Google was legitimately a force for good at one point. It’s hard to believe 2 decades later.

I don’t either but I often use the bathroom after coming back home from outside, and the phone is still in my pocket at least then.

You take it out of your pants pocket before entering the bathroom?

He said in another comment nothing actually went wrong. He’s complaining it got updated and so it could have corrupted it. But it didn’t. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I hate Windows as much as anyone here but this is outrage over nothing. Most Linux installs also automatically update your bios.

Sure, if money is all you care about then a foldable is probably not the right choice. But, many women do in fact want to wear dresses and women’s pants and having a phone that fits into them is an advantage. Or people that use a tablet day to day may find it’s actually cheaper to buy a foldable than both a smartphone and a tablet and having to carry both with them and charge both and find space for both, when a single device can serve both uses.

Just because you don’t see a point doesn’t mean there isn’t one.

There are multiple women I know that have a flip folding phone and love it because it fits into women’s pockets unlike a full size smartphone that can’t be folded in half.

They do, but that’s not even the primary reason for x86 Android apps. Android developers on e.g. Windows will test their apps during development, so the app will normally get compiled for x86 to use on an emulator on their PC. The ARM version is only required for the final published release, or testing on a real ARM device. But since x86 is the “default” in the development process, there is little reason not to send both to Google Play, since you are making x86 builds anyway for your own use during development.

Nowadays this process is mostly transparent for developers, they just write an app and Google Play handles splitting it by architecture, so most apps have an x86 version even if the developer didn’t do anything.

Of course there are, mostly for Chromebooks.

“hidden” by who? Though I guess people say stuff like “a hidden waterfall”. Can “hidden” be applied to things nobody has hidden, but are nonetheless hard to find? Now I’m wondering.

Lol you are so argumentative that this is how you respond to someone agreeing with you? Forcibly putting me into the “opposing camp” against my will. All right then, live your delusion while we fight AI without you.

That’s the communication problem in these conversations. Whether it’s a useful tool and whether it’s an ethical tool are two different questions. People come in and attack the developers for generating slop, and they respond that they are experienced developers who can use the tool properly to increase the security of the code or whatever. And the conversation here is about that.

And then someone like you comes in talking about ethics, which is what we should be talking about, but we are talking past each other.

The truth is most commenters are not technically skilled to evaluate or critique their decisions.

I don’t need to be skilled to evaluate or critique their decisions.

You are both correct. But the former is about the engineering, the latter is about ethics. You do need to technically skilled to evaluate whether AI is a useful tool for Graphene. You don’t need to in order to critique it on ethical grounds. These are completely different topics that have nothing to do with each other.

Ok, so shareholders shouldn’t be liable after all is what you are saying, only people having a say.

Can you link these reports? Not that I don’t believe it, but I see many comments claiming this and never including any evidence.

“AI makes it easier to be lazy and produce buggy software faster” is your claim, which I agree with. But I have to note that “thus AI can’t be used to produce high quality software” is not something that follows from that.

Because you buy it. It being a limited license of course, not a game.

It’s a fair question. I think out of the two proposed rules: enforce no AI generated code, and enforce human reviews, enforcing human reviews is actually more feasible, and in fact most companies already do that. Pull requests need human reviewers to approve them.

It’s harder to enforce no AI generated code. A developer can always, at the very least, Google a problem they are having on their phone and retype the code from the AI answer into their work computer.

How do you enforce code is not AI generated? I don’t see how one is more easily enforceable than the other.

I hope you mean when he bought it, not when he announced it. He announces a lot of things all the time which never happen.

Imagine

That’s not an “Or” though, that’s a “Probably because”