I still have a ZTE Open C with me. It has 512MB of RAM and 2-core CPU.
It's been running on the Firefox OS quite slow. Having in mind a very poor functionality, I considered to switch to Android.
When I installed Android, it was a total game changer. It was fast and smooth (back in 2014 of course, not now) and I never installed Firefox OS again.
There must be an option in Display settings, named “Display Burn-In protection”. Do you have it enabled? Just curious, because I just purchased a Pixel 1.
Nope I cannot find that setting. I previously searched for such a setting and could not find it. Nothing in the display settings relates to burn in sadly.
I have a Pixel XL if that makes a difference but I doubt it, as they are practically the same phone.
There are always people who are ready to pay and people who will go to every length to not to. Instead of focusing on giving a good experience to the first crowd, companies end up screwing it up and then waste time on trying to force the second crowd to pay.
I read a great article years ago where a Disney executive argued that they had to view pirating as a competing business model, and provide a better experience instead of just trying to shut it down.
Disney and pirates compete on price, quality, availability, ease of use, and so on. Price is going to be hard to compete with since pirated stuff is free, and I guess they are attacking the availability of pirated material to increase their own by comparison, but what I wish they would focus on is to make it easier for the user to find the stuff they want. If I knew I could go somewhere for all of Disney's catalog of shorts and feature films, I'd be happy to pay a small amount per movie or subscribe for continuous access. Instead it's spread across multiple services, or you have to buy individual DVD boxes and try to assemble your own collection which is a lot of work. They could make it a lot easier for me to watch that specific short (now I go to YouTube and hope it's there) or movie (I check if it's on Netflix or another streaming service, and if not, I skip it).
My (limited) experience of NFL.com is that they've done great when it comes to making it easy to watch current and older games, with options to subscribe to all games or just one team. The English Premier League doesn't have the same centralized streaming service I know of and instead depends on selling the rights to TV channels to show games, which leads to consuming a lot of pirated material if you want to follow a specific team all season or want to watch all concurrent games.
If the content providers just compete in the areas they can affect, most people will pay to use it it's more convenient than the alternative.
> I read a great article years ago where a Disney executive argued that they had to view pirating as a competing business model, and provide a better experience instead of just trying to shut it down.
This is exactly how Spotify get my money. It's so much easier than trying to manage a pirated collection.
That reminds me of the fanfare up in the cold north when Netflix expanded their offerings those shores. Only that once one checked the catalog on offer, it was downright anemic. Several TV series lagged by multiple seasons for example.
Never mind that since then Netflix have lost the right to distribute quite a few movie catalogs that may hold hidden classics, as they shift their focus onto producing their own content and the copyright holders wants to keep the percentages that Netflix got for themselves.
This however leads to market balkanization and drive people to once more consider alternative sources.
For the one TPB that has survived, there are several file sharing websites (decent ones that are actually usable) and torrent sites that have been pulled down and the copyright owners have prevailed. I think this more points to the technical acumen of the ppl behind TPB.
I am not taking strong sides against or for fighting piracy. I do hope the greater share of the profits do end up with the original authors and not the content distributors.
Except many times the update will ask to expand its access to information in your phone it shouldn't need. So you choose between explicitly granting permission for unnecessary data access or don't update and hope you don't get owned via a vulnerability in that app.
So instead of finding someway to block or spoof a developer telling you they need different permissions, you'll wait around until some hacker breaks into your shit feeling like you beat the system?
In an imperfect system, you end up with imperfect solutions.
This is a tradeoff. Do I accept the developer demanding access they do not truly need, or do I accept the risk of a hacker gaining access to my phone through the developer's application?
If a hacker gains access to my phone through the developer's application, what do they gain access to? At the maximum (hopefully! unless they springboard to another hack and pwn your whole phone or other applications) they have what the application has access to.
Attack surface management is a lot more complex than just "always stay on the most latest shitware that the developer can shove down your throat"
Do you think this could really have any impact on the elections?
I don't see how any of those images or texts could change my opinion on who I want to be the president. Why would anyone take them into consideration?
P.S. I'm Russian. I'm no fan of propaganda and I just want to figure out whether our government really wanted Trump to be the president and if so, then why? I might have missed something, but I don't see that the decisions Trump making are any good for Russia. I see the opposite.
For example, Trump wanted to remove the oil production limit, which would have affected Russian economics.
Clinton was campaigning on policy of starting a war with Russia in Syria (establishing a "no fly zone" i.e. by shooting down planes that were flying). Trump was saying he'd make peace with Russia. So there is a motive.
However, I think this sort of article raises more questions than answers.
Firstly what makes them think this was the work of the Russian government vs private sector Russians with an interest in US politics? The only evidence seems to be the use of a particular payment service and the rest is assumption.
Secondly, how are these ads meant to benefit Russia specifically? What are these ads supposed to achieve? The evil plan being to "sow division in society"? US society is already very divided and has been for ages. It's very hard to imagine any government signing off on the purchase of a bunch of stupid Jesus arm wrestling memes, especially as there's no coherent theme to any of this.
The whole Russia-American-election story continues to look to me like a huge set of suppositions and dubious mental leaps. It's all very clearly an attempt to get Trump impeached. Motivated reasoning is bound to follow.
