snowe2010

The imessage db is literally just a sqlite db. If you have a Mac you can read the entire thing with an applescript. It’s really easy from what I remember from years ago

That is in no way a reasonable suggestion. You’re suggesting a raspberry pi (first red flag) along with a command line program. This is not reasonable in any sense of the word. Imagine me suggesting that everyone should be set up their own unraid server to make sure they can still stream movies and videos if Netflix goes down. Imagine me telling you you should set up a foundry to build your own engines because you can’t trust big car manufacturers. This is the case with everything in your life

Regulations exist because it’s impossible for any one person to handle everything that needs to be handled.

And yet it doesn’t when it’s male names. https://imgur.com/a/9yt5rpA

People like you are why independent sites can’t afford to run on the internet anymore.

The mountain of evidence you supplied is just evidence that republicans more often than not are involved in unsavory things. Hence the change you see with the think tanks, because they generally do not make the news in the same way that a pedophile politician does. Neutrality is telling the truth, not saying nice things about “both sides”.

You’re really reaching to make their argument not make sense. They used a middle number from a range and then you took the low end of that and acted like they said something incorrect.

Does anyone know how it compares to restic or duplicate?

Uhh. I mean I have to do half of that on my CachyOS computer… like telling the user to restart to install an update isn’t that ridiculous of an ask, especially for security reasons.

But whether or not it is a machine _is_ relevant in current copyright law. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/federal-court-rules-arti...

> Second, the songs must share SUBSTANTIAL SIMILARITY, which means a listener can hear the songs side by side and tell the allegedly infringing song lifted, borrowed, or appropriated material from the original.

Music has had this happen numerous times in the US. The distinction isn’t an exact replica, it’s if it could be confused for the same style.

George Harrison lost a case for one of his songs. There are many others.

https://ultimateclassicrock.com/george-harrison-my-sweet-lor...

> You're laying it on too thick, give us a break.

Says the person that thinks they are losing personal freedoms when a company makes a product change and they just don’t want to bother switching to a different product.

Buy a different phone. This isn’t affecting your personal freedom.

And yes, it does affect the number of scams that people fall for, as evidenced by iOS’s hiding of links in scam messages. It forced scammers to try and get the scammee to jump through several more hoops just to be able to open links. Immediate drop in scams.

There are tons of things to be done. None of them are affecting your freedom. Buy a different phone.

Physical goods are much easier to regulate and legislate than digital worlds. You choose to take a specific level of transit when traveling places, guided by your risk aversion and other things you know. But some stuff you don’t know, like the things that go on behind the scenes to actually make those things safe. From road markings to the type of joints used in train tracks.

This is the exact same thing. We don’t spend time educating users of roads on how the road stripe width affects their safety, nor about how train tracks carry radioactive material through their communities every day. We let the companies and governments work to make things safer for everyone, even if it comes at the expense of some.

I honestly can’t believe I’m having this argument. Making things safer for the world should be a goal we all strive for, even if a very very incredibly small minority lose a tiny tiny bit of what they want.

Your phone getting hacked and you texting me with it can put me in danger. Your bank account getting hacked and me needing to send you money can put me in dire straights. Your back porch camera getting hacked and the footage of me and you getting uploaded can get me killed.

The logic that your device security isn’t tied to my safety needs to be rethunk. Every leaked password reduces password security for everyone. Every successful phish makes the next phish easier.

Your device safety is tied to my wellbeing.

In what way does Apple not do that? Pretty sure the article is about getting bombarded by notifications and updates, which Apple doesn’t really do.

> rather "we are not liable for scams which are only possible on a rooted phone".

Who is going to prove that though? It’s much simpler and less stressful on our court systems if a bank just says “we don’t allow running on rooted phones” and then if a user takes them to court the burden is on proving whether the phone was rooted or not rather than proving if the exploit that affected them is only possible on a rooted phone.

That’s just advocating for the same thing, OS makers removing users abilities to do things they want with their devices. Pretty much everyone in this comment section that is advocating against what Google is doing would advocate against that as well.

Why? What’s your logic and reasoning?

You clearly know the answer here since you used the word “periodically”. There’s a massive difference between hundreds and millions. No one is stopping you from buying a non Google phone, no one is stopping you from running calyx or graphene. Mitigation for the things that affect the most number of people is how the world works.

I have a friend that still uses a dumb flip phone from the early 2000s. No smartphones are not necessary.

We literally did start with that… that’s the current situation, everyone has parental toggles and yet millions of people get scammed for billions of dollars a year. You’re acting like we (and these massive corporations) haven’t been trying for decades at this point. And you’re saying we shouldn’t be trying more stuff, we should just stop and give up and let innocent people get scammed because you want to be able to run whatever on your phone.

I don’t care about the person you saw an interview with, you invented a fantasy about the person in the article. Stunning in your racism.

You literally invented an entire fantasy to justify your racism. Absolutely none of what you said is even slightly provable, nor mentioned even vaguely in the article.

A 1.5 liter is incredibly small. You’ll struggle to accelerate up slight inclines with that. If you’re in the mountains it will be even worse.

That’s not normal. You’re either doing something incredibly wrong or you’re changing your tires when you don’t need to.

This is what happened with dna testing at the beginning. Prosecutors claimed it was x percentage accurate when in fact it was hilariously inaccurate. People thought the data was valuable when it wasn’t.

Phone books (at least in the US) were sent out for free. You didn’t subscribe to them or request them. They were advertising.

I mean… that means you can’t hire people to get signatures for petitions for the very thing you’re trying to get passed. I think their point is pretty fair.

programming.dev is a federated platform

You don’t know how phone numbers work… and you’re making really bad assumptions through your entire post. Just like shipping addresses are different than billing addresses, account owners are different than account payers are different than account assignees. Google is tying to account payers, not assignees. This is clearly incorrect to everyone else in this comment section.

> Having his phone bill paid by his mom makes it his mom's phone number by default;

No, it makes his mom the account owner. Just because I pay the bill for mine and my wife’s phones doesn’t mean her number is actually my number. Imagine operating a company and the CEO isn’t the one paying the phone bill, it’s the accountant, and you claimed that it’s not the CEO’s phone number, it’s actually the accountant’s, but it’s shared with the CEO. It’s nonsensical. The number is assigned to a person on the account which has nothing to do with who pays the bill.