Having a cell phone isn't going to help even a little bit if there's an active shooter at a school. The only thing a kid should be doing in that situation is hiding, or escaping if it's safe to do so. Likely it'll make things worse... some kid will get a loud notification on their phone, which will give away their location to the shooter.
The predator example sounds pretty flimsy and unlikely to me as well.
Honestly, your reaction to this just seems to follow the fear-based rationales that people put forth for a lot of things, when the fears are overblown or the risks are low.
I don't put much stock in slippery-slope style arguments. If you're going to make an argument like that, you need to support it with other instances where the same group/government has actually fallen down that slippery slope, to great detriment, in a similar enough situation for it to be likely to happen here.
Without that, it just comes off as hand-wavy anti-government fear-mongering. It's telling that you used the term "authoritarians", as if any law that's passed that can restrict what someone can do is necessarily authoritarian... which, well, as I said, it's telling.
I'm more concerned with the fact that these sorts of laws don't just affect kids: they require adults to supply government-issued identification in order to use these services, which I think is crap.
We can't know for sure, but my guess is that Itanium still could have failed. I could imagine an alternative universe where, even with HP-UX and WinXP running on it, no one wanted to deal with porting their application software. And its emulation of 32-bit code (both in hardware and in software) was atrocious, so running existing, unported code wouldn't really take off either.
Eventually Intel gives up after motherboard/desktop/laptop makers can't build a proper market for it. Maybe Intel then decides to go back and do something similar to what AMD did with x86_64. Maybe Intel just gives up on 64-bit and tries to convince people it's not necessary, but then starts losing market share to other companies with viable 64-bit ISAs, like IMB's POWER64 or Sun's SPARC64 or whatever.
Obviously we can't know, but I think my scenario is at least as likely as yours.
I think your carrier hasn't approved it yet. T-mobile seems to lag on these things. I also can't seem to find a system update. A Google Play system update does seem to exist
We have an OS security update that is only release to users of a specific hardware, once approved by their mobile operator. It may be added to vendor-specific OS versions some time later (weeks, month or never). The vendor-specific may not be approved by a telco if the vendor doesn't have a relationship with that telco.
Now think that millions of people use the same OS on many different flavours, on different hardware, on multiple operators.
Nope. When a new iOS update comes out, all supported devices may immediately install the update if they seek it out. Or it will usually auto update on its own, or at least nag the user to update.
It’s gotten slightly more confusing with the major updates now being optional. You get a choice between getting a feature update or just security patches. Unless I missed it, my phone never really asked me to update to the latest iOS 26. But I can, it’s there. I’m instead on the latest version of iOS 18. (They changed number schemes. 18 is last years major update)
Apple also does security updates for quite a long time. iOS 15, from 2021, got a security patch in September of this year, and works on the iPhone 6s from 2015.
Is this true for updates that might affect the way it interacts with the network (eg baseband firmware updates)? I assume it's much easier for iPhones to decouple that layer from the rest of the OS, which isn't the case for Android/Linux.
It was made available in the end of OCTOBER in the special security preview channel.
GoS has already deployed patches to some of the vulnerabilities you'll read about in January.
All the partnering vendors have access to the same bulletins.
Multi-billion companies like Samsung or Google had access to that since AT LEAST October. They chose to release these patches late. Some will release these patches months form now. Some, perhaps never.
Just go to the software update, touch the button, then touch it a second time, and that will give you all available updates immediately, regardless of your random position in the rollout process.
Not working for me on Android 16, additional taps of the "Check for update" button in the bottom-right don't change the fact that it says "Your system is up to date" and that the last change was last month.
Could be model-specific. I got the update by doing that manually on my Pixel 8 Pro, that also happens to be on the beta track so there are a few confounders. But that is the way to get the latest software that is waiting to be released to your phone, without waiting.
I had the same experience as peer comments. I'm on Pixel 8 and Google Fi. When I check for updates, I'm told I'm up-to-date with the last update being over a month old.
Please, feel free to extrapolate for me whether the "unspecified vulnerability" referenced in the article was introduced more or less than five years ago.
The point was the whole phone has been vulnerable to a multitude of RCEs for five years, so it doesn't really matter if its the latest exploit, its a silly request.
Or maybe they knew about the runtime checks, but made a decision not to add them? As others have pointed out, this plugin can be used during live performances. The last thing a plugin author wants is a reputation for their software being flaky at really bad times. A runtime copy protection check might fail for spurious reasons, who knows.
> early tests show that the SoC already draws about 16 watts at idle
Ooof. I feel like power efficiency would be the main reason I'd take the plunge and switch from x86_64 to arm64, given that there would be difficulties and trade offs software-wise to do so.
My 13th-gen Intel board in my Framework 13 sits at around 11W semi-idle (Firefox constantly burning 35% of one core for reasons that are my fault). And this is with Linux, where power management isn't always the best.
Regardless, I'm happy to see something like this. It might not be something I want today, but it's a step in the right direction.
It's either a firmware or soc thing, hoping they can fix it without having to spin a new chip. O6 owners keep bringing it up, but personally I don't care since in my case it's lower than the hardware it's replacing.
While I'm sure there are some (many?) people faking it for accommodations or drugs, I assure you that ADHD is real. I know several people with ADHD who have struggled to find the right combination of medication to even get to a state where they can lead functional lives, which is still not what us neurotypical folks would call "normal".
The predator example sounds pretty flimsy and unlikely to me as well.
Honestly, your reaction to this just seems to follow the fear-based rationales that people put forth for a lot of things, when the fears are overblown or the risks are low.
reply