>Firstly what makes them think this was the work of the Russian government vs private sector Russians with an interest in US politics?
The opposite reasoning also works. Why assume this is a private sector Russian with an interest in politics, when there is a more simple/straightforward answer in who would create something like this?
I do agree that Russians should have been interested in the election, as most of the world should for a country that has a large impact on the socioeconomic fabric, but any time you begin to input your own time/money into something, you immediately become obviously vested in the outcome of something you have no right in influencing.
>Secondly, how are these ads meant to benefit Russia specifically? What are these ads supposed to achieve? The evil plan being to "sow division in society"?
Come on, it should be very clear to you why these are beneficial to a supposed Russian effort to affect the election. Demonization is a classic, and effective strategy to influence opinion, and while I do agree that this meme is a very ineffective rhetorical strategy to you/me when we look at it in a more skeptical light than normal, just seeing this on your Facebook feed randomly could be very effective to many people.
>The whole Russia-American-election story continues to look to me like a huge set of suppositions and dubious mental leaps.
It's an investigation that hasn't been finished yet, so I do understand a skittishness in the veracity of some of the claims made so far in the dossier, but the idea that the entirety of the Russian collusion saga has just been trumped-up charges is a joke. Two men have been indicted, and another plead guilty to crimes that are at least casually related to a possible Russian collusion.
>It's all very clearly an attempt to get Trump impeached. Motivated reasoning is bound to follow.
Politically it's absolutely an attempt to impeach Trump, yet day after day more information is released/revealed/found that is more and more damning to the idea that something illegal didn't happen in the 2016 election.
Remember, the idea of Russian collusion isn't something that was just made up after Trump became President. There has been a natural build up of evidence/steam that has slowly shed more light on possible activities by those strongly linked with Trump, or by Trump himself.
Why assume this is a private sector Russian with an interest in politics, when there is a more simple/straightforward answer in who would create something like this?
I don't agree it's more simple or straightforward. Governments don't do anything without signoff in triplicate. For a government to end up buying large quantities of Jesus memes would require a fairly large number of people to be involved, and they would have to justify themselves to the hierarchy. This seems extremely implausible to me. For one, if this was even slightly effective, wouldn't we be seeing all governments at it against each other?
In contrast people in the private sector spending their own money can do what the hell they like, without having to justify to anyone.
In fact the original perps don't even have to be Russian. They could just be paying a firm in Russia to do it.
Come on, it should be very clear to you why these are beneficial to a supposed Russian effort
No, I'm afraid you'll have to enlighten me. Generic "sowing division" - if it had any benefit to foreign powers at all - would benefit lots of countries simultaneously, i.e. any country that wanted the USA to stay out of their own politics which is most of them. How would they scope the benefit to just Russia? And if it can't be scoped in this way, what's the evidence that it's them?
Two men have been indicted, and another plead guilty to crimes that are at least casually related to a possible Russian collusion
So what? I don't trust the US establishment to be even slightly sane in regards to this. As you admit large parts of it want Trump gone and have been throwing around overblown accusations for the past 18 months to try and get that.
Remember, the idea of Russian collusion isn't something that was just made up after Trump became President
I'm afraid that's not how I remember it. I remember it being very much something that came out of nowhere after Trump won. After a month or two of trying to pin Trump's victory on sexists and racists, I think the Democratic establishment realised that attacking Trump voters directly wasn't going to work and alienating half the country wasn't great politics even if it did work. So they shifted their efforts to a new strategy - imply the election itself was illegitimate, imply that people who voted for Trump aren't really people deep down, they were just brainwashed by dank memes. That allows direct attacks on Trump without direct attacks on his voters.
Since then I've watched as every day the Russia/Trump conspiracy reaches new ludicrous heights. If the USA doesn't get a collective mental grip it may end in civil war.
> Governments don't do anything without signoff in triplicate.
Once a broad strategy and objective for a sensitive covert operation is signed off from the top, yes, they often do things with considerably less bureaucratic oversight and control than the same government would apply to less sensitive operations.
Compartmentalization isn't just a thing for non-governmental criminal/terrorist/rebel groups (in fact, many of those, particularly in the latter two categories, were taught it by their government sponsors.)
And governments where the executive isn't subject to effective legislative and judicial oversight frequently are fairly slapdash with controls even outside of covert operations on issues where the leadership is more focussed on the perception of progress than specific documented accountability.
I totally agree there is no way these had any real impact on voter turnout. To me these read more like sowing the seeds of division in general than anything else.
There is a way that I could rethink of my candidate. If someone (a paid troll for instance) was targeted against me. If they would have been talking to me and sending proofs I could believe in, then, probably, I could even change my opinion.
And you know what? Russia has trolls. It's even worse, it's centralized troll factory — a house of paid trolls.
But even if those trolls were told to “make America great again” with Trump, they wouldn't have impact big enough to change anything.
I wonder if their skills are on the same level as the men who were paid more. And I'm curious, did they ask every single man in Google how much they get paid? Probably, there are some men who make even less than they do (or did).
Please don't consider me a sexist, but this kind of stuff is everywhere now and it's hard to tell whether it's a truth or not.
