<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Hacker News: NotPractical</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=NotPractical</link><description>Hacker News RSS</description><docs>https://hnrss.org/</docs><generator>hnrss v2.1.1</generator><lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2026 12:06:01 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hnrss.org/user?id=NotPractical" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"></atom:link><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by NotPractical in "Codex just found a "workaround" of not having sudo on my PC"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>No, because a malicious AI agent could just replace the sudo binary in your path with one that collects your password and uses it to execute arbitrary code as root. Nothing short of sandboxing everything or just never using AI agents or proprietary software will prevent this.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2026 03:25:30 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48352289</link><dc:creator>NotPractical</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48352289</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48352289</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by NotPractical in "Colorado Amended SB051 (Age Verification Bill) to Exclude Open Source Projects"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Does anyone have a citation for this that wasn't written by Claude? It wouldn't surprise me, but I refuse to look through AI slop to check the accuracy of the report.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2026 02:26:25 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48217062</link><dc:creator>NotPractical</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48217062</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48217062</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by NotPractical in "Hardware Attestation as Monopoly Enabler"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>> Other than enriching apple, there’s been no direct or apparent harm to the end user from the walled garden.<p><a href="https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/society-equity/apple-removes-ice-tracking-apps-after-pressure-by-trump-administration-2025-10-03/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/society-equity/apple-...</a><p>I don't want to hear about how this isn't Apple's fault. This isn't the big bad orange man forcing Apple to act against its will; it's a business arrangement between Apple and the president. He gets censorship, they get a weaker EU.<p><a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/defending-american-companies-and-innovators-from-overseas-extortion-and-unfair-fines-and-penalties/" rel="nofollow">https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/defe...</a></p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 12 May 2026 19:00:36 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48112796</link><dc:creator>NotPractical</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48112796</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48112796</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by NotPractical in "Google Cloud fraud defense, the next evolution of reCAPTCHA"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>No, they were correct in their understanding of what I meant. I should've said "capable of passing Play Integrity's device attestation checks". I replied to them with more context.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2026 18:33:21 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48066990</link><dc:creator>NotPractical</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48066990</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48066990</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by NotPractical in "Google Cloud fraud defense, the next evolution of reCAPTCHA"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>It indeed runs on modified versions of Android, but this is not supported by Google and never has been.<p>When Apple says "Apple Pay is supported on iOS >= $VERSION" they don't explicitly mention that it won't work on jailbroken iPhones, because they don't expect you to make modifications to your device and then try and use their services as normal. This is unsupported and discouraged, just like trying to manually install Google Play services on an OS that didn't ship with it.<p>The only way to get Google Mobile Services officially is to buy an Android device with it pre-installed while leaving the stock OS untouched. And the only way for an OEM to ship GMS with their device is to certify it with Google. And one of the requirements for certification is to use device attestation keys signed by the Google Hardware Attestation Root certificate [1], thus Play Integrity will pass on all such devices.<p>[1] <a href="https://developer.android.com/privacy-and-security/security-key-attestation#root_certificate" rel="nofollow">https://developer.android.com/privacy-and-security/security-...</a></p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2026 18:32:27 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48066977</link><dc:creator>NotPractical</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48066977</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48066977</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by NotPractical in "Google Cloud fraud defense, the next evolution of reCAPTCHA"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>> No mention of device integrity verification yet<p>If Google Play services is listed as a requirement, that implies that a "certified Android" device capable of Play Integrity attestation is required, since that's the only officially supported way to obtain Google Play services. On consumer-facing support articles like this, they don't tend to get into the nitty gritty details like what APIs are being used. If MEETS_DEVICE_INTEGRITY is required, that would probably not be explicitly listed here.<p>E.g. the consumer documentation for Google Pay just says you need a "certified" Android device and a screen lock set up: <a href="https://support.google.com/wallet/answer/12200245" rel="nofollow">https://support.google.com/wallet/answer/12200245</a><p>(Yes, if you go deep into the FAQ at the end it eventually states that if you rooted your phone, you can't use tap to pay, but that requirement is implied by the certification requirement [1].)<p>In Google's eyes, and in the eyes of the law due to trademarks filed by Google, Android == Google Android.<p>This feature would make little sense if it's <i>not</i> using device attestation because otherwise it would be easy to spoof. I expect that it will initially not use it, and they will start A/B testing device attestation in the coming years.<p>[1] Expand "What to do if you see device is not certified" -> "Reset device to fix issue" <a href="https://support.google.com/android/answer/7165974" rel="nofollow">https://support.google.com/android/answer/7165974</a></p>
