Such a strong new legal framework must consider consumer hardware actually in use:

- Android variations Like GrapheneOS, Huawei's HarmonyOS, older phones running custom ROMs - Linux phones, which are sold in the EU and by EU companies

- Desktop operating systems

All of them can run Web Apps, and thus need age verification

There is GrapheneOS, HarmonyOS by Huawei, LineageOS for older phones and many more Android ROMs.

Additionally, Linux phones exist and are already sold in the EU to consumers, not just a prototype.

There's really no justification around limiting the OS selection.

There is also Linux, Windows, MacOS and many more operatint system not limited to phones.

Anyone has context on the following not hidden over Git-* issues (I was left thoroughly confused trying to understand it)?

The web won't die. It will just become even more commercialized than it already is. You might recognize most of the things listed.

Selling things: Restaurants, hotels, local businesses; Ads: more of the same

Work: a) Projects people collaborate on and need to share information b) Writing articles to boost a resume

And maybe sharing what people do, they do it for free, see social media.

There are several factors at play making conflicts almost impossible:

- A central device can be immediately synced to. For Nextcloud, it could be a server, for direct synchronization that I use (Syncthing), my phone (almost always online) is the intermediate device for all.

- You are usually online when creating accounts/password, so an sync can happen directly after a change

- And finally: How often do you actually _create_ accounts rather than just read the database? And how often do you do it on two devices in quick succession?

You get all the driver support and tools from the Ubuntu base, with some nice additons. However, not all desktop environment are supported.

This is the result of Cloudflare's test "Check if a host supports post-quantum TLS key exchange" offered on https://radar.cloudflare.com/post-quantum.

Hoping there is already a migration plan. Fortunately many modern tools make it easy to switch to PQ, maybe someone knows which stack HN is running and if it would be possible.

> A document in the classic sense requires an embodied declaration of intent that identifies an issuer and is suitable for providing proof in legal transactions. In the case of a lawyer's letter, the signature is an essential part of the standard repertoire of authenticity.

https://www.heise.de/en/news/Document-fraud-via-email-Why-th...

So removing some parts to make it _could_ make it safe, to Not create a "risk of confusion":

> Even if computer processing creates the appearance of a genuine document, the typical characteristics of the original must be present to establish a serious risk of confusion. Likewise, the BayObLG did not consider the offense of forging evidential data according to Section 269 of the German Criminal Code (StGB) to be fulfilled.

The problem can not be helped by research research against cybercrime. Proper practices for protections are well established and known, they just need to be implemented.

The amount donated should've rather be invested into better protections / hiring a person responsible in the company.

(Context: The hack happened on a not properly decomissioned legacy system.)

Is "red" high or low velocity? And as an example, I do not understand what the "Boeing vs. Airbus" selection is trying to represent, as well as how "Altitude & Velocity" are supposed to be displayed at the same time.

Project certainly requires a bit more care if any discussion should happen around it.

There are so many good clients out there, and I'd rather have 1. The team focus on their core offering, and 2. the existing email client is for the same reason (limited developer time, and matureness) a much better choice for security

From article: "An email is your copy, and the sender can’t revise it later."

As always with Google policies, this means users will need to jump through more and more hoops (as today with custom ROMs and banking apps already). I really hope first and foremost that this policy can be reverted, and if not, that the community develops means of technological circumvention (examples mentioned by others include an "app runner" app or letting others identify the app).

It is a sad state the Android ecosystem is heading to.

My workaround already was using Breeze, since it does the least modification compared to other themes available by default. Glad to see it continue in this direction.