Installing apps from Aurora Store still does seem to work, although only occasionally. It is more likely that Google is deploying a new API schema on its Play API endpoint that the app doesn't know how to parse correctly yet.
Did you try enabling the exploit protection compatibility mode in the app settings? GrapheneOS should have shown you a Play Integrity API detection notification if the app is actively trying to block non-GMS-certified devices using Play Integrity API.
This is a correct answer despite the fact that it was previously hidden by flagging. PayPal's recent updates with incorrect anti-tampering code work fine on GrapheneOS when secure app spawning is disabled. It's best to disable only secure app spawning (exec-based spawning) for it instead of using the whole compatibility mode. Using the whole compatibility mode is the first thing to check before narrowing it down though.
So the OP is just lying out of ignorance and rash judgement, and spreading calumny about PayPal. And PayPal has done nothing to their app to block GrapheneOS. And hundreds, thousands of participants on HN have been misled by another rogue "Tell HN". Good times.
They're not lying but rather likely didn't know about the per-app exploit protection compatibility mode. They narrowed it down to secure app spawning needing to be disabled. Now they know what to do when an app doesn't work on GrapheneOS.
You can help by upvoting the update they posted with the solution:
They did actually and knowingly lie. Because I guarantee that they had no way to affirmatively know that PayPal themselves had done anything to their code. They didn't see no ChangeLog and they didn't see no Release Notes about it. They didn't read any news from the app developers. They jumped to conclusions about malice when it was actually incompetence and ignorance, much like their own.
They could've simply neutrally stated that: "PayPal crashes when I try and run it under GrapheneOS" and that would be a true statement without assigning blame or malice. But, not knowing PayPal was innocence, they chose to assign malice to them instead. That's a choice. That is rash judgement and calumny.
It's insane that their sign-up process now requires a phone number to complete on the web, and even basic features like playing a video in a tweet recently stopped working on x.com without an account. (In the past, searching for tweets, looking at an account's entire timeline, etc., never required logging in at all.)
But Twitter has and embraces that. The bots are all verified. Go on any tweet that mentions crypto or "my friends account got hacked" and dive into the deep well of hidden tweets.
Hiding tweets for users without accounts does absolutely nothing for either of those goals.
X.com makes it nearly impossible to run bot accounts, with its phone number per account requirement, and the astronomical fees for using its API.
Twitter, by comparison, was trivially easy to run bots on. I ran many automated Twitter accounts (for legit purposes). I had to shut them all down when Musk bought Twitter.
Just Google « buy x.com retweets » or similar and you will see a dozen company offering their services. Doesn’t look like a lack of activity on that area
X has substantially fewer bots than the old Twitter. Heck, my past employer had a private API access to create unlimited number of accounts via a basic POST request.
It is important to remember that combatting bots isn't a binary state. Every effort to reduce bots results in a linear reduction in the proportion of bots, but never a complete eradication. There will always be people who are sufficiently motivated to spend the time and money and effort to overcome the safeguards.
I agree with the user above. It is infinitely harder how to run bots on X than it was on Twitter.
But X (formerly twitter) made it way easier for a bot account to appear legit. And the general user experience is still full of bot content. I don’t think it actually matters much if the barrier of entry is a bit more difficult to pass, but once in you have a verified checkmark + can act freely. Whatever they are doing, the result isn’t better than it was before
That's just a lie. Twitter has been overrun by "verified" African-Middle Eastern spambots posting completely nonsensical spams since AFTER it was bought. It's clearly connected to someone higher up than its head of products, considering said head of products was forced to rollback an anti-spam measure at least once.
funny, I am not surprised that it is now much harder to run an automated twitter account for legitimate purposes. Running one for illegitimate purposes on the other hand....
But there are still very many automated accounts. Publicly automated, secretly automated, blatantly automated, not-hidden-but-not-advertised-to-be automated. What caused you to have to shut down when so few others, legitimate, illegitimate, and just regular old gimmicks had to?
This clearly falls under the definition of automated individual decision-making per Article 22 of the GDPR and would be blatantly illegal if it were done in the EU. The GDPR is explicitly designed to outlaw this kind of algorithmic profiling and exclusion in hiring.
Many call Wikipedia "the last good place on the internet", but that's really only true of the English edition. Non-English versions are generally filled with political misinformation and propaganda from people trying to politicize a nation's history, which, frankly, makes them not worth bothering with:
The difference between English, Dutch, and German Wikipedias is also very interesting. I used to never open the Dutch one unless there was a near-zero chance of the English one having any article on the topic at all (like how to make vlaai or idk). It has way fewer articles, has virtually no references for anything, is written more casually by fewer people, and everyone who needs information in the Netherlands speaks English (under 55yo) or German (over 55yo) or both (those in border-nearing retail) so nobody bothers
(Even tinier is the Limburgian dialect that have their own Wikipedia. It seems to mostly be an exercise in how to write this spoken language than to make actually useful articles with unique content. Literally nobody can read that who can't also read Dutch, since it has no spelling or even a dictionary that'd work for more than a few square kilometres. But I digress)
The Germans on the other hand, I've been amazed that there exists, not infrequently, articles in German with more information than in English. It seems like such a shame to me to put all this effort into a niche language, yet it's there. There are well-maintained silos of information out there if you know where to find them!
reply