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2026 19:36:46 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48040663</link><dc:creator>NotPractical</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48040663</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48040663</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by NotPractical in "Metal Gear Solid 2's source code has been leaked on 4chan"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Minecraft Legacy Console Edition apparently leaked on 4chan recently, too: <a href="https://github.com/MCLCE/MinecraftConsoles" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/MCLCE/MinecraftConsoles</a><p>Almost no coverage on HN or mainstream media though. Surprising, considering the popularity of this game.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sun, 03 May 2026 20:18:07 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48000976</link><dc:creator>NotPractical</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48000976</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48000976</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by NotPractical in "We found a stable Firefox identifier linking all your private Tor identities"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Here's the technical measures that are being worked around: <a href="https://blog.mozilla.org/en/firefox/fingerprinting-protections/" rel="nofollow">https://blog.mozilla.org/en/firefox/fingerprinting-protectio...</a><p>> IMO you need to actually work around a technical measure intended to stop you for it to qualify as an exploit.<p>Even well-known vulnerabilities like SQL injection don't qualify under this definition?</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2026 03:24:32 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47871974</link><dc:creator>NotPractical</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47871974</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47871974</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by NotPractical in "The world in which IPv6 was a good design (2017)"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Most tech businesses exist because problems exist. Tailscale delivers a solution that's available <i>today</i>. The only alternative is to sit and wait for IPv6. I don't imagine Tailscale is against IPv6 any more than security professionals are against memory-safe programming languages.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sun, 19 Apr 2026 21:47:15 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47827921</link><dc:creator>NotPractical</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47827921</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47827921</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by NotPractical in "Apple removes iPhone vibe coding app from app store"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>The entire rule is as follows:<p>Apps should be self-contained in their bundles, and may not read or write data outside the designated container area, nor may they download, install, or execute code which introduces or changes features or functionality of the app, including other apps. Educational apps designed to teach, develop, or allow students to test executable code may, in limited circumstances, download code provided that such code is not used for other purposes. Such apps must make the source code provided by the app completely viewable and editable by the user.<p>There are not "exceptions"; there is one exception, and that's educational apps. But it's unclear why Pythonista is educational while the apps mentioned in the article are not. In fact, Pythonista is even listed in the "Productivity" section in the App Store.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2026 19:35:01 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47605483</link><dc:creator>NotPractical</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47605483</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47605483</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by NotPractical in "Apple removes iPhone vibe coding app from app store"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Apple's own Swift Playground app does the exact thing that supposedly violates the rules, abusing an inconsistently-applied exception for "educational" apps [1].<p>Recent regulation doesn't help here, by the way. iOS apps submitted for "notarization" to be distributed in alternative app stores in the EU, Japan, etc. still must comply with a subset of the guidelines, including 2.5.2. EU is probably not interested in strengthening the DMA so that Apple doesn't have to approve everything because then it makes other EU regulations easier to bypass (e.g. Chat Control).<p>Looks like YC wasted their money on this one, unless it's exempt because one of the founders used to work at Apple or something: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45041185">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45041185</a><p>[1] <a href="https://developer.apple.com/swift-playground/" rel="nofollow">https://developer.apple.com/swift-playground/</a></p>
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2026 19:22:26 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47605323</link><dc:creator>NotPractical</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47605323</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47605323</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by NotPractical in "ChatGPT won't let you type until Cloudflare reads your React state"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>But do they do it whether you're logged in or not?<p>I noticed the ChatGPT app also checks Play Integrity on Android (because GrapheneOS snitches on apps when they do this), probably for the same reason. Claude's app doesn't, by the way, but it also requires a login.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sun, 29 Mar 2026 21:14:09 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47567387</link><dc:creator>NotPractical</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47567387</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47567387</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by NotPractical in "Apple Just Lost Me"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>> 1. Gatekeeping. OK, fine<p>Proceeds to explain why your opinion is not "fine" but rather invalid, because Apple boiled you like a frog...