so there’s an optimization problem in there somewhere
The optimization problem is actually the point of the study, encoded as PPD, which represents the density of a display’s pixel per degree of your eye’s field of vision. It says that any more than 53-94 PPD is imperceptible to most. You can see if your display makes the cutoff if you have the viewing distance and screen size here:
https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/rainbow/projects/display_calc/
EU is a democracy with different opinions, and when a small group of facists tries to read your chats, it does not represent the EU opinion.
But the whole media got you thinking so. Proving even on Lemmy, you and me are extremly prone to propaganda.
This is what the EU democracy opinion was as of July 2024 BTW, before the “media got to you”:
Crypto is just taking it to yet another new level saying we don’t even need a government to back it anymore we’ll just do math and have the math say it has value. The scam is the same in all cases.
Unless you lean towards anarchist persuasions, that’s a very significant & fundamental difference.
Hasn’t Sabine been getting in some hot water about promoting academic skepticism and making authoritative claims on fields well outside of her expertise?
TLS handles security for the email sent from your device until it reaches the server, and various HIPAA compliance rules mandates security for that data once it reaches that server. It’s not alarmingly less secure than other HIPAA compliant methods of communication, unless the email provider on your end has poor support for TLS emails.
Editing to include the disclaimer that this is for communications sent from your end. For communications sent from their end, this protection doesn’t necessarily apply (it depends on your email provider at that point, which may not be compliant), so for them to send you protected info via e-mail, they usually ask for your consent first, and usually the e-mail is just a link to a portal where you can access that information more securely.
HIPAA prevents providers from handling your information insecurely, but I don’t believe there is any rule that prevents you from handling your own information insecurely. You are allowed to refuse if you do not feel comfortable with a method of communication of course.
I’m playing through it now and the virtual tourism comparison is bang on. I personally don’t mind the repetitive gameplay so I’m still having a good time with it the rest of it though.
Not just your two android apps, any program on your system that is aware of your waydroid installation could potentially use it as a path to escalate themselves to root, which is generally regarded as a bad outcome. If you don’t care about that kind of thing, or don’t think that could ever happen to you, that’s certainly within your rights to hold such a viewpoint.
Whenever you see a linux phone advertise both security and android app support, you should be wary, since it’s likely waydroid or a waydroid fork, and their design goal of running android in a container instead of a VM has lead to some interesting security decisions.
You are likely thinking of google play protect, which does the same verification on their platform’s end (to try to remove bad actor developer accounts as soon as possible), and the local device end as well (to remove said developers apps if they are already installed on your device). But yes, at the base level, what arrives on your phone from the play store are just signed apk files. That’s why mirror sites like apkmirror or apkpure can do what they do, by extracting said apks after they have been released onto the play store.
The signing step you see at the end of each revanced install will require a registered google developer account going forward. The question of who will be brave enough to submit their real life information to sign revanced apps, as well as how long those accounts will last are anyone’s guess.
How is this going to be enforced if you are just downloading apks? It states they will enforce verification across sources outside of the play store. This doesn’t sound possible unless they just make stock android unable to side load
apks will have to be cryptographically signed through Google’s developer console, and this signature will be checked by the operating system at install time regardless of where you got the apk from. It’s like how windows has signed applications for smartscreen, except in this case all applications must be signed through Google, and in order to sign it, you have to let Google know where you live, and unsigned applications will simply be denied instead of just being presented with a warning.
Well, until we abolish capitalism, that’s the state of things.
I can see that things are the way things are. Accepting it is a different matter.
Unless you feel like Nazis MUST be freely given access to everything too?
To me, the “access” that I am referring to (the interface with which you gain access to a service) and that “access” (your behavior once you have gained access to a service) are different topics. The same distinction can be made with the concern over DoS attacks mentioned earlier in the thread. The user’s behavior of overwhelming a site’s traffic is the root concern, not the interface that the user is connecting with.
How “open” a website is, is up to the owner, and that’s all.
As someone who registered this account on this platform in response to Reddit’s API restrictions, it would be hypocritical of me to accept such a belief.
DoS attacks are already a crime, so of course the need for some kind of solution is clear. But any proposal that gatekeeps the internet and restricts the freedoms with which the user can interact with it is no solution at all. To me, the openness of the web shouldn’t be something that people just consider, or are amenable to. It should be the foundation in which all reasonable proposals should consider as a principle truth.
Nah, that would also mean using Newpipe, YoutubeDL, Revanced, and Tachiyomi would be a crime, and it would only take the re-introduction of WEI to extend that criminalization to the rest of the web ecosystem. It would be extremely shortsighted and foolish of me to cheer on the criminalization of user spoofing and browser automation because of this.
If you have evaluated the statement for its correctness and relevance, then you can just own up to the statement yourself. There is no need to defer responsibility by prefacing it with “I asked [some AI service] and here’s what it said”. That is the point of the article that is being discussed, if you’d like to give it a read sometime.
Do you not see the summary text in your front end, or did you just not read it? This is what it looks like on the default web front end on my instance:
Who in the world is in that much of a hurry to continue using their phone 😅