Uh, no it’s not.

It is. As a result of the Epic Games v. Google, Android builds with the Play Store are required to allow users to install apps without any warning at all. They obviously can’t allow any app to be installed without a warning because this would be a boon to malware authors, so this is now enabled with verification. You can now even share apps you build with your friends without requiring them to go through an unverified apps flow with a scary warning. Additionally, Google is not allowed to take a revenue cut from those installs.

You’re confused because the install process for apps that are not verified (a path that didn’t exist before at all) or installed from a system app store has changed. This now has to be done with adb, which takes effect immediately, or via an on-phone process that takes a day to complete. Once it is done, this setting is copied to new phones, so the process actually becomes easier for most people who do this because they don’t have to go through the process repeatedly.

It is possible on every Google phone.

This change is the opposite. It makes it possible for a user to install the Epic Games Store from their website without seeing a scary warning, and Google won’t get a cut of any of the revenues from that store. The same with any other company. Netflix can now offer their app from their website, and people can install it without any warning, and Netflix won’t have to send any revenue to Google for people who subscribe in the app.

This change makes it so you can’t install software (such as F-Droid, NewPipe, Google Camera, Samsung Notes, etc.) from APK, unless you install them directly from Google’s Play Store [without going through unnecessary hoops and 24-hour delays].

This change was precipitated by a change that allows you to install an app outside the Play Store without the user seeing a scary warning or going through the existing hoops, as required by the Epic Games v. ruling.

I think a reasonable game could be played with those rules, given how quickly goals are scored and how hard it is supposed to be to catch the snitch. It’s just that it didn’t make sense at all that Krum was celebrated. Catching the snitch was worse than scoring an own goal in soccer because it directly and immediately caused his team to lose the match. The rioting of the death eaters after the match is understandable, but the way everyone else behaved towards this obvious fraud is not. The Ministry should have started a match fixing investigation.

You might enjoy Vinge’s Zones of Thought series.

In The Goblet of Fire, Ireland beat Bulgaria despite Bulgaria getting the snitch. The problem with the snitch isn’t that the team that gets it automatically wins but that this particular match didn’t make sense because Bulgaria knew that getting the snitch would cause them to lose, so they would have instead focused on preventing Ireland from getting the snitch while they tried to get within 150 points.

The American Immigration Council is a better source than Al Jazeera for describing what ICE might be doing that is wrong, so I don’t consider that a valid criticism of this summary.

This is common practice. If you look at Google Maps in any other country, the name will not have changed. In the U.S., it shows the legal name within the U.S., which was updated by H.R. 276.

Similarly, disputed borders are drawn differently depending on which country you’re accessing Google Maps in to satisfy local laws. https://www.the-independent.com/tech/the-man-who-s-making-google-maps-smarter-9544478.html

I asked about the Strait of Hormuz, and it summarized information from Al Jazeera, the BBC, and Wikipedia. It added the following disclaimer:

Disclaimer: This information is based on reports from April 18–20, 2026, and the situation is highly volatile.

This seems reasonable.

When I asked about ICE illegal operations, it summarized and linked to the American Immigration Council.

This is not as good. If I’m asking about something done right now being illegal, I would like to see ongoing cases challenging the legality of the actions. I’d hesitate to call that bias instead of just bad results though.

It is about California. The comment you replied to was about California. My comments replying to you have been about California. That original comment you replied to and my own comments have said that California’s law is reasonable. You keep saying it isn’t, but you have yet to present any reason why.

Once again, that post is about age verification, so it doesn’t apply to the California law. If there are no documents or pictures stored for age verification, there is nothing to breach.

He said exactly the same thing I said: laws like the California one that don’t require age verification are fine.

what is the point of the OS asking

Because for the purpose of securing kids accounts, it doesn’t make sense for the kids to enter their ages themselves each time they create an account at a new website.

Tell me how it can be used against me. It doesn’t give out any information beyond what I let it give out about me, and that information (an age range) is derived from information I get to make up. Remember, the California law doesn’t require any verification of the age data that is given to the OS.

Companies are already required to ask if their users are kids because, among other reasons, there are laws against creating ad profiles for kids, and companies have been sued for doing this even accidentally. The California law just changes how they’re required to check if they’re a kid from asking them at account creation to asking the OS at account creation, where the parents have set the age for them when the OS account was created. It gives the company checking if they’re a kid no more information than they had before. I agree with [email protected] that this is totally reasonable.

This particular federal bill, on the other hand seems closer to the Florida bill in that it requires some form of age verification instead of just accepting what the parents enter when creating the OS account. That is unreasonable. Complain to your representative, and we’ll see how it gets amended.

What you’re asking for is exactly what the California law provides, and I agree that it is reasonable. This bill seems to be closer to the Florida bill in that it requires some way to verify age, which is unreasonable. Let’s see how it gets amended.

Unlike laws against making guns, this law applies to printer sellers, not to their users.

Nothing working class about Luigi.

At least six people have been arrested so far. Epstein, Maxwell, Mountbatten-Windsor, Mandelson, Rod-Larsen, and Jagland.