<p>Every time someone mentions here that they're concerned macOS is becoming more like iOS, Apple apologists show up to explain how that's not actually happening. I guess now you guys have just accepted it.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sun, 29 Mar 2026 21:01:34 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47567274</link><dc:creator>NotPractical</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47567274</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47567274</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by NotPractical in "Android’s new sideload settings will carry over to new devices"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>From the article:<p>> While sadly, it doesn’t look like there will be any ADB command you can send to your phone to make it immediately jump to the end of that 24-hour delay<p>There's also no evidence that adb-sideloaded app stores will be able to skip PackageInstaller's developer verification enforcement, so no, you will have to wait 24 hours to install F-Droid <i>and actually use it</i>.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sun, 29 Mar 2026 17:24:00 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47565163</link><dc:creator>NotPractical</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47565163</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47565163</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by NotPractical in "GrapheneOS refuses to comply with new age verification laws for operating system"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Wasn't most of the hype surrounding the Motorola partnership based on the idea that you'd be able to get a device with GrapheneOS pre-installed, boosting the legitimacy of GrapheneOS as a competitor to Google Android? Sure, "GrapheneOS adds several more supported devices" is cool and all, but it's not nearly as exciting...</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sun, 22 Mar 2026 20:02:26 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47481520</link><dc:creator>NotPractical</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47481520</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47481520</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by NotPractical in "Google details new 24-hour process to sideload unverified Android apps"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>> Apple's argument for locking down the iPhone but not the Mac has always been some variation of "Mac users are professionals and iPhones are for everyone."<p>That argument no longer holds water with the release of the Macbook Neo and the associated Tiktok advertising campaign [1].<p>[1] <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@apple" rel="nofollow">https://www.tiktok.com/@apple</a></p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2026 19:00:50 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47459084</link><dc:creator>NotPractical</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47459084</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47459084</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by NotPractical in "Google details new 24-hour process to sideload unverified Android apps"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>That would be very similar to LiveContainer for iOS [1]. I think that unsandboxed JIT is still possible as of Android 16, but Google has been cracking down on it.<p>[1] <a href="https://github.com/LiveContainer/LiveContainer" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/LiveContainer/LiveContainer</a></p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2026 14:49:44 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47455381</link><dc:creator>NotPractical</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47455381</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47455381</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by NotPractical in "Google details new 24-hour process to sideload unverified Android apps"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Or at least include this flag in the system backups and restore it upon switching to a new device...<p>If you get most/all of your apps from F-Droid, they're essentially establishing a policy of "any time you get a new phone, you can't use it for 24 hours", which is... insane?</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2026 13:41:26 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47454366</link><dc:creator>NotPractical</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47454366</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47454366</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by NotPractical in "Google details new 24-hour process to sideload unverified Android apps"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>How do you know this? It's been confirmed that you can use adb to temporarily bypass verification on a per-app basis, yes, but from what I can see, there's no indication that sideloading one app over adb will <i>also</i> skip the 1-day period.<p>This matters if you're sideloading an app store like F-Droid, because sideloaded app stores still have to go through PackageInstaller [1], which probably still enforces verification checks for adb-sideloaded apps?<p>[1] <a href="https://developer.android.com/reference/android/content/pm/PackageInstaller#DEVELOPER_VERIFICATION_FAILED_REASON_DEVELOPER_BLOCKED" rel="nofollow">https://developer.android.com/reference/android/content/pm/P...</a></p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2026 11:50:13 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47453291</link><dc:creator>NotPractical</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47453291</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47453291</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by NotPractical in "Google details new 24-hour process to sideload unverified Android apps"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Google could easily put an end to that if they wanted. Just block adb access from the loopback address and VPN. I'm surprised this isn't already in place. The setup flow for those apps you're referring to is awkward enough that it's clear it was never intentional to be able to access adb on-device.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2026 11:09:47 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47453007</link><dc:creator>NotPractical</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47453007</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47453007</guid></item></channel></rss>