I should mention that although I'm an Android engineer, I don't have any significant contact with RISC-V work. The above is my interpretation of the public comments, in light of what I do know about the state of RISC-V and the way the Android ecosystem is structured and works.

It's because RISC-V is currently fragmented. Not the base ISA, but the base ISA isn't enough to build a device, and there are a lot of divergent extensions.

That wasn't a problem when RISC-V was only theoretical, but now that companies are working towards actual devices, having the "common" RISC-V support in the Android Common Kernel was a hindrance, not a help. The expectation is that over the course of a few years the RISC-V Android ecosystem will coalesce and settle on a common set of extensions to the ISA and it will then be possible to standardize the RISC-V support in ACK. Until then, it's better if ACK doesn't have any RISC-V support so chip vendors and OEMs can straightforwardly patch in what they need.

That doesn't make sense.

Android devices in China are not Google Play devices (can't be, really, thanks to the Great Firewall), so the device makers are not obligated to use the Android Common Kernel -- or anything else. They're free to take the open source and build whatever they like. Removing RISC-V support from ACK does exactly nothing to hinder their ability to build and deploy RISC-V devices. If they want to stick with Google's kernel for whatever reason, they can simply reapply the patches that were removed. If they want something else, they can do that.

Gold has an artificially inflated price, inflated by morons that follow this bad advice. In actual reality, Gold has something like 25-50% of its price in industrial value and it has no value whatsoever outside of its industrial use.

Indeed. But there are always tons of idiots that believe these claims, so it continues to work as a get-rich-quick scam.

Just shows you are not credible and that your opinion is of low quality.

They are essentially burning their reputation for quick cash. They are not the only ones. When the MBAs take over, this tends to happen.

Hubris? No. Anybody being a "star scientist" has fully embraced the scam as their main occupation and has left honor, integrity and decency behind.

I must know, I have followed a few!

In other news, most people remain gullible, stupid and unable to fact-check, yet mistakenly think they are pretty smart.

Just another no-insight fundamentally limited artificial moron.

Oh, _nobody_ will? Well, then things will remain crappy and insecure. Cheaper that way. No, not cheaper for _you_, obviously.

Funny how I have not noticed that while doing it. As usual, you are at the low end of the insight spectrum.

And, unlike the assholes at gmail have fixed it, expect to get SPAM bounces instead of SPF errors if you do anything wrong. You need to get past the SPAM filter to see the SPF errors. To do that, I found that copying a page or two from Wikipedia works well. Just use a different one each time.

I do host my own email as well, and in the last 10 years I have had one issue when the morons at gmail configured SPF like the complete idiots (and likely assholes) they are and made it mandatory (1 day to fix and now I know how to get past the gmail SPAM filters) and and one case where the idiots at some RBL blocked a complete segment of IPs instead of an individual one (resolved by my ISP in a day).

That is a very apt comparison. Unless you are very disciplined and knowledgeable, you cannot simply "move clouds" or go back on-prem. Fortunately, regulation, and KRITIS will make having a valid cloud replacement strategy mandatory. And if Microsoft fucks up a bit more (they will), it may make even being able to replace Microsoft mandatory. I have one audit customer that actually has a sound strategy for that and that is too few.