498
Google's plan to restrict sideloading on Android has a potential escape hatch for users
(www.androidauthority.com)
this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2025
498 points (97.7% liked)
Technology
74966 readers
3887 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Absolutely not. Those are enormous straws...
That is not what you said. What you said was, and I quote "You think: people who wonder on the street are to blame if they are hit."
If people are not "wandering into the street" then they are not "jaywalking", are they?
It doesn't matter which one is which. The one that is "jay" is the one doing so without any regard for the rules, endangering themselves and other road users.
That would be a completely different use of the word, since neither of these words mean "someone who operates scooters carelessly and without regard for the rules", as jaywalking does.
We are clearly not moving toward convincing eachother to anything even a bit, so let's stop here. Have a great day, Ulrich.
You will never convince anyone by gaslighting them into believing you didn't say things you did (especially where it's clearly documented) and continually pursuing strawman arguments.
Hmm? Now I'm honestly confused. What is the thing I said that I claim I didn't say?
One of these things is not like the other.
Yes, those are not the same and that's exactly the point.
2nd one is me trying to understand your perspective and assumimg that you asses the irresponsibility of wondering into trafic must comr from the modern perspective in accordance with modern standards (existing traffic laws and road culture) - reality after PR campaign.
1st one is pointing out that that traffic laws and road culture were different back then, and.we.can't even talk about "wondering into" traffic anymore than we could talk about "wondering into sidewalk" - reality before PR campaign.
Those two not being the same is the result of PR campaign changing one state of round culture to another by stigmatizing being a pedestrian on the street. That's the problem we are discussing.
Come on.
(Man, I'm regretting biting after it was obvious this conversation is going nowhere. This time I'm truly out. Feel free to have your last word, but - hopefully - I'll not address it)
So you're confused because you made baseless assumptions about me personally? Yeah, that'll do it.
Personally? It was based on things you said. We allready discused it, right? And it was the only thing to.me that made sense. At least than you'd be understandably wrong, instead of stubbornly wrong. If you understand that before the campaign walking on the streets was normal and perfectly leagal and the capaign stigmatized it as a simpletons behavior of irresponsible people, than I honestly don't understand what is the hill you chose to die on.