1,765 karma · joined March 26, 2025
The argument about corn is to actually stop the waste of the fertile land for fuel. Solar panels can be installed wherever they're necessary, no one is proposing replacing the corn in situ.
And you didn't even engage with my main point, it's very hard for people especially on the low income to not just eat but even access healthy foods.
> a random identifier, generated on your device the first time it boots
So it's a persistent, unique identifier, is it?
> No evidence that it is used or can be used for tracking.
It's even worse than Google's Advertising ID that at least can be easily reset.
> The accusation is strongly overstated
> (You can keep your £100 though.)
I don't think how you disproved anything. You even confirmed the phone ID is immutable until factory reset.
I was talking about all four claims.
GOS>> They also spent years sending user speech data to OpenAI without informing users beyond fine print in the terms of use.
Here's the discovery by the user and confirmation from the owner of the project: https://community.e.foundation/t/voice-to-text-feature-using...
(This is sharing users' biometric data with third party without express consent, then shared further with unspecified )
GOS>> It's presented as not using Google services but has a whole bunch of Google services with privileged access enabled by default.
https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm
GOS>> It even downloads and runs Google Play executables such as droidguard by default with privileged access far beyond the regular app sandbox.
https://doc.e.foundation/os/learn/calls-to-google-servers/
I believe it also enables Safetynet checks by default which downloads and executes proprietary code straight from Google.
So you didn't disprove the first one and you didn't touch remaining three.
I'll keep my £100 indeed.
Not their fault. I should probably say "reasonable security". Settling for anything less is folly, seeing how malvertising isn't the only danger to the normal users. Broad availability of the powerful LLMs increases the amount of the vulnerabilities found and exploited in the wild.
Anything can carry an RCE now, web font, image, background audio on the cute website, attachment in the MMS or WhatsApp message.
I guess all those with "nothing to hide" (except their text messages, financial data, money on their bank accounts) are happy to have their lives sold in the open on more and more darknet marketplaces, their devices to mine some obscure crypto and serve as proxy for some nefarious actors.
You're using Qubes, I guess not because you like slower and less streamlined experience, but because you want security.
> My Qubes laptop runs coreboot with Heads with disabled and neutralized Intel ME.
Congrats, then, really.
Oh, wait, Qubes openly supports "CPU-vendor-provided blobs for silicon and memory initialization as well as other internal operations" -- which means you either strike "reliance on numerous non-auditable, proprietary drivers and firmware" from GOS (which runs it on the hardware that guarantees the separation), or raise the same for Qubes OS.
And actually, while we're at it, does your phone OS rely on the "numerous non-auditable, proprietary drivers and firmware" or not? Because if yes, why would you even complain that a very secure platform does that too?
Re: Coreboot: for me it would mean that I cannot use Qubes OS with hardware I want, because mean someone doesn't provide coreboot fw for my laptop, and even worse still, Qubes doesn't support my laptop.
I guess it's their fault then, seeing as some people throw a hissy fit that GrapheneOS doesn't want to officially support a phone they want to be supported :)
> I specifically mentioned that the GOS crowd comments on every single topic of other projects,
Will all due respect, this is just raging BS requiring extraordinary evidence.
> This is why I chose to word it that this is akin to me attacking every GOS post with their own flaws, which are the result of the chosen (mostly fair but real) tradeoffs
But you didn't list even one actual, objective flaw.
Not releasing firmware patches impacts everyone is objective, clearly negative. Not allowing to use custom keys is objective flaw. Not allowing to relock the bootloader is a flaw. Not having a secure element that processes PIN is a flaw.
Running privileged Google services isn't an objective flaw, if it's openly disclosed and benefits some users (so their handset can pass Play Integrity). No, GOS don't do it, for me it's an example what is and what isn't objective.
Supporting only one family of the phones is not an objective flaw if that's the only hardware platform that can back the security posture. And with the upcoming Motorola handsets support it's proved beyond doubt it's a flaw of the hardware manufacturers, not of the project trying to provide a secure platform for the increasingly dangerous Internet.
Maybe you remember how the freshly installed Windows XP without firewall couldn't get connected to the internet or it'd get immediately infected. Maybe you've seen logs from the Linux servers showing endless attempts to break in.
We're approaching the same for mobile devices, just worse, because most of these devices are grossly insecure, and the LLMs will be able to prepare custom exploits for all the common ones en masse.
> I do not want to attack every GOS discussion.
You do you. If you have actual flaws, by all mean, you're good.
But you didn't show a single one yet. You shared your opinion on how you believe that not supporting root is somewhat bad, or complained that GOS does something ALL the other vendors do (like reliance on AOSP, not changing licensing, or using fw blobs (at least in their case - securely))
> I want to demonstrate how ridiculous their actions are, dividing projects that in the end have the same goals: to fight with megacorps and reclaim user freedom and security.
I think it's a mistake to project your own position or understanding on all the projects.
Like, LineageOS supports a very broad range of hardware increasing security for many of these abandoned by their vendors (f*k Sony, for example, for releasing security patches for barely year-and-a-half for so-called flagship).
