The evolution of low effort copy+paste LLM response. Now Google can track everyone who wants that information and people can be just as rude as before when they copy+pasted LLM responses into conversations, but now it's sly.
This. They're also too big, so if you don't wear baggy pants it can be a pain to maneuver in and out of jeans pockets. But then, if I'm visiting somewhere unfamiliar in the middle of nowhere and drop it and it becomes unusable, I can have a pretty bad time.
I've handled the Maxes and they're just too big for my taste. It's not a financial thing. I'm by no means a phone size minimalist but my 15 Pro feels like just the right size for a phone at this point.
I don't think so. Maybe I'm just used to it but I like the gripiness of my Otterbox case in addition to the protection it provides. My prior iPhoen might have survived a hiking trip if I had an equivalently robust case (and the newer Otterbox Defender cases are much less clunky than the older ones were).
Funny enough, I literally looked at the top sellers list last night, for the first time in probably years. I decided to look after I saw Palworld topping the charts, which I thought was interesting since it released early access 2 years ago. Turns out it just released v1.0.
Yeah, Kraken SDR removed some functionality due to these concerns, if I remember correctly.
Odd, because export controls don't generally apply to published material (like open source software), but maybe they were worried that because they were also selling the hardware they could have issues due to the combo being export controlled.
As someone who works daily with export-control-adjacent hardware and software, my experience is that people tend to aggressively self-censor to a far higher standard than export control regulations actually require. The perceived headache of drawing the ire of whoever it is the enforces this stuff (which as I type this comment I'm just realizing I don't know who specifically is responsible for that) is so scary that people don't want to take any risk at all of being targeted.
As long as our voting system is "first past the post", it will be nigh impossible for a third party to make any significant headway. IMO Citizens United and first past the post are the two main issues holding the US back from any kind of significant overhaul or change.
Lots of people brick their phones by relocking the bootloader when the Android SPL before flashing was newer than the newly flashed OS when the phone has downgrade protection (e.g. Fairphone 6). The Fairphone/e Foundation forums are pretty full of people making this mistake. Then the only solution is paying Fairphone to fix it.
"flashing" a phone is largely the same as any OTA update. There's of course always a risk of it going wrong, disk failures are always possible, but it's exceptionally hard to do so accidentally. Especially with custom ROMs where they basically never include a new bootloader, so "flashing" is no different than installing an OS on a desktop system - it's just writing to the boot partition. Which you can always do again since the bootloader is still available.
It is not 'largely the same as OTA' on phones with downgrade protection. Once you lock the device again, it's game over because the bootloader refuses to boot an older version of the OS, and you cannot unlock the phone anymore. Happens all the time in the /e/OS and Fairphone forums.
It really depends on the device. E.g. Pixel is quite hard to brick. Though they do sometimes increment the anti-rollback version:
In that case you have to be careful to not flash an older version to both slots and lock the bootloader, which is possible, because many non-Google/GrapheneOS images are often behind on security updates.
It is still largely the same, those downgrade protections apply to OTAs as well. Those anti-rollback don't brick the device, either. It might not boot to a working OS, but you can still get back to the bootloader to flash something newer. Unless you blindly lock the bootloader without testing if it boots first and the bootloader can't be unlocked again I guess, but that's quite a sequence of bad choices all around
It is still largely the same, those downgrade protections apply to OTAs as well.
But the Android SPL versions of OTA updates from Android vendors monotonically increase.
It might not boot to a working OS, but you can still get back to the bootloader to flash something newer. Unless you blindly lock the bootloader without testing if it boots first and the bootloader can't be unlocked again I guess,
This is false. As long as the boot loader is unlocked, many phones will boot the downgraded image fine. It stops booting it when you lock the boot loader and on many phones, you cannot unlock it again. You need to boot the OS to enable OEM unlocking again, but you cannot boot the OS because the bootloader refuses to.
The Fairphone community is full of people who though 'oh it boots, so I can lock', locked it and they were in a boot loop and had to send their phone to Fairphone to get it repaired for 60-70 Euro (I don't remember the exact price, but that is the ballpark).
There is an adb command that can fairly reliably detect whether the boot loader can be locked. But I'm not going to post it here, because people have to read the full flashing manual, plus in the past there was a bug where the anti-rollback would trigger even with a newer SPL.
At any rate, flashing is not for most people and it was much easier when there was no rollback protection. Of course, rollback protection does make phones much more secure.
---
I wonder if your experience is based on Pixel or older/other Android devices that do not have rollback protection.
> Are you seriously implying that flashing phones doesn’t risk bricking them or you’re not aware of that risk are you serious?
Yes, that is generally the case. As a general rule with an Android phone reflashing the OS itself or the bootloader carries no risk of bricking the device (meaning making it impossible to recover without specialized hardware and/or opening up parts that were not intended to be opened).
There are plenty of ways to "soft-brick" a device such that you might need to plug it in to a computer, and adb/fastboot can definitely be a pain in the ass to use (especially on Windows), but if you have a device with an unlocked bootloader it's very rare to be able to actually brick the device while doing normal things.
Now, if you're doing abnormal things like reflashing the radio firmware you can absolutely brick some devices there, but you don't have to do that just to boot an alternative OS and generally shouldn't be doing it without very good reason and specific knowledge of exactly what you're doing.
I'm not going to say there are no devices where the standard process to flash an alternative OS is dangerous, but none of the relatively common ones I've ever owned or used have been built that way because OEMs don't want their own official firmware updates to be dangerous either.
tl;dr: It is sometimes possible to brick a device by flashing the wrong thing incorrectly, but the risk of doing that if you are just installing an alternative OS through a standard process is basically zero.
