gh0stcassette

That would be a fair point if we were talking about like, small businesses in markets that are well-suited to competition, but that is not mpdern ISPs.

Iirc, much of the backbone of the US's fiber optic cable network is publicly owned anyway, it's just the "last mile" that's privately owned, which is the local lengths of fiber that run through neighborhoods to individual residences. But most of this infrastructure was also heavily subsidized by the state, so the way I see it, ISPs are essentially leaches that extract rent from a system paid for by the people and (directly or indirectly) built by the state. Why should we let them collect profit from a network they didn't build when we could own the entire network publicly and set monthly rates to break even, rather than generate a profit (which would keep prices very low, as seen in Every Other Country with mainly state/municipally owned ISPs).

I think they're trying to apply the same logic that's applied to internet platforms like YouTube, Twitter, etc., where the platform is only non-liable for copyright violations on their platform if they have a good-faith system in place for preventing copyright infringement and responding to DMCA requests. I don't think this logic should apply to ISPs, frankly the entire internet is far too large of a place to be monitored by any one company for copyright infringement, and I'd rather ISPs be nationalized and treated as public utilities than try to fit them into the same legal framework as social media companies.

That being said, even if the courts decide they should be forced into that same legal framework, ISPs could easily satisfy their legal obligations by simply blocking access to copyrighted content via their DNS service (which can easily be worked around by using an alternative DNS). There's no legal reason why ISPs would be expected to block individual users from their network, and even if there were, ISPs shouldn't be allowed to exist anyway, the state (and therefore the people) paid the lion's-share of the cost to lay all that fiber-optic and copper cable across the country, so the state should own that infrastructure and operate it in the interest of the people (Internet access would be considered a human right and publicly owned ISPs would only have prices high enough to break even, not generate a profit).

I use a Firefox based browser and this hasn't happened to me, are you using Chromium or Safari? Could be a browser specific issue

I'm fairly confident MacOS allows it, I've seen people do some Utterly Cursed shit in MacOS, but idk about Linux

I think you might even be able to get away with /s if you escape them properly in the filename.

There are, many turtles/tortoises are herbivorous. Also rabbits, rodents, and a few lizards.

It seems like gcc rust would pretty much fix that issue, since soon gcc will be able to compile rust for any architecture gcc supports.

You'd need some sort of translation layer to allow older versions of the Android userland drivers in the container to talk to the modern Android userspace drivers. Or you could write new userspace drivers inside the container that interact directly with the hardware, but this would likely be expensive and insecure. Definitely doable tho, especially for a company as large as Google.

Especially on Pixels, with the generic system image feature (allows for booting generic, non-device-specific android images), if the container is built with the same userland drivers as a generic system image, it might not even need any special effort/attention to run, though iirc GSIs are pretty recent, so you wouldn't be able to run software for anything before like,, Android 12 or 13 probably.

I mean, as long as it's in a pretty robust sandbox and it's either firewalled or has no network access (if possible for the app in question), I would think security implications are minimal. Like, even if the version of Android inside the container is compromised, the app could only take over its own container, which is non-privileged and doesn't have access to anything you didn't explicitly give it (in terms of user data).

They could just spin up a container of some sort. It's still fundamentally Linux, so it should be possible to run Android inside an lxc container the same way you can run a desktop Linux distro in docker (which is based on the lxc functionality in the Linux kernel)

There's a few apps that let you virtualize an older version of Android, but in my experience they're slow, and they're all from sketchy-looking Chinese companies that are for sure harvesting all your data. There's also an open source project running for this, but I don't remember what it was called and it was fairly limited.

I agree with that on some level, a bit like the whole thought experiment on uploading your brain after death, bit in reverse (preserving only the body instead of only the mind). It's not really you, but it retains enough of a semblance that it's comforting to some people because it feels like some aspect of themselves will live on. Fair :)