GOS has different goals. They result in the similar gains (i.e. ensuring security benefits privacy), but it's a result, not goal per se.
> Librem 5
So you don't have source code of the firmware for your chosen phone but you're attacking GOS for using firmware they don't have source of? I'm confused.
> (2) I do not believe that AOSP developed by Google will provide the necessary freedom in the future
Wait, wait, but you said "full dependence on Google's direction of Android development and how fast Google shares the source code with others" as presumably an evidence/example of specifically GrapheneOS flaw.
You "accused" AOSP-based operating systems team of being fully dependent on the AOSP.
And now you're saying it was about your *feelings*?
Do you attack projects stating your feelings as an "evidence" of the project's shortcomings?
Can you see how it's hard to have a fact-based, neutral discussion with that? It's broadly pointless because you either confuse facts and evidence with feelings or you equate these two.
> Librem 5 is less secure than a GrapheneOS phone today, but nothing prevents the community to change that
If the hardware is secure, sure. You can even backport a lot of GOS improvements back to Linux.
But if the hardware is not secure, then no, community cannot make it as secure as GOS phone today.
> GrapheneOS supports the option of using the phone against its users with DRM
I'm confused, first I don't know what specifically you're talking about (not saying it's untrue but throwing "DRM" randomly doesn't help much), and is it something unique to GrapheneOS that is NOT shared by other projects? Because, seriously, you're singling out the safest, most private and most secure project listing things that are probably done by everyone else but its somehow only GOS issue?
(Also, is it a safety issue or only privacy? GOS never promised a focus on privacy)
> [Fairphone] AFAIK they follow the upstream patches, i.e., just like GOS, they are at the mercy of the corporations with their security.
They're always late by many months. Months. They're free to do what GrapheneOS do, to keep requesting these patches.
But what are we talking about, they didn't even do as much as move to Android 17, which in itself is the evidence they don't follow upstream, because most patches are not backported by Google. Raising that is not "attacking" any more than listing unsafe features of a a specific car.
>> [about not supporting root] Why do you expect a project focused on the reasonable security of all the reasonably safe handsets to bow to you exactly?
> I did not demand that GOS does this.
But you specifically complained: "(4) complete lack of flexibility concerning the user's threat model, e.g., intentional lack of support for root for whitelisted apps"
They openly support users building their own images (with root. It's trivial to build the image with root enabled), and you actually complain they do not support root. They do not in their official images.
So you are now saying that by complaining that GrapheneOS do not support root in the official image, which you provided as (presumably) objective flaw of the OS, isn't in fact you demanding they support it officially and build it in, thus bowing to the request?
I'm utterly confused here.
About as much as when you send me to FSF website to read about some licence when I ask you how the project's decision to stick to the parent licence in order to not impose limitations on the users is imposing the limitations on the users.
I don't see how the evidence of the project unwilling to keep up with the mainstream security or a statement that their hardware doesn't come close to the top would be relevant to this:
(1) and how do you imagine releasing the OS for the hardware not owned by the project? Does your Fairphone release source code of all the firmware? Do you have source code of the BIOS, firmware and microcode of your chosen Qubes OS pc? :D
(2) LOL, Google pretty much owns AOSP, how do you imagine GOS project takes the helm? Please explain. I read these as the strategic decision of GrapheneOS project, or unwillingness to take action. Please explain.
[0] what are you even on with remote attestation? This is an optional feature for the OS provider to prove the whole chain of custody hasn't been broken. Can you explain how the GOS project providing an option for the software developers to check that the OS hasn't been tampered with is a downside.
Of course in the light of the Fairphone unable to do as much as peivide timely patches or the OS available for over 6 months now.
(3) they explained they "want GrapheneOS to have no additional restrictions beyond AOSP. AOSP uses GPLv2 but not GPLv3". I don't understand what the charge is? How does GPLv3 benefit end user more? Why aren't you complaining to Google?
(And why are we even talking about that? Are you trying to stoke some drama, LOL?)
(4) lack of support for root becomes what, a proof they're stoking drama?! what are you even on? They prove source code, build instructions and more details, you're free to build your own images with root, it's actually super simple - the only things you lose is their signature and remote attestation you hate anyway.
Why do you expect a project focused on the reasonable security of all the reasonably safe handsets to bow to you exactly?
Because frankly it looks like you're trying to cause some drama. None of your "charges" carry any weight. Quoting the team explaining why they chose GPLv2 over v3 as the "evidence" of drama?
What's your angle? What i#/your post really about? Yeah, I see you see all the above as a serious charges against the project, and you're free to throw these every time.
But.... Do you really think they're approximately the same weight?
In '80s in mine we had mostly only healthy foods. Crap sold as food today was completely unavailable; the most unhealthy would be a birthday cake or additional slice of bacon on a plate.
I think I am aware and I posit it's very hard for people on low I comes to even be able to buy a quality food.
A very long list of severe issues. This is not presenting the advantages, it's listing of the problems.
When did that become a "drama", and not a fact-based criticism?
Re: second link - I don't have time to waste on digging through the code, I'd rather count pebbles in my garden, but I'm happy to bet £100 that it's fully facts based. I didn't even comment on the second link previously, BTW.
