A new Android malware from Google

(For those who haven't been following along: this whole affair started with phishing. People were social-engineered into installing an app and a little later their bank accounts were empty. A big issue in various poor countries.)

I bought a /e/os Fairphone instead.

all it takes is one guy who gets too mad for some reason

and it's gonna be a lot more costly for you to do anything about it vs. that guy who gets to be completely anonymous about it

If we ask their fine search engine, the AI helpfully explains malware to be software designed to gain unauthorized access to disrupt, extort payments and/or hijack devices.

If you still think the shoe doesn't fit, imagine what would happen if one managed to create an app with the same capabilities. Google would remove it immediately for being malware. Obvious malware.

HNers (especially Americans) are super naive and think the EU is some bastion of freedom. no. it just wants to be a huge nanny state but in a wholesome way, where you can do whatever you want as long as it's approved

https://www.eu-digital-markets-act.com/Digital_Markets_Act_A...

There won't be an open web, there won't be user installs, there won't be anonymity.

Everything will be identified, attested, and allowed only when Google permits it.

Nevermind them choking startups and small biz out of the oxygen they need to survive.

Google is just trying how far they can push this.

Perhaps it happens because the slope is called out...

But I've come to realize there are serious downsides to letting things run their course too. Some changes are very hard to roll back (famous 'cat's out of the bag') just taking a lot of time to reverse if ever. For example, once there is a long term contractual agreement, if one parties decides to roll back they may just not be able to until the contract expires (like renting land; or worse, selling). A change in software systems for example that need backward compatibility can be quite difficult in technical and nontechnical ways.

I think people need to also keep some sympathy for the protests and let people protest more. I'm leaning more toward: if in doubt, provide visibility to a cause (even if not full support). It's okay to save yourself some energy (in particular for the most important causes). Some things might have to run their course for people to understand they were valuable, and we will probably have to eat some frogs as a consequence. Don't lose you sanity ;) (As the saying goes, "Don't you dare go hollow.")

You can say "Classic slippery slope fallacy." to whatever seems like that to you.

This is an antipattern to scientific thinking as you can frame something x and then say all x are like this, look I created this framework to think about x. But in reality there is no empirical basis for this thought. And it serves no purpose other than doing more argument or winning arguments.

In the end what you wrote equates to "I don't think all of this will happen".

Chaning many possibilities makes the outcome less and less likely obviously.

Also the same principle applies to most religions I know of, for example:

- Assume there is God

- Assume it did create universe.

- Assume x

...

Then this also fits the same pattern and be called the "x fallacy" but it is useless to create an argument like this. This is useless mainly because this thinking pattern is ubiquitous in any world view.

More productive discussion might be to pick some steps in the theory they chained together and argue on that imo.