There have been third party app stores on Android pretty much forever.
Including app stores installed out of the box on GMS certified devices like the Samsung Galaxy Store (alongside the Play Store).
It just means they will be easier to install via the Play Store without sideloading (making other commercial stores more attractive but not really my cup of tea), and some minor API changes (although auto updating was added even before the ruling so not sure what else there might be).
Personally I'm not concerned about the changes to sideloading since it's a one time mild inconvenience. So I struggle to understand how going to iOS in protest (which doesn't allow persistent sideloading at all without workarounds) makes any sense whatsoever.
Google's original plan would have been really bad, but the new approach is a complete non-issue for me.
The way things are going, if OpenAI solves P vs NP, they won't tell anyone in order not to disturb the human mathematicians. We (as external to OpenAI) may end up learning this only through OpenAI actions that indirectly indicate knowledge of the P vs NP result.
Of course, the process (of squeezing the customer) is the point. The implementation of that process, with either human account reps or sales bots, is irrelevant.
Yes, we in tech. Even going back decades, email technology was a huge disruptor. Professionals used to have secretaries to type up letters/memos for them. All those secretary roles are now gone.
You implement something essential in a different programming language, tout that it's better than its GPL counterpart, and lobby for a change.
For me, the biggest example is uutils. Started as a "homework", then turned into a "hobby project", then turned into a complete Rust rewrite of the GNU Coreutils. It even once touted they were planning to replace all util-linux as well. When you look into uutil org, it's a systemd-like project with tons of sub-projects.
For the lobby part, the same project touts "Debian might switch, soon". Debian-developers got angry, created a pull request to remove that line from the site, it just got denied, and the maintainer lashed out "This is my site, this is my project, don't bug me". The relevant thread starts at [0].
This is not always with AI, but companies can use AI to license-wash something with a "reverse engineer this, and reimplement it in X" type of prompts.
Chardet has been relicensed in a hostile manner as well [1] [2].
> Note: Other than for illustrative purposes, no LLMs were used in the creation of this content.
This kind of performative declaration, IMHO, tries to lower any critical-thinking guardrails because the content is... a human creation. Frankly that is not good enough.
And by linking to your site from other websites, by not requiring authenticated human-only login, and by not blocking traffic from all referrers, you agree to allow my bot to access you site at zero cost.
I have clearly communicated the constraints of use on my site using robots.txt, which is the established standard for communicating things like these. You are expected to fetch it and figure it out. It is not necessary to build walls and lock doors when a no trespassing sign is clearly visible.
Seriously, though, making robots.txt have the weight of law would be a massive improvement for the ecosystem in general.
https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
No numbers since 2024 though, so I will assume the best case scenario of zero accidents in 2025 and 2026.
reply