Thread

Android 17 is the first since 3.x to add new APIs without releasing to the AOSP

1180 points · 723 comments · theanonymousone

wps · 1789760710 · focus · HN ↗
The amount of roadblocks Google is putting up for GrapheneOS is just ridiculous. None of their decisions make any sense, from the delayed source patches upstream, to the embargos, attestation issues, etc. Google simply regrets android being open source.
1. godelski · 1789763541 · focus · HN ↗
  I hope people remember this when advocating for chromium. Just because it is open source doesn't mean they don't control it. We need to start the long process of hard forking now or turn to alternatives like Firefox as a new foundation.
  > Google simply regrets android being open source.
  Android wouldn't be what it is if it wasn't open source. With all the work from outside Google. The same is true chrome.
  But they won't learn that on their own. They are breaking the deals. So we move. We force their hand
  1. nomel · 1789763674 · focus · HN ↗
    > So we move. We force their hand
    What do you have in mind?
    JumpCrisscross · 1789765710 · focus · HN ↗
    Donate to Ladybird <a href="https://ladybird.org/" rel="nofollow">https://ladybird.org/
    soraminazuki · 1789788084 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    hobo123 · 1789819864 · focus · HN ↗
    Where in those comments is the "white replacement theorist"?
    soraminazuki · 1789822298 · focus · HN ↗
    > White males are actively discriminated against
    The words are unambiguous and not up for debate.
    simondotau · 1789831164 · focus · HN ↗
    “Not up for debate” is a much scarier string of words than anything that guy has said.
    soraminazuki · 1789862898 · focus · HN ↗
    Debating the meaning of words in order to avoid owning what you explicitly said or supported whenever it's inconvenient should be condemned. What kind of person would be scared by that over someone supporting an advocate of the ethnic cleansing of London?
    simondotau · 1790155535 · focus · HN ↗
    If someone says a word has a different meaning, then that necessarily affects the meaning of what they said. You are not in a position to assert that your interpretation of their words is more objective than theirs, unless you're explicitly intending to be intellectually dishonest, or come with further evidence proving their intellectual dishonesty.
    soraminazuki · 1790176988 · focus · HN ↗
    If you're being intellectually honest, you would explain which parts of the words I quoted is ambiguous instead of questioning my integrity with vague hypotheticals.
    simondotau · 1790651539 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't know anything about the specific statements you were referring to, nor did I ever claim to. It's entirely possible I might even agree with you on the specifics.
    None of that is necessary for my comments to be intellectually honest. My prior posts in this thread stand on their own as statements of principle: that declaring an interpretation "not up for debate" is intellectually empty. If you choose a normatively loaded assertion in place of a good-faith argument about meaning, you're not resolving the disagreement; you're simply declaring your own interpretation authoritative, to no end.
    That's literally how primary school children argue in the school yard.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.