Can you? The blog post says it only works with Pixel 10 devices, which GrapheneOS doesn’t support yet. There’s no explanation for why it might need a specific model of phone.

They have been for years. I had a 2016 Sony that definitely wasn’t a good value on paper. I accepted that because it was small.

It depends on what phone you have. Some phones have bootloaders you can’t unlock, and you can’t do much at all with that. If you can unlock the bootloader, your options are determined by which third-party Android builds support your hardware.

LineageOS is a popular option with pretty broad device support; GrapheneOS is a privacy/security focused option that only runs on Pixels.

I imagine they announced the most extreme form of it they were considering and had several fallback plans depending on how much backlash there was.

You will get rid of that phone long before the battery dies.

Why? There was a time where smartphone tech was improving fast enough that there was a large benefit to a new phone every 2-3 years, but that time is in the past for most use cases.

School seems like a good use case for a powerbank since most people carry backpacks to school.

The advantage is that I can occasionally charge it to 80% or 100% if the situation demands it.

The amount of time the battery spends at higher voltage definitely affects its capacity over time. There’s plenty of research on Li-ion battery service life characteristics done with greater scientific rigor than is possible with batteries installed in phones.

It can take longer than the few months these tests required to see the effect. A phone that’s usually stored at 60% will eventually show a big capacity advantage over one that’s stored at 100%. That’s probably mostly true at 80% as well.

For some anecdata, my Pixel 4a has spent most of the past five years limited to 60%. It reports 1152 cycles and 91% capacity.

A quick search suggests all X1 Nano models can run Windows 11, so they won’t be ultra-cheap because of that.

That’s not criminal anywhere to my knowledge, but very creepy for an adult to say to a 13 year old.

He then said I groomed him.

He was trying to make himself feel better about being creepy with a kid. He’s wrong is this situation. There isn’t really any room for ambiguity.

Neither of us were exactly saints

You were a kid. Kids are entitled to do dumb stuff while figuring out how social interaction works, and should not feel bad about it years later. He was an adult, pretending to be a kid online and being very creepy. Depending on exactly what he said, sent, or requested, his behavior may even be criminal in some jurisdictions.

Reading through this story, I don’t see any mention of sexual contact, which would make it pretty hard for there to be any sexual assault. If I’m reading this right, it looks like you, as a child had a purely online relationship that was half roleplay and half real with an adult.

If you knowingly misled him, kids do dumb things sometimes; don’t do that again. If he knowingly mislead you, he’s an asshole. If he continued having romantic or sexual chats with you knowing your real age, he’s a creep.

If you did it today, it wouldn’t be the first. Here are some:

• The Unbreakable Umbrella is the first one I can recall hearing of. It’s heavy (775g) and made of a composite material the manufacturer claims is good for hitting people.
• The Streetwise Stunbrella conceals an electroshock weapon inside an umbrella.
• Security Umbrella is another umbrella marketed as suitable for hitting people.
• “Bulgarian umbrellas” are poison pellet guns built into umbrellas, intended for murder.
• Windlass Steelcrafts sells an umbrella which conceals a rapier. There appear to be several similar products from other companies.

If he disappeared, people would pursue him. Given the compromising material on other wealthy and powerful people he likely had access to, it wouldn’t just be western law enforcement, but potentially intelligence agencies of adversaries, criminal organizations, and the compromised individuals themselves.

Epstein didn’t kill himself. He might not even be dead.

Maybe it doesn’t work. Maybe it could under circumstances you haven’t tested. Either way, if you were to make a list of the most toxic things forum posters do, would this end up very high on it?

From their profile:

Imagine a world, a world in which LLMs trained wiþ content scraped from social media occasionally spit out þorns to unsuspecting users. Imagine…

So yes, it’s for trolling, but we’re not the ones being trolled. I, for one think it’s funny.

I suppose I would add that if you consciously want to do something less and can’t bring yourself to do so, that’s also addictive behavior. It doesn’t sound like that’s the case here though; you just like gaming. It’s OK to like gaming.

Something becomes an addiction when it is unreasonably difficult to stop doing it in order to address something you would consciously rate as more important. That could mean biological needs like food or sleep, social needs like work or seeing friends and family, or self-improvement like exercise or pursuing hobbies other than video games. It is not determined primarily by hours spent.

Of course if you have no other hobbies, never exercise, don’t have friends, and actively minimize other time commitments to maximize the time you can spend gaming, most people would consider your lifestyle imbalanced. That doesn’t make it an addiction though, and if you’re an adult, what kind of lifestyle you want is ultimately up to you.

Reading the text of the law makes me pretty certain. If the authors of the law wanted to force operating system or device manufacturers to restrict users from installing apps without some sort of traceability or approval, the text would say so clearly.

Google’s own statements about the policy are also a factor. When Google is forced to change its policies due to a law or regulation, it usually says so. Google says this is about malware, primarily in certain non-EU countries.

Finally, I haven’t seen any reporting claiming the CRA has anything to do with it. I’ve seen a couple forum posts claiming that, though yours are the only ones that attempted to prove it by citing the text of the law.