Why? For a police state this is surprisingly low.

The main problem with your cynicism in this case is that if the product were to be mainly marketed to imbeciles then why does it have any pretense at privacy protection at all?

For people like you. Having no protection at all gives bad press. Having at least some protection or pretense of protection? "Uh... those nerds again. Should come out of their mother's basement... I just want to use a device, not learn computer science...yada yada". It is easy to distinguish between no protection at all and protection. But the average joe sixpack cannot distinguish between good and bad protection.

But the most important reason: Blame shifting. If something happens, and it will happen, Google can always say: The user opted in. He chose to allow this app to use SMS. If there is no protection at all, Google might get sued.

The problem instead seems to be that there is in fact a sizable portion of users out there who do care at least a little about their privacy...

You are aware, that Android is NOT the main focus of Google's business interests? It is big data. So, if someone has quantifiable information about 'the sizable portion', I'd guess it is Google. As much as it might hurt, geeks or nerds don't matter. Perhaps in the beginning as early adopters and multiplicators, but later on? When there is a userbase which goes into millions? Forget it.

Google simply isn't interested in protecting my privacy.

Or they are simply not able to do it. Google is seen by many as the software olymp. When I started developing for Android I was appalled by what a crap system Android really is. Buggy as hell and needlessly difficult to use. Maybe the Android developers are simply overstrained by their own system and needed to simplify it.

Really? An app is perhaps downloaded 5000 times. It has 100 comments... 20 complain about the permissions. You cannot know how many people did not install it because of the permissions. So, I think we don't have enough data to do a meaningful statistic and be surprised.

This isn't going to boost user adoption of apps (at least among people with a brain),

You can get much money from smart people, if you offer a great product.

You can get little money from totally brainless people, even if your product is total crap.

Too bad that there are so many brainless people compared to the few smart ones, that the latter approach is by far more profitable.

If you want to be successful... target the imbeciles.

Does not work this way. 'Sheep' don't allow advanced settings. Embarrasses them. Make them feel stupid. But of course it is not them who are stupid, but the software developer. Calling something 'advanced settings' is like putting a sign on: 'Randomly click here. No knowledge or understanding necessary'.

Sorry, not enough nerds there to make a difference. I write my android software myself. If I can. Usually not perfect, usually not so fine eye candy, but sufficient for my needs. And I know that it is 'clean'.

For Google. Android is for the masses. The masses are stupid. Therefore the software for the masses must be written for the stupid. The less functions the better. You don't like it? How often in IT related discussions come lines like this: "MeeMeeMeeMee... I just want to use and not study computer science. You are arrogant. Stupid nerds". In the right forum, 80% applaud this crap. So, this is the result. I am certainly not Google, but I write my software the same way.

I guess that they can no longer tell the joke "The only mad cow in TX is Oprah" anymore.

After seeing several patent decisions from TX courts , I think mad cow disease is rampant in Texas for years. So I guess this joke could not be told for quite some time.

That is not the intended use for surveilance. What he did was naughty, but no copyright violation.

In IT, particularly programming, women don't seem to measure up. I don't know why, maybe it's lack of interest, worse culture, etc.

Because they are handicapped. That's why they need so much promotion and still don't measure up to men.

Your examples all select for good upper-body strength.

Awww come on... Gender is just a social construct. If you teach little girls the same way and the same things as boys, they will have the same upper-body strength. The will lose their tits and grow beards, too.

It is a religious dogma. Don't question it.

That's ridiculous. There are so many exceptions that it does not even make sense to speak of 'rules'. And most rules a so fuzzy that they are no help at all. Best way to write is to learn each word like a vocable in a foreign language. Leave everyone alone who tries to tell you about 'rules', e.g. most teachers.

"for many Deaf people, every implanted child is a person stolen from their culture."

I'd say: Poke out their eyes. Then those people can enjoy not only one, but two cultures: The deaf and the blind. Should even out the numbers.

You might never use these for anything practical, but what you learn from them is invaluable. You need to constantly be learning new things.

In that case I would not learn such worthless stuff. Sorry, but 'you might never use these' is worthless in my book. When I feel the need to train my learning muscle it is stuff like OpenGL, video encoding, OpenMP. Stuff I can use and do with the languages I already know, but are new to me. Just learning a new programming language becomes sooner or later brainfuck. It is the illusion of doing something new, but without actually leaving ones comfort zone.