OK but Wayland is not responsible for arranging monitors

You're supposed to use fingers

The data collection can just as easily be done by the game itself, the launcher doesn't have any special privileges

It's even worse, they're not getting paid. These shills only get rewarded by getting the phones slightly before general availability (but after actual reviewers)

They're not doing a recall, but that doesn't mean they won't somehow compensate big OEMs for their warranty issues.

Yeah, even the TLDR makes it sound more like Qualcomm is yielding to the pressure from OEMs who want to be able to offer longer updates

Convenience (after you install it, all you have to do is enter the code and you're connected, no other setup required), familiarity (it's the default name people will think of or find if they want remote access - that alone means they can get away with pushing their users slightly more) and - IMHO most importantly - connectivity: if two computers can connect to the TeamViewer servers, they will be able to connect to each other.

That's huge in the world of broken Internet where peer to peer networking feels like rocket science - pretty much every consumer device will be sitting behind a NAT, which means "just connecting" is not possible. You can set up port forwarding (either manually or automatically using UPnP, which is its own bag of problems), or you can use IPv6 (which appears to be currently available to roughly 40% users globally; to use it, both sides need to have functional IPv6), or you can try various NAT traversal techniques (which only work with certain kinds of NAT and always require a coordinating server to pull off - this is one of the functions provided by TeamViewer servers). Oh, and if you're behind CGNAT (a kind of NAT used by internet providers; apparently it's moderately common), then neither port forwarding or NAT traversal are possible. So if both sides are behind CGNAT and at least one doesn't have IPv6, establishing a direct link is impossible.

With a relay server (like TeamViewer provides), you don't have to worry about being unable to connect - it will try to get you a direct link, but if that fails, it will just act as a tunnel and pass the data between both devices.

Sure, you can self host all this, but that takes time and effort to do right. And if your ISP happens to use CGNAT, that means renting a VPS because you can't host it at home. With TeamViewer, you're paying for someone else to worry about all that (and pay for the servers that coordinate NAT traversal and relay data, and their internet bandwidth, neither of which is free).

If a thief knows your PIN (by watching an earlier unlock), Android is now requiring “biometrics for accessing and changing critical Google account and device settings, like changing your PIN, disabling theft protection or accessing Passkeys, from an untrusted location.”

Sounds great for Pixel 6 series with their reportedly highly reliable fingerprint sensors /s

Honestly, I'm not sure what to think about this - extra protection against unauthorized access is good, but requiring biometric verification with no apparent alternative irks me the wrong way.

Maybe that's just because of my experiences with Nokia 5.3 and its awful rear fingerprint sensor with like 10% success rate. But then again, there will eventually be phones with crappy sensors running Android 15.

The astrophotography mode on Pixels (the only way to get 4 min exposure in the default camera app) works by taking quite a few photos with shorter exposures and then matching them up in post processing.

You even get a short animation at the end where every captured photo gets processed using the rest, so you can see stars moving around during the capture.

So, if I understand this correctly, open source means free beer, just not if you sell the end product.

Yes, once you give the beer to someone, you can't require any further payments no matter what they do with it. Free software philosophy says users are free to use the software however they wish and for whatever purpose they wish without any barriers (like having to pay for commercial use).

its all a scam for free work for corpos then. Very disappointing.

I'm sorry you feel that way, and it's becoming a not-so-rare sentiment lately (or at least I've started noticing it more), but I don't agree. Look at (A)GPL and how many companies are doing their best to avoid such code - like when Google made their own C library for Android and even stated that its main goal was to avoid copyleft licenses. I've also seen plenty of people say that GPL code is pretty much useless for their work due to their company's policies forbidding its use.

I also think that revenue-based loyalties screw over small companies the most - sure, you get the donations from the massive companies that can work with 1% of their revenue gone while also keeping it free for non-commercial users, but in my view you also help those same massive corporations by making the software less viable for their smaller competitors who don't have the economies of scale on their side, and for whom that 1% might legitimately break the bank.

And to be clear, I don't mean any of my arguments as some kind of "gotcha! Look, I'm right and you're wrong", I just thought I might share my reasoning for why I don't think your statement is fair.

Here's Stallman's/FSF's view on requiring ~~loyalties (lol)~~ royalties (read the whole section, it's explicitly stated at the end), and here's similar requirement in OSI's Open source definition.

You are free to use whatever license you wish, but don't call it FOSS/Open source if you don't agree with their definitions.

The idea is to use TPM to store the keys - if you boot into a modified OS, TPM won't give you the same key so automatic unlock will fail. And protection against somebody just booting the original system and copying data off it is provided by the system login screen.

Voilà, automatic drive decryption with fingerprint unlock to log into the OS. That's what Windows does anyway.