simply boycotting US goods." and you're trying to ridicule him for that without having any leg to stand on...

You're misreading the data you shared

> "68 billion dollars worth of sales each year"

TOTAL Retail value (includes markups by wholesalers, retailers and restaurateurs), NOT Sales Revenue.

> "only about a billion dollars of California wine is sold abroad"

That's Sales revenue [1]

> "So 98% of California wine is sold within the US. Only 2% is exported."

The data is right on the page you shared.

  Total shipments 2024 [0] (in millions of 9-liter cases):
  California wine shipments to US and export: 232.3
  California wine shipments to US: 203.5
  --> Export: 28,8

So the export volume in 2024 appears to be >12%, not 2%

There's no data for 2025, but wine exports fell by ~20% in 2025 [1], if TOTAL wine shipments fell equally this is quite a strong dent in volumes already in 2025. So 2026 doesn't look rosy to begin with before any trade-war being added...

> "It's pretty funny if you think about it, you have some Bosnian dude [..]"

Let's not do that please.

[0] https://wineinstitute.org/our-industry/statistics/california...

[1] https://wineinstitute.org/our-industry/statistics/us-wine-ex...

When looking at the actual wine export-volume as factual reasoning [0], it draws a different picture and shows a drop of almost 50% from 2020 to 2025.

Export volume (millions of gallons):

  2025: 53.4
  2024: 66.9
  2023: 57.6
  2022: 77.3
  2021: 89.4
  2020: 99.1

Noted elsewhere, Canada accounts for more than a third of US wine exports [1], so the trade-war with Canada in 2026 surely wasn't helpful either to keep export-volume at 2025-levels...

[0] Association of California wineries: https://wineinstitute.org/our-industry/statistics/us-wine-ex...

[1] https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2026-08-26/california...

> "I don't see what that has to do with my point"

The point is that Nokia was in the telecom sector for DECADES before the Microsoft acquisition of the Handset Division you mentioned.

> "and a large part of the fief war was driven by the legacy telco people being unhappy about the upstart mobile people now calling the shots."

Citation needed. Equally I have no idea what that has to do with my initial point that the device business was used to drive the infrastructure business.

Interesting. I worked with another competitor at that time, we got intel that they're working on an exclusive device with AT&T, after Verizon rejected their conditions.

But it was nothing special. It was Apple building a premium touch screen phone (no apps yet, only iTunes and Browser), struggling alot with the connectivity part of it (barely able to assure a stable cellular modem connection for one carrier, let alone a full region of them). Huge 3.x" display, battery runtime less than 24h (in a world where cellphone standby was still measured in days)

What we didn't know at that time was that Steve Jobs managed to push AT&T into a revenue-share deal along with a mandatory data-flatrate bundle, both ensuring a constant revenue-stream beyond the initial launch which would skew the entire competitive field forever.

Because while everyone else earned money only through sales, Apple had not only its above-average sales-margin and their iTunes revenue, but also an incremental monthly revenue-share from AT&T that grew with each device sold.

Within 6 months AT&T paid Apple a per-device share for a million devices each month. We never got the exact figure they paid per device but it was rumored to be more than 10 USD.

So by end of 2007 Apple had a constant influx of more than 10M USD/month on top of ~600M in HW sales-margin, excluding any additional iTunes-profit they made with that always-online iPod (e.g. the only way to get a custom ringtone was to buy one on iTunes at a hefty premium)

You underestimate the age of Nokia in this business.

They built telecom infrastructure already in the 1970s, the Nokia Mobile Phones company was created as an independent arm only in ~1989.

(which by no coincidence is the era the GSM standard was created: A global cellular telephony standard allowing interoperability across countries and suppliers)

Like Ericsson and Alcatel, Nokia originally only built the phones to sell the infrastructure.

They pushed devices with new telecom features into the market to create the benefit for carriers to buy new infrastructure, e.g. "with this new revision of GSM, devices can negotiate the polling period with the network to double the battery runtime. But only if you have the infra to actually answer the device."

With all possible love for Symbian, but no.

Symbian wasn't designed for low latency input, and the entire S60 app ecosystem on top of it was designed for button-control.

The whole attempt of Nokia to somehow transform S60 into a iOS competitor was visible in the Nokia 5800. It was the best possible solution to somehow bring the S60 apps to a touch interface, and it was terrible.

Not terrible because they cut cost, but because the foundation was wrong.

In my observervation, Nokia also didn't adapt because of cost-cutting. Like all vendors at that time, they didn't believe that the consumer would be willing to sacrifice

1. Battery runtime

2. Durability

3. Tactile user-input

just for a slim, fashionable and snappy Device.

For years after the iPhone, they tried to answer it while preserving those 3 aspects. Don't add a stronger CPU, don't add glass but higher quality plastic, find a solution to have buttons AND a large screen.

Always building a phone, while Apple built a pocket computer.

That said, Apple was incredibly lucky that the early jailbreak and App-hacking community forced them to create an App store.

Noone had a Linux-based consumer OS with 3rd party apps, because it was wasteful for a phone. Suddenly the iPhone became a Smartphone, and there was no OS on the market to match it.

Not a critique on your "fine arts", I attributed the struggle more to myself ;-)

Exactly my thought. How much of the result is actually the consolidation of an unknown amount of researchers using the LLM to "sort their thoughts".

If it's true that they don't know how much of the training data contribution came from which user, they also have a weird race-condition on each result, where they don't know how distributed the contributed data actually is across users.

This means on each AI result they don't know how close an individual researcher already is to the same conclusion, so they need to rush to a press-release before some human devalues their (multi-million) compute-investment...

Considering what happened on the Navier–Stokes event of OpenAI recently, I keep wondering how much of these discoveries are actually

a.) novel isolated achievements of an AI, or

b.) the result of continuous focused in-house training with data involuntarily contributed by thousands of researchers using the LLM, aiming to make a press-release to boost the reputation of the AI in question...

It's quite a novel situation, where thousands of people use a tool from the same supplier to solve a problem, for the supplier to silently join the race, consolidate all work and jump in at the last minute to claim that HE solved the problem.

Like e.g. Nike removing the runner from their shoes at last minute to claim that the race was won by the shoe alone...

Here's me, puzzling to which part of "Summer of 69" I should hum this to work best...

If they want their platform to be a first-class citizen of Linux, they should commit on a mandatory device-tree release for all products.

Not some flaky "one release sometime after launch", a fully integrated release-chain for all components needed to boot Linux on any X2 series device