Or more like "cloud infrastructure running within physical and legal jurisdiction of the EU is running locally to the EU" if you prefer .. if it's software they've written, running on hardware within the EU's physical and legal reach, voila, "sovereignty".

"The only way to ensure sovereignty and control is with software running locally with NO cloud dependency."

They're not talking about personal sovereignty. Cloud infrastructure an organization owns is "running locally" to that organization.

Ostensibly, Apple could open source the code running on their own baseband hardware (Apple C1). I'm pretty sure the hardware requires signed code for FCC compliance reasons, so you'd never be able to modify it, but as far as I know, nothing prevents them from making the code available.

The only justifiable reason to tolerate coal is because it is one of the few energy sources that can store, independent of weather and other factors, large amounts of "fuel" at the project site. Generally sites will hold 1-3 months worth on the coal pile. The only other energy sources which can do this at a reasonable cost are nuclear, biomass, and geothermal, all of which are more expensive than coal (if you exclude health impacts).

You're missing my point. To the best of my knowledge, you can't buy a phone that has an entirely open source operating system now; the phone hardware vendors provide closed-source bits preinstalled, and nuking them is problematic at best. More importantly, even if that were not true, you still would not be able to buy an Apple iPhone or iPad with an OS that is pure open source, which makes your concern entirely irrelevant in this context.

This discussion is about what Apple would need to do to satisfy people with privacy concerns when it comes to third-party replacements for Siri on devices that Apple makes. Arguing that you don't trust Apple because parts of the OS are closed source is irrelevant, because you won't ever trust their device in the first place (or any devices, in all likelihood).

Either way, the automatic presumption is that if a consumer does not trust the device maker, that person will buy a device from some other manufacturer. So for the purposes of this discussion, the decision by the consumer to trust Apple is in the past. It was made when they bought the device with a preinstalled OS. Thus we can presume that the consumer in question therefore trusts Apple to a great extent.

What remains, then, is what Apple, as a presumptively trusted party, would have to do to continue to maintain that level of trust in their devices while allowing third parties to inject code that deeply integrates with every app on the system in a highly invasive way.

The most likely outcome is that we will end up with the same deal as the previous one which Trump canceled. Arguably worse because Iran has demonstrated that they can indeed close the straight for all practical purposes. 60+ days of bombing by the most powerful nation on the earth accomplished basically nothing. A few more days will surely do it though.

Hey China!

When you want to fund the revolution against the Epstein plutocracy HMU!

I don't know about empty rooms, but it's very normal in Britain, if you're walking through a field, to turn left and walk clockwise around the edge of the field. But the problem there is potential for bias because of the area.

When rambling through the British countryside, the standard protocol is to turn left immediately on entry but then walk clockwise around the field. So turning left seems to be fixed, but the direction of preference is determined by when.

Well, that rules out 99.9999% of all mobile phones for you, then, with a +/- .0001% margin of error. :-)

That's an arbitrary distinction, though. What percentage of even the most tech-savvy users would actually take the time to audit every source code change to every software update to their phone to make sure it doesn't do something questionable? How many people would be capable of doing it successfully? I'm thinking back to the obfuscated C contest, not to mention thousands of examples of just how easy is to introduce a vulnerability that will get missed by code reviewers for years.

Open source is not even slightly immune to those sorts of issues. It could reasonably be argued, at least on an epidemic level, that we're better off with a larger number of different OS vendors, so that compromising a single vendor will compromise a smaller percentage of devices, but other than the high level of platform divergence that open source tends to bring with it (which has negative consequences for security, too), Open Source really isn't a panacea in a world where vulnerability discoveries are weaponized almost overnight.

If anything, big companies at least have the resources to throw huge amounts of money at prevention, which is something that open source likely does not have.

that particular amendment was voted down, bozo - the system works, no hand wringing required

doesn't mean hate speech doesn't exist

Correct. There's absolutely no plausible way to do it at an OS level except *maybe* for the camera, and even that can likely be thwarted by recording a video that starts on something innocuous and ends on nudity, because by the time the monitoring algorithm notices the nudity, many frames would already have been sent to the recording app.

But what the device manufacturer can do is require that all apps submitted for app review must comply with those standards and use those tools to check for disallowed content, and block any apps that do not comply from being installed on a device that is owned by someone under 18 (or whatever age is specified by the law in question), including blocking side-loading. You'd still have a handful of parents who unlock the devices for development so that their kids can write apps, but all other young people's devices would presumably be locked down (assuming the parents don't or can't turn that off).

It's fundamentally impossible for an operating system to protect you from the manufacturer of that operating system. That trust is unavoidable.

Probably not but there are two existing datacenters downtown along with Seattle Internet Exchange. Not a lot of room to expand though I imagine in the building.