My personal favorite accusation is that “I write too perfectly.” Thanks, I guess? Maybe the models were trained on me?

If this were true, then why are Rotten Tomato ratings displayed prominently across Google TV?

(I understand that nuance isn’t welcome on Lemmy, so please forgive me for contributing this.)

I understand what the word means, but in which domain are the effects unpredictable? In terms of policy and enforcement of what may or may not be genetically modified, or what the genetic outcome would be of gene modification? I agree with the prior.

What do you mean with unforeseen effects in this context?

It’s an interesting ethical debate.

I have a hereditary condition which passes only by the X chromosome, so should I, as a man, abort a daughter? Because now the risk is too high and I’ve elected to simply not have children. It would be great if I could fix the single swapped base pair that would otherwise cause disfigurement and life-long health problems.

That’s a unique perspective. Thanks for sharing.

Ironically, in my attempts to find any kind of information about this, it only resulted in news articles reporting on the number of developer accounts banned and announcements from Google warning users about scams and providing recommendations to safeguard themselves.

I don’t agree that Google has taken a singular approach to this problem; there are numerous ways in which they are combating scams, of which this piece is just one.

I believe people in this thread are (deliberately or not) looking at this from a very narrow point of view and not seeing how (1) there is a risk that is mitigated by preventing gullible users from installing malware through sideloading, (2) Google has reconsidered this solution after hearing community feedback and (3) Google uses numerous mechanisms to eliminate bad actors from the Play store.

To touch on the last one, it seems many of those mechanisms are not done transparently as I’ve seen threads on /r/AndroidDev back before I left Reddit about individuals being lifetime banned even by association to a scammer.

At the risk of sounding insincere—such is the nature of an online discussion forum—I’d like to tap into the ways you see the safety and security of the Play store to be deficient. How are phishing attempts successful there? In the articles I’ve read about phishing through fake apps, they all went through the route of sideloading. One example was to get “special features” in WhatsApp by downloading an APK, and another was to enable developer mode to install an antivirus APK because “the device was infected.” While I found articles describing imposter apps, searching for those apps on Google Play didn’t surface any of them, so it seems from my spot checks that it’s working.

To me, this entire discussion is quite conflicting, because on one hand, we all recognize the risk of malware, but at the same time the community is furious about whatever Google attempts to do about it.

Call me naive, but my family and I are very content with our Android phones and have no qualms with the way Google Play functions today. I remain confused about why this comment section is so mad.

The fee is 15% below the first $1M of revenue and it should go without saying that app developers only pay that fee for paid apps, in-app purchases or digital subscriptions. It’s very unlikely that a scam app would be paid, or work off a subscription, and if those phishing ads are doing their conversions, you’ll never see the user again.

I doubt Google’s making more than a few cents off each of these scam apps.

I would understand the outrage if Google didn’t stick to their word, but unless I’ve missed something, they’ve not, have they? Are we now protesting that they reversed their decision? Wasn’t this what we wanted?

I genuinely believe that it was motivated by the desire to deter scammers. What leads you to believe it’s not? There are many gullible people out there who will follow, precisely as you pointed out, phishing links that encourage them to sideload an unverified app.

No system is perfect, and I also believe that Google Play does a fair job of removing malicious apps.

I’m sorry to try to bring some nuance into this thread as I know that discourse isn’t welcome on Lemmy, but I’m just trying to wrap my head around the outrage. Providing a way to let experienced users continue to sideload apps while safeguarding the more gullible seems like a good idea and I still genuinely don’t understand what your preferred solution would be.

Wait, so Google listened to our feedback, and we’re still mad? What would a positive outcome have looked like?

As somebody who has a more basic car with just adaptive cruise control, the peace of mind makes driving less exhausting. I think there’s a considerable number of accidents caused by driver fatigue, such as rear-ending due to reduced reaction speed. A simple driver assistance technology like adaptive cruise control can prevent an accident like that, and advanced front collision warnings can stop cars like mine from speeds up to 100 km/h.

Why do these companies still sign with AWS? Didn’t they learn from the last two major outages in us-east? To say nothing of the deceptive business practices to obfuscate service utilization to overcharge businesses?

I think there’s a distinction to make between driver assistance technologies and how drivers become reliant on automation. Because otherwise, should we not have automatic transmission, either?

So you care a little bit about the clickbait headline? What an odd way of expressing that.

I’m out of the loop about the judgement about instances. What’s wrong with the .ml instance?

I don’t think it’s meant to be a conclusion. The article serves as a recap of several reports and studies about the effectivity of LLMs with coding, and the final quote from Bain & Company was a counterpoint to the previous ones asserting that productivity gains are minimal at best, but also that measuring productivity is a grey area.

I’ve no interest in debating your opinion, forgive me for not entertaining it. Perhaps you’ve not recalled your past interactions accurately, and my only goal here is to correct the misinformation written in this thread.

If you’re instead looking for some sources, I’ve performed a rudimentary search on interpreting paragraph 64:

• British Medical Association
• GP Online

That is not the full paragraph. It reads:

“If it is not practicable or appropriate to seek consent, and in exceptional cases where a patient has refused consent, disclosing personal information may be justified in the public interest if failure to do so may expose others to a risk of death or serious harm. The benefits to an individual or to society of the disclosure must outweigh both the patient’s and the public interest in keeping the information confidential.”

Let’s not forget that you had previously stated:

FYI a dokter/psychiatrist [sic] is just as banned from exposing a confessed murder or rapist,

From this UK source, doctors are explicitly exempt from violating doctor-patient confidentiality in the aforementioned case. This directly contradicts your statement.

I’m eager to read your referenced citations from the individuals you’ve interviewed in other regions where doctors would be banned in such cases.

Doctor patient confidentiality does not override the public interest.

Have we resorted to stating overt lies now? The most basic internet search will provide you with reliable sources that show this absurd statement is untrue.