On top of that there's time cost - making healthy meals form scratch takes far more time than making them from store-bought "parts" (eg: to get boiled beans I need to soak them, them boil for hours. For this I need time, more time and a lot of energy)
I think you're not taking the average human's reality.
So it's impossible now to list the bad features or shortcomings without come one calling drama?
Why do you call it drama?
It's still sold on the high street and advertised everywhere.
Wrote a Turbo Pascal program for that. Good times.
>> Someone above asked me how it was nonsense. I responded that people parotting the point about getting arrested for criticising the king is nonsense
Protesting against the king is criticising the king IMO. I didn't see his quantifier, since I would agree that online critique of the king in particular is not yet penalised.
Not surprising you're implying bad faith though, if we're splitting the hair this thin.
(and this specific planning of the protest was so heavy handed, because it belong to one of the two naughty protests, environmental. The second naughty one is protesting against the genocide. The rest is okay)
6 people got arrested for trying to say "Not my king!" BEFORE his coronation: https://londondaily.com/not-my-king-anti-monarchy-protesters...
Before they had a chance of protest. After months of discussing the planned protest in details and getting a green light from the Met Police: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65542558
52 people were arrested DURING the coronation, for example for holding a placard "not my king": https://londondaily.com/over-52-anti-monarchy-protestors-arr...
Police arrested despite KNOWING it's the member of public doesn't commit any offence: https://novaramedia.com/2025/03/11/police-officer-who-arrest...
I'm afraid you unwittingly misled your coworkers.
6 people got arrested for trying to say "Not my king!" BEFORE his coronation: https://londondaily.com/not-my-king-anti-monarchy-protesters...
Before they had a chance of protest. After months of discussing the planned protest in details and getting a green light from the Met Police: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65542558
It's not like Republicans in the UK are a violent group, unlike far right coddled by the same Met police.
52 people were arrested DURING the coronation, for example for holding a placard "not my king": https://londondaily.com/over-52-anti-monarchy-protestors-arr...
Police arrested despite KNOWING it's baseless and frankly illegal: https://novaramedia.com/2025/03/11/police-officer-who-arrest...
Tell me some more how it isn't arresting for criticising the king. Oh, well, technically he wasn't a king yet.... but that's even worse to be fair.
If I need a doctor who actually listens, or the consultation in less than 2 years, this is the way, and it's a world-class care as well.
Sure there are subpar parts of the healthcare in Poland, but until all you can get is 15 minutes phone chat with the GP (two days away if it's urgent) instead of in-person visit, or 47 minutes wait for the ambulance in case of stroke or heart attack (in Poland it's ~10 min in cities, ~20 in the villages) you really don't have anything to be ashamed of.
Complain, if you can improve it, yeah. But it's a good service. Just overworked and underpaid.
I just think that this benchmark measures what it say it does, and if the model is unable or unwilling to deliver, it's reflected in the score.
(incidentally I found that generating code with Sonnet agent and having Opus orchestrate and manage the process works best for me - right model for the right task - the results run in the places and the way it's okay. No one outside uses it :p)
I agree with your point - IMO lower Opus score in these suggests that in general it's worse for these tasks. Not that it's a worse model in general.
But yeah, it does, but from my perspective it measured the Opus performance - subpar in some tasks because it downgraded itself rerouting to a much weaker model.
So both you're right, it matters because it wasn't the model examined, and it doesn't matter because the score reflects nerfed experience resulting in nerfed results.
I can't recall anything he said or did in the last few years that would make me assume he's done something good for the general public (or the humanity), and not for himself first and foremost.
Anthropic made it that way, and I'd say the lower score is accurate.
Talk about hilarious.
Get something of this calibre:
- https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2026/09/un-commissio...
- https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/10/russian-auth...
- https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/05/22/ukraine-escalating-russi...
These are based on the extensive evidence, not propaganda.
Russian genocidal army is extensively targeting civilians and at this point it's not up to the "debate", especially not with the messaging originating at the head of the Ruzzian aggression.
Look, you're going to be paid for your posts no matter why, don't need to make it look silly, kacáp :)))
The only thing worse than the staple "all chargers except one broken, wait time 1h+", was the ghost charging station existing only on the map - they drove there only to see the empty field instead.
Needless to say we barely made it in time for the ferry (their refueling was about 3 hours total in the UK alone), and sadly won't make me getting EV as the main car anytime soon.
Second, small town car for errands, maybe, but that means having no comfort or equipment I'd like to have in the "main" car (and half of it is safety).
Also - note you seem to suggest the mythical ubiquity of the fast chargers is the solution to the range, but they're also so expensive to use that any savings from the local driving and charging at home (if someone is lucky enough to own a house with garage or off-street parking) is immediately burned on the first longer trip.
"Orphans evacuated from the war zone", OMG, Goebbels would be proud.
I'd need to see an actual evidence there were zero children kidnapped. A clear statement from the Ukrainian side (the one acting with integrity when the aggressor was bombing hospitals or hunting civilians with drones) will be sufficient.