I guess it is a matter of semantics at this point, but i take the year of the Linux phone to be when a phone running a Linux os is viable for the masses, which as my original message states is at least 10 years out.

The standard for banks like capital one is, in order to login in a browser you must use their app 2fa, they do not support third party 2fa methods, and their app doesn’t work under compatibility layers. That last part may come with a workaround, but my earlier point is that the normal end user wouldn’t feel comfortable using such a thing if it is not officially allowed.

They also claim you can use 2fa by SMS, but that is first and foremost wrong since it isn’t an option for payment portals, and secondly insecure.

How do you deal with 2fa? For capital one in particular, I don’t believe there is an option not to use their app, and the other banks that I use are in the same boat or adamantly recommend to use their app.

How do you deal with 2fa? For capital one in particular, I don’t believe there is an option not to use their app, and the other banks that I use are in the same boat or adamantly recommend to use their app.

More like 2026 + 10, Linux phones are severely lagging behind, enough so that they are at least 10 years away from having enough adoption for banks and the like to recognize their existence, the annoying truth is that it cannot be mainstream until it is able to use these critical apps with no workarounds as “it works but isn’t allowed” will be the death knell of any amount of mainstream appeal.

I’m not saying I’m OK with it, but I am saying that this data collection on game servers can be negated by not sharing information over in game chat. The rule I follow is that game chat is for talking about specifically the game or a discussing what platform we should communicate on instead; the unfortunate thing is that this ai would potentially compromise other services like your preferred messaging app. All in all, there doesn’t appear to be any reason to stop using cross play servers from a data privacy perspective.

I fail to see how this ai isn’t a legitimate service, sure me and a lot of other people don’t want it, but there is an actual use case for it. It is very obvious to most of us here that it is a data collection scheme, but the data that a game server has on you should be unimportant, if it isn’t that is a failing on you for either playing such an invasive game or a failing on the game developer for making such information easily obtainable, either way this is not an issue for gamers who restrict the private information they share.

If that is what was meant, this is nothing new, server hosts have had this information and more for ages, and your gamertag is by no means priveledged information. I am having trouble trying to figure out how this change affects my willingness to play on cross play servers, as others have pointed out however I would be wary of compromised devices with privelidged data like banks or HR which I realistically have no way to protect myself from.

If the code is good I don’t have an issue with it being merged even if ai was used, that being said I bet the obvious outcome is that either people ignore the policy and nothing changes or they comply and most reviewers focus on the non-ai group which is how it was before ai. All in all, this decision can never hurt the development, since as far as I am aware there is no requirement to review an MR.

Could you expand a bit, I understand that their systems are compromised, but how does that provide information to them about you if you play a game together. Unless you are just referring to the information that a server host or your friend would know anyway.

You are assuming their ai hallucinating or maliscous devs won’t push updates that break user choice.

The general consensus is that you shouldn’t be selecting your distro based on gaming, all of the modern well maintained distros will be relatively the same performance. In my opinion you should select your distro first on how well maintained it is, then on stability, & then how well you know how to fix issues. Although I don’t follow my own advice since I use arch but that is because I am far more accostumed to that ecosystem.

They’re being run by accountants, and one thing accountants hate is paying people to do a job, its always “far easier” just to pay a company for that.

Except they will stay on their high horse and only give it to extended support this time around, that way they get what they want and they’ll be able to spin it against the people who didn’t opt in.

Maybe I was just missing pertinent information, but I thought a zero day was an attack that could be exploited in a very short time frame that has remained unpatched, I didn’t realize there was a hierarchy to the different stages.

How do you figure, I haven’t seen the actual text, is it written ambiguously? If not, I would imagine that they be able to enforce it, the only thing is the scope is very small.

Has anyone been able to find the text of the law, the article didn’t mention the penalties, I want to know if this actually means anything.

Edit: I found a website that says the penalty follows 5000*sum(n+k) where n is number of days since first infraction, this has a closed form of n^2+n= (7500^-1)y where y is the total compounded fee. This makes it cost 1mil in 11 days and 1bil in a year.

reference

There was a link in the article about that, it was saying that they are just requiring self reporting, I don’t know the political context in California, but it seems like you wouldn’t push this and then turn around and try the id thing, but I am by no means an expert at predicting the idiocracy of politicians.

What area do you live in that reticulum has enough coverage to remove the dependency on cell service

I’m not sure I follow, it seems like the issue you are running into is a hardware one, the software may be trying to compensate, but it seems like a performance issue first and foremost. I’m just curious if that is the case since I can’t think of another difference between you and I.