Uh, no it’s not.

It is. As a result of the Epic Games v. Google, Android builds with the Play Store are required to allow users to install apps without any warning at all. They obviously can’t allow any app to be installed without a warning because this would be a boon to malware authors, so this is now enabled with verification. You can now even share apps you build with your friends without requiring them to go through an unverified apps flow with a scary warning. Additionally, Google is not allowed to take a revenue cut from those installs.

You’re confused because the install process for apps that are not verified (a path that didn’t exist before at all) or installed from a system app store has changed. This now has to be done with adb, which takes effect immediately, or via an on-phone process that takes a day to complete. Once it is done, this setting is copied to new phones, so the process actually becomes easier for most people who do this because they don’t have to go through the process repeatedly.

It is possible on every Google phone.

This change is the opposite. It makes it possible for a user to install the Epic Games Store from their website without seeing a scary warning, and Google won’t get a cut of any of the revenues from that store. The same with any other company. Netflix can now offer their app from their website, and people can install it without any warning, and Netflix won’t have to send any revenue to Google for people who subscribe in the app.

This change makes it so you can’t install software (such as F-Droid, NewPipe, Google Camera, Samsung Notes, etc.) from APK, unless you install them directly from Google’s Play Store [without going through unnecessary hoops and 24-hour delays].

This change was precipitated by a change that allows you to install an app outside the Play Store without the user seeing a scary warning or going through the existing hoops, as required by the Epic Games v. ruling.

They can claim this is for security all they want, but it was announced suspiciously close to the courts ruling that Google needed to open up their ecosystem to other app stores.

The courts ruled that users need to be able to install competing app stores without any warning, which is different from how it works today. Obviously allowing installation without any warning would be a boon to malware authors, so they added a way for third party app developers (including app store app developers) to verify themselves and distribute apps outside the Play Store without a warning on installation. Now Epic can verify with Google and distribute its app on its own website without needing to tell the user how to dismiss a scary warning, and the same is true for Safeway and Proton and other developers that might want to self distribute. On top of that, now GrapheneOS can implement its own verification system using the same OS-level APIs. Maybe app authors can distribute apps themselves for users of GrapheneOS by registering their repo with a verification system that runs an automated security audit on the repo and ensures reproducible builds.

Now that there is a way to distribute apps safely outside the system app store, that probably prompted them to look at what was causing malware problems with the current unverified app installation flow, and they came up with that system. Saying it’s some massive conspiracy won’t force them to change their minds, especially since there aren’t enough users who care to make a dent in their revenue. Proposing a less onerous way to stop malware and bringing that in front of a judge on behalf of the app developers who are harmed will.

The only way it reduces security is by increasing the attack surface. There is no “now anybody can get root on your phone” vulnerability for enabling developer options, and if there were, Google would patch it. I always enable developer options as soon as I get a new device.

Because of this, the audit described in the “Other” link is deprecated.

Their original plan was basically full control

I’m not happy with the change, but let’s at least get the facts straight, so we can argue our position better. Their original plan included a way to install apps from unknown sources, but it did not describe how that would work.

And more correctly, harder to install apps the first time but easier than it is now to install apps in the future because that setting will now be copied to new phones instead of having to go through the flow again each time.

Cannabis has been found to be ineffective for most of the conditions it’s prescribed for.

No, it hasn’t.

From the very beginning of the linked article: “Medical cannabis lacks adequate scientific backing for most of the conditions it is commonly used to treat”

Reading is hard, as you say.

Cannabis has been proven to be a very effective treatment for nausea and seizures

Not “very” and not for “nausea and seizures” in general. It has shown effectiveness specifically for “chemotherapy-induced nausea” and “certain severe pediatric seizure disorders such as Dravet syndrome and Lennox-Gastaut syndrome” according to the very article that you claim to have read. For more, Dr. Chung explains

“Recently, cannabidiol (CBD) is the one that showed efficacy, but people tend to extend that into any other epilepsy… It is confined, as evidence suggests, to those 2 syndromes, but not other types of epilepsy.”

The standard of care treatment for chemotherapy induced nausea is antiemetics. More recently, Dravet Syndrome can be treated with Zorevunerson with over 90% efficacy. This is without the risk of cannabis associated psychotic symptoms. I have personally witnessed a smart kid at a top university succumb to debilitating marijuana induced schizophrenia and get banned from campus as a safety risk. That is not a side effect that patients should accept.

Regardless, cannabis has been an effective treatment for many medical issues for centuries for a reason,

Mercury was a mainstay in medicine for treating syphilis, constipation, and infections (using calomel) from the 16th to 20th centuries, often causing severe toxicity. Medical science is a relatively new concept. Doctors didn’t start sterilizing their instruments until the late 19th century.

What am I ignorant about? Are you just going to let me wallow in my ignorance? So far, I have only stated things that are true as far as I know and presented my sources. You and the other lady say that I am misinformed but don’t care to inform me.

You embarrassed yourself online because you have a weird offense to even the notion that weed can be used for medicinal purposes

Not embarrassed at all. If anything, I take offense to people being given bad medical advice. If you were prescribed cannabis, you would be among them.

What have I said that is demonstrably false? Please demonstrate. I’m all ears. What should I have researched instead of the HSA website?

Chill.

Take a chill pill. I did look up the HSA application for medicines. Cannabis and chewing gums were specifically banned, but nothing else was called out.

As far as I know, all other narcotics prescribed in the US are allowed in Singapore with an HSA approval, which is exactly my point.

You might want to get a better doctor. Cannabis has been found to be ineffective for most of the conditions it’s prescribed for. The very few that it has shown effectiveness for have better treatment options available. https://www.uclahealth.org/news/release/evidence-lacking-medical-cannabis-most-conditions

It is about California. The comment you replied to was about California. My comments replying to you have been about California. That original comment you replied to and my own comments have said that California’s law is reasonable. You keep saying it isn’t, but you have yet to present any reason why.

Once again, that post is about age verification, so it doesn’t apply to the California law. If there are no documents or pictures stored for age verification, there is nothing to breach.

He said exactly the same thing I said: laws like the California one that don’t require age verification are fine.

what is the point of the OS asking

Because for the purpose of securing kids accounts, it doesn’t make sense for the kids to enter their ages themselves each time they create an account at a new website.

Tell me how it can be used against me. It doesn’t give out any information beyond what I let it give out about me, and that information (an age range) is derived from information I get to make up. Remember, the California law doesn’t require any verification of the age data that is given to the OS.

Companies are already required to ask if their users are kids because, among other reasons, there are laws against creating ad profiles for kids, and companies have been sued for doing this even accidentally. The California law just changes how they’re required to check if they’re a kid from asking them at account creation to asking the OS at account creation, where the parents have set the age for them when the OS account was created. It gives the company checking if they’re a kid no more information than they had before. I agree with Havoc8154@mander.xyz that this is totally reasonable.

This particular federal bill, on the other hand seems closer to the Florida bill in that it requires some form of age verification instead of just accepting what the parents enter when creating the OS account. That is unreasonable. Complain to your representative, and we’ll see how it gets amended.

deleted by creator