What about top speed limiting?

And speaking of which, what about an emergency stop button? They've had a number of self-driving vehicle runaways which could have been stopped with such a thing.

Yes, overproduction is necessary. But it's also waste. And if you get too much of it, then it's unsustainable.

Fine words from a coward.

I don't want anything in the browser that I have to worry about whether it's turned on and spying on me or not.

Anything like that should be an add-on so it can be not just disabled but removed (assuming it's shipped with the browser.)

My pet Firefox peeve is with mobile. It's shitty and getting shittier. Not only does it have a javascript-related memory leak they haven't bothered to fix for many years, but now it's hanging when trying to upload images. It works once or twice and then on the third try the browser hangs. It takes a long time to get through to kill it too so it looks frankly like yet another memory leak.

Same for scrollbar width. Can't even fix that with a setting reliably, have to edit a file.

In an of itself, that's a perfectly cromulant opinion to hold, but I doubt it's going to be shared by a bunch of people with Robinhood accounts paying electronically for the delivery of "freedfrom from techy surfdom". :D

Not saying this is a good idea, but I don't think the gig worker would know if you're paying $6.99 or $2.99 for the delivery, which is what would tell them if you have more than $100k in assets.

In general data owned by app A is not readable/writable by app B. This is a pretty important security feature. There are ways for apps to choose to share data, but by default every app's data is private to that app.

I can see how that might inconvenience you, but I think it's Really Good Idea.

Nah, their previous plan already provided the bare minimum, since it didn't restrict sideloading of unverified apps via ADB. This is just an attempt to calm the complaints by offering an even easier sideloading option. Unfortunately, it will probably make the whole scheme pointless, since malware authors will just train users to click through the scary warnings.

This is sadly true. They're going to attempt to throw up a lot of warning dialogs to dissuade users, but we know from long experience that users will click through anything to get to cat videos.

This is actually not a change, really, since they were already going to leave sideloading via ADB open, so their plan already included an "advanced user option" which users could be trained to do. This new thing must presumably be easier than ADB. My guess is that it will feature more scary warnings than enabling ADB, but will allow sideloading without using a USB cable to connect to another computer so that on balance it will be approximately as hard.

During another discussion of this I posted a story that an Android OEM related to me when I worked on Android security, when they asked me when we were going to "close the USB vulnerability", i.e. disable ADB.

How so? The developer verification does not require compliance with any of the Play store policies or anything at all other than the rule "don't distribute malware", since distributing malware would result in the developer account (and signing certificate) being revoked, which is the point of the whole thing, to enable Google to shut down malware authors. Or at least to slow them down, since they'd have to register for a new account, with a different government ID.

This does leave determination of "what is malware" up to Google, but they've been doing that for a long time and I've yet to see any case where people disagreed with their assessment. Note that I'm talking about designation of malware, not about removal from the Play store. Identified malware is removed from the Play store, but there are lots of other policy violations that can trigger Play store removal.

This is not correct. Per the information on Google's developer console sideloading of unverified apps via ADB was not going to be disallowed:

Q: If I want to modify an app and install it on my own device, or if I'm a power user, is there a way to turn this verification requirement off?

A: We understand that's an important use case for many developers and power users. While the verification requirement itself is a core OS feature to help protect the broader ecosystem from malware and can't be turned off, developers and power users can still use Android Debug Bridge (ADB) to continue to build, test, and install modified or unverified apps on their own devices.

(Emphasis mine)

This information has been up since shortly after the announcement.

For example?

So you took a break out from complaining about the allegedly unfair treatment of China to complain about the allegedly unfair treatment of Russia? It seems like you only respect fascism.

I had over 230k on my 1989 240SX when I sold it. It had all expected compression and ran perfectly. Got to love timing chains, it had never had any engine work done. 200k isn't impressive from any Japanese car since about 1980.