Indeed it does.

Yep. So all of the F-Droid-distributed apps will be associated with one account. Or maybe it'll be distributed across a handful of accounts.

For open source apps absolutely anyone can package and submit an app under their account.

You think Google is going to verify that an app was submitted by the author/developer rather than some F-Droid guy who submits all of the F-Droid apps?

They just require the code to have been submitted by a registered identity. They aren't going to check copyright ownership... and with open source apps that's rarely only one person anyway. The only risk is that if some of the F-Droid apps turn out to be malware, Google may revoke the permission of the person who submitted them to submit apps. And note that they don't insta-revoke. If it's a legitimate mistake (e.g. someone slipped some bad code in upstream), and it doesn't happen too often, it's fine. But whoever does the F-Droid submissions will want to take some care with what they submit.

That, BTW, is the actual reason for the registration requirement: Being able to block malware authors, at least to the extent of requiring them to find or create some government ID to create a new account. The way many malware authors operate, the $25 fee may actually also pose an obstacle for them.

Similar requirements on the Play store did wonders for reducing malware volume to a level where Google could stay ahead of it. Now they want to extend the same protection to the entire Android ecosystem. If you're curious how I know this: From 2014 to 2025 I was a senior member of the Android security team at Google. While I never worked on anti-malware efforts, I know the senior engineers who do and I chatted with them about stuff. The security engineers have been pushing for this change for years but it has been blocked by management because it was expected that it would generate exactly the sort of mis-perception that you have. Eventually, the engineers were able to prove their case with sufficient data that management let it happen (not without some pushback from the PR team, I expect).

It really, truly has nothing to do with killing F-Droid. No one in Google has any reason to want to kill F-Droid, and more than a few use it personally. NewPipe is a different story, though even there the Android team doesn't particularly care about it, except to the extent that the YouTube team can convince them to care.

If you're a fact-consumer, you should not say "Bush stole the election".

The best evidence is that the recount that SCOTUS stopped would not have changed the outcome. A different recount that wasn't being done, wouldn't have been done and probably couldn't have been done quickly enough, even if someone had asked for it, which no one did, might have changed the outcome.

For Gore to win (assuming the recount reached the same results as the NORC/media recount), all the following would have had to happen:

1. SCOTUS would have had to remand rather than stay (on Dec 9)
2. FLSC would have had to acted immediately to (a) change the recount to be statewide and (b) direct something very like the maximal standard used by the NORC/media (every other standard found a Bush win). There's no hint that anyone would have asked for either of those things.
3. FLSC would have had to rule that the recount didn't have to be completed by the legislatively-defined Dec 12th "Safe Harbor" date, which most interpreted as the hard deadline. I don't think anyone knows what the probability of that was, but FLSC's previous rulings seemed to imply they wouldn't have.
4. The very careful statewide recount would have to have been completed (including legal arguments and challenges) in at most 8 days. Realistically more like 5, since there absolutely would have been more time-eating litigation.

The most likely outcome if SCOTUS had done nothing is that the recount, if it completed fast enough, would have confirmed Bush's win.

It's also worth noting that another plausible outcome -- Florida just can't make a decision by Dec 18th and sends no electors -- would also have been a Bush win. Without Florida's 25 votes, Gore would have had the most electoral college votes, but wouldn't have had the constitutionally-required 270. In that case, the US House of Representatives would have picked. The result would almost certainly have been a purely party-line vote, 223-211 for Bush.

One final comment: 2000 did not represent some sort of "failure of democracy", and wouldn't even if SCOTUS' intervention actually had changed the outcome. When the electorate is very closely divided, the outcome is determined by random events. Chaos. If a butterfly in Peoria had flapped its wings a couple of months before it could have gone the other way.

It's not just up to them, it's up to copyright law.
And why do you think you speak for all book authors over all time?

People like you think libraries should be shut down, fair use removed, and no one allowed to resell a book they read.
Literally the logical conclusion to your post.

I suppose I need to pay you every time I point someone to you works to?
Do I have to pay you when I finish you book and give it to someone else?

Did they ever mention copyrights on Star Trek???

Why would that even come up?
We would absolutely have a form of copyright post scarcity. Because post scarcity one of the thing that differentiate people is what they created.

Any you got your law degree from...? and you have read all the contracts.. when? and where in these contract violation in the contract?

Don't tell me you are some ignorant blowhard spewing nonsense that fits your bias?

Yes, it does in America. Please read US copyright code. fair use is a things. I can give you a used book for free, and you can read it and give it to someone else for free and so on. No copyright violation. Yu can access works for free through Libraries.
Copyright expires.

"It is not a court case you'd win; the details taken from the Disney version are beyond excessive."
We have decades of court cases that show you are wrong. STFU.

"beyond excessive."
based on what?

"f downloading massive torrents of pirated copies of books and processing them."
Downloading isn't piracy, please read copyright code.

" to generate new content, "
What a misleading phrase.

" much of which non-factual in nature,"
It's called Fiction. Your library has a whole section.

"and often very arguably explicitly creatively derivative."
Not really.. or no more then people who write.

prompt: "Make a story like sleeping beauty" ... 2 seconds later we have "The Moonlit Princess" and we'll just self-publish that on Amazon... boom I'm an author!

Make a story based on open content. that's bad.. why?

" just self-publish that on Amazon"
And that's bad, why?

"boom I'm an author!"
correct. and? also, you are the author of a work that can't be copyrighted.

"You seriously telling me this is NOT copyright infringement? "
It is not. Not be any definition is the infringement. It's a different telling. You are letting your hate of AI suppress your critical thinking.

"the prose above is a pretty blatant Disney ripoff."
No, it isn't. but guess what? people write is style similar all the time. It's not copyright infringement.

People are trained by reading all the time. People saying otherwise is just simply dumb.

" LLMs are doing everything that humans do, "
I don't think people say that' however when it comes to speech patterns, AI are like humans because its based on Zipf's law. Which shows people speak in a very predictable manner.

"LLMs need real thought,"
define "real thought" in a meaningful way. In fact, write a book to be celebrated as the first person to do that. In the mean time, stow your Scotsman.

" It's not because we're force-fed them in order to regurgitate them later. "
Well, we are as children. IF your parent give a damn, you are read books as a child.

No AI regurgitates a work. There is no example of AI repeating any work outside of fair use.

IN America, Downloading is pirating, distribution is. Read the code.
There is no example of any AI repeating an entire work beyond fair use.

" go ahead and help themselves without finding out what was appropriate under current legal structure?"
do you do that every time you read a web page? a book?