think you're on the wrong side of the consensus here

If it was easy I would expect 5-10% if people would probably do it, much like alternate desktop installs

This would mean millions of devices

You mention Graphene is more secure so what exactly am I gaining from not being able to install it other than my phone being trash once it's out of support

I bullied it into giving me concise answers, now it starts every answer with "just quickly" or something similar but it gets straight to the point

I always add no nonsense no bullshit at the end of my prompt. Its annoying how itries to please the user.

No need to do it yourself in every prompt. Just put it in Custom instructions under Personalization.

Thank you never saw this.

> What about having several use cases in mind, and give the scores for each of those?

i imagine the same reason they don't score for 1, it takes time that could be allocated elsewhere

tbh i think scoring for multiple scenarios would take more time and be less useful. kernel devs are not implementors, they may have never used docker or built a cut down kernel for an iot device, they just build a general purpose kernel

> it takes time that could be allocated elsewhere

And not scoring means that the security triage teams everywhere have to spend their time to assess the severity on their own, and in doing so, they mostly duplicate each other's work while deduplication is nigh impossible. Is this a worthwhile trade?

Consider e.g. vehicle recalls: the manufacturer could very well (baring legal requirements and general public's expectation) just leave it to the customers and the repairmen out there to discover and deal with the defects on their own.

> kernel devs are not implementors, they may have never used docker or built a cut down kernel for an iot device, they just build a general purpose kernel

Well that's a pretty condescending look upon the kernel maintainers. Making a successful general-purpose kernel (nevermind making a general-purpose kernel that also has a lot of quite specific affordances for custom scenarios) still requires understanding of how it will be used.

> And not scoring means that the security triage teams everywhere have to spend their time to assess the severity on their own,

We have to do that anyway because a worst case assessment is almost never worst case or even close.

CVSS is just the wrong tool for the job anyway. It's like assessing individual car parts on dimensions like "steering" and "acceleration" when most parts have no direct relationship to the completed product's high level qualities. And then you construct "worst case" stories that go "well, in the event that you are not steering while accelerating sharply, a fault in this seat cover could make that whole thing worse and cause a fatal crash: CVSS 9.9!"

The algorithm is not optimised for meaningful interactions, even 10 years ago i couldn't get it to even mostly show friends and family after fighting it for a week

The algorithm is optimized to show you content you tend to engage with. You couldnt get it to show you meaningful interaction because you didnt engage with it.

Do your friends and family interact on facebook? Could run an experiment to see if it adapts.

I don't think we're doing amendments any more

And if we are it will be a new one with a high number and it will be pure insanity

Yeah no shit, with windows ten way more people had a choice rather than got pushed into it

I'm not sure what your point is, are you saying ice will draw a line because that tech was used in war?

Trump has ordered troops to be ready deploy, pretending lines exist is silly

Google's search engine domination is nearly over, they are constantly making it worse to the point using ai is preferable and literally anyone can spin up an ai

do you think that makes it ok? they walked into a store, tried to pay money to apple and as a result they had their stuff locked forever

apple recommended they only buy gift cards from apple, but they still sell them in stores...

obviously money is more important to them than the consumers but pretending apple have zero responsibility is silly

>they had their stuff locked forever

It was locked for less than a week.

>but they still sell them in stores

Unfortunately there are sketchy resellers that exist too.

It wasn't a sketchy retailer though, it was one Apple has authorized through its handpicked affiliate (in the US, this is probably Blackhawk who basically owns the third-party-giftcard-sales business).

For Apple to say "Don't buy gift cards from our authorized retailers, or prepare to face incredibly harsh consequences due to fraud that you can't detect or predict" while continuing to sell them through those channels is morally bankrupt and completely unacceptable.

I have no doubt fraud is a big problem. It is for all gift cards. But this is a 3 trillion dollar company -- and they make minimum 30% of every gift card sold in pure profit. If they can't secure those channels without torpedoing innocent customers' entire digital lives, they need to drop that channel.

It was locked for a week because of the social media fuss that not everyone can raise. Otherwise it'd be forever.

How do you know that? It's entirely possible that it just takes time to go through Tim Cook's email and social media didn't play a factor.

Your comment reminds me of this news story of a guy trapped in his work's elevator for the weekend. How was he supposed to know it'll be only for the weekend.

Hah, because it went viral. Good luck if you aren't able to reach a wide audience (99% of people aren't). Else it would've been locked for eternity. Stop defending atrocious behavior like this.

Weird hill to die on bud.

If somebody bought something from Walmart you wouldn’t insinuate he’s at fault because he bought it from a ‘sketchy retailer’. Just stop it lol. There is literally no way to defend Apple on that one.