> Saying there is no opt-out is just false, they even provide the information on how users can opt-out.

The article states that you can't opt-out of the update, which AFAIK is correct.

You deliberately took the second quote out of context, in order to (attempt to) refute it. Here's the quote, with context:

> Starting September 2026, a silent update, nonconsensually pushed by Google, will block every Android app whose developer hasn't registered with Google, signed their contract, paid up, and handed over government ID. Every app and every device, worldwide, with no opt-out.

That is not false, it's completely accurate. You don't have to take my word for it, though, the Android developer docs have a helpful page detailing the plan [1].

As for the "advanced flow", the article discusses it in detail.

[1]: https://developer.android.com/developer-verification

??? We literally quoted the exact same text.

The plan does not outline what that quote does. You only have to do all of the things the quote claims you do in one of the three possible deployment flows. In "advanced flow" you don't have to do any of them.

No, you quoted some of the text. Hence my statement that you removed the context. If you read the full quote, it's clearly stating that you cannot opt-out of the update.

Please read it again. We quoted exactly the same thing, to the character.

Also, you can certainly opt to not install android updates, if that's your preferred reading here -- so that is also false.

How on earth did you get that from the segment of text that you chose to quote?

First up, this article is 17 years old. There's no reason to assume the author has exactly the same opinions today.

More importantly, the author is talking about the realities of trying to earn a decent living shipping independent software. That requires paying customers.

It's perfectly reasonable to want to be paid for your work, and it certainly doesn't warrant the vitriol in your comment.

If my failing memory serves, those were valid concerns in 2009, when this was written.

These are still valid concerns given that people become less and less tech savy with actual computers

I'm a little confused by your comment.

Insider trading is already illegal (this case proves it). If the problem is under-enforcement, then I agree that better enforcement is the fix.

Banning gambling is a completely separate intervention addressing a different activity, and clearly wasn't required to bring charges in this case.

The tendency of governments to create new laws instead of enforcing existing ones is how we end up with absurdly complex legal systems and the loopholes that come with them.

I think OP's point is that gambling creates so many additional incentives that it overloads the system and we can restore it by just banning gambling.

Personally I think the system shouldn't be so easily overloaded.

AFK right now, but IIRC there's a setting to control the ordering.

By all means elaborate. I can't imagine "don't have stupid ideas or write messy code" is going to make much difference.

To elaborate: That advice isn’t as objective as you think.

What one developer calls clean the other calls messy.

My advice is to use it, then document the issues when it gets messy. It takes some time, but no more than recruiting, training, paying another engineer.

> How long until they decide editing itself isn't worth it anymore? Stop supporting VI mode?

That seems like a leap.

I know nothing about automobile design, but the Smart Fortwo [1] seemed to solve this problem just fine (IIRC they had a very good NCAP safety rating).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_Fortwo

Always a good time to share this video re: crashing a Smart Fortwo: https://youtube.com/watch?v=mnI-LiKCtuE

> IIRC they had a very good NCAP safety rating

3 out of 5, which I think merely qualifies it as "average"