Right? Elitism in this thread is strong. I have never been in a situation where I NEED to use 7z instead of zip.

That’s what different instances are for, although a lot of big instances do this kind of blanket ban. Maybe you just have to run your own instance.

Sync for Reddit and Sync for Lemmy are separate, so the license and all don’t transfer. You’ll see ads sooner or later if you didn’t do anything to block it.

Although I do not agree with your opinion above, but I think your opinion is valid and you don’t deserve the downvotes.

My opinion is that Sync and Lemmy are two different things with two different philosophies. Yes they are interconnected, but they are both separate entities, and it’s not like Sync is built off of Lemmy’s source code. The dev should get compensated for the time and resources he put into the source code of Sync, and if ads is a way to contribute to that, then so be it.

Uhm, then don’t pay? No one is forcing you to pay or even use Sync. I don’t think it’s worth it for me too at this moment to pay that much for an app to browse Lemmy (because in my opinion it’s still riding the hype train, it’s long term future is still to be determined). So I accept that I will have to see ads.

Sync is an app by a private developer, who has his own rights to set the price for something he produced. He can put the price at 100€ and still no one has the right to whine about it. If you think it’s not worth it, then don’t buy it. It’s not like you need this to survive.

What the fuck are you talking about? When did he ask you to pay anything before the app is released?

or use patched third party clients

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

It’s like saying since Google can modify some files in Windows that Microsoft doesn’t control the platform.

You complain that I’m not comparing like to like, yet you’re taking Windows, a closed sourced operating system, as an analog to AOSP, an open sourced one?

This is both because of differentiation

But why are other OEMs allowed to differentiate, and Google is not?

Yes, Google has the “official control” of how Android should be, and not all OEM changes are in line with that. But contributing upstream is not the only way to make the Android ecosystem open.

Take for example, Galaxy Watch with WearOS. There are multiple features that the watch can do, ONLY IF ITS PAIRED WITH A GALAXY PHONE. I have a Galaxy Watch 4. It has ECG and Blood Pressure sensors. But I can’t use it (officially), because I don’t have a Galaxy phone. Why? Because Samsung is keeping that exclusive with a software lock that totally doesn’t have to be there. Measuring ECG and Blood Pressure doesn’t need anything from my phone, it’s all on the watch.

Another example also regarding using Galaxy Watch with a non Galaxy phone, which is even more absurd, is that if you’re using a Galaxy Watch with Galaxy phone, they will sync DND status between them, but if you’re not using a Galaxy phone, it’ll not sync. They literally added codes for it to not work on non Galaxy phone.

Also, the example you used in your original comment, the call screening feature, uses language models that Google paid for the development and trained. I think it’s fair for them to uses that technology that they invested in to help boost their own profit instead of just giving out for free.

Using “Low” would be more infuriating than “Lo”.

The full words are “High” (not “Hi”) and “Low”, so to save space they use the first two letters “Hi” and “Lo”. If they use “Hi” and “Low” it would be inconsistent, e.g. more infuriating.

Stuff like call screening in the android dialer would be possible on any brand of device. But no, pixel only.

Other OEMs also have their own features that are exclusive to their own phones. They can also implement them into AOSP, but they don’t. Instead, they keep the features to their own devices. A lot of times when there’s a new feature on Android in general, more often than not you’ll see comments like “Samsung had this since years ago”.

So if other OEMs are allowed to have platform specific features, Google is allowed to have theirs too. Or in other words, if you want to hold Google responsible for holding back Android, you have to also hold other OEMs responsible too.

I’d rather see something where the algorithm is open and pieces of it are voted on by the users and other interested parties. Perhaps let people create and curate their own algorithm’s, something like playlist curation on spotify or youtube but make it as transparent as possible, let people share them and such. Kind of like how playlists are shared.

Isn’t that already how it works, sans the transparency part?

You press “like” on something you like, and the algorithm shows you more that are related to that thing you just liked. Indirectly, you’re curating your feed/algorithm. Or maybe you can look at this from another angle, maybe the “like” button isn’t just for the things you like, but also the things that you don’t particularity like, but would like to see more.

Then there’s other people around you, your Facebook friends, their likes also affect your feed, as you can see the algorithm suggests things that “people that are interested in things you’re interested in, are also interested in”.

I believe it’s mentioned in an issue in the official Thunderbird repo that from now on the Flatpak is maintained by the main Thunderbird dev team, so the Flatpak repo is archived and all Flatpak packages from now on will be uploaded directly by the devs.

You’d be surprised

Yes, that is what is happening. But that’s not what I’m asking. I know there’s imbalance between the rich and the poor in the justice system. What I’m asking is, is that how it should be?

You’ve accepted that as an acceptable thing that rich people/companies don’t have to obey the law, and that rich people/companies obeying the law is a bad thing? Because what you’ve said above is that because Meta is rich, so they shouldn’t obey the law.

You don’t buy that it’s the law?

not when you have the obscene money and power that Meta has. They could have fought it and resisted,

What you’re saying is because Meta is rich, they don’t have to obey the law?

Agree. People like to act like Lemmy is a utopia where privacy is always protected and what not. The fact is when it comes down to it, the admins have to comply with the law. If a warrant shows up at their door, they got no choice but to give up information.

TL;DR: If you want to use Tesla’s charger patent, you’re allowing Tesla to steal your patent and you can’t sue Tesla for it, even if the patent is not related to charging technology.

Well yes, but to use it the company will have to give up a lot.

From https://www.makeuseof.com/why-manufacturers-dont-use-tesla-superchargers/:

Tesla offers its patents free of charge and won’t launch a lawsuit against any company using them. This sounds great, but this only applies to companies acting in “good faith”, as defined Tesla’s Patent Pledge. This clause has significant business implications and explains why many haven’t utilized Tesla’s patents.

According to Nicholas Collura, an attorney writing for Duane Morris LLP, using Tesla’s patents forfeits a company’s right to bring action against Tesla for any form of copyright infringement—not just in relation to the patents. Essentially, if Tesla stole a company’s software code, that company would need to give up any protections offered under Tesla’s Patent Pledge to pursue legal action.

Furthermore, and even more importantly, using Tesla’s patents means that a company cannot assert its own patent right against any other electric vehicle company. This is especially risky for companies that rely on patents to gain a competitive edge.

The terms also deem that a company can’t challenge any Tesla patent, including those outside of the Patent Pledge, nor can it have any financial involvement in a company that does so. Collura notes the vagueness of this, saying that “Tesla could argue that a supplier has a financial stake in its customer’s challenge of a Tesla patent.”

That’s gotta be part of the reason why he joined Threads. To spite Elong.