unwarlikeExtortion

Of course it wouldn't work.

Do you think putting a 24 h lock on your grandma's front door will prevent scammers from coming in?

No. No it won't. Any good scammer will be organized enough to start the scam and release the lock, then return after the timeout to finosh the job.

Do you think people vulnerable to scams will magically notice the scam in 24 hours?

Also, do you think most scams use sideloaded apps? Amazon gift cards are an easier vector. There's also premium SMS.

Modern scams have nothing to do with security. They prey on people who fall for them. No security measure, save for a trusted friend telling them it's a scam will work.

What this is is a thinly-veiled attempt to lock users out of using their own devices and to strenghten a slowly-crumbling ecosystem.

Of course it did.

For two reasons.

First - if anyone complains they can always say there exists a bypass, no matter how idiotically unworkable and annoying the process might be.

Another aspect is that devs will probably want to test their apps easily and quickly - App stores are notorious for updates taking a few days to be approved. Even for Google, full-on lockdown might seem overkill. They don't want to bother with speeding up their update approval process so devs can push test builds through the Ecosystem. Giving some route towards sideloading is a much saner solution.

That makes absolute sense.

Just like a calculator shouldn't assume a "4+4" should be "corrected" to "4+1" just because incrementarion is the most common arithmetic operation by far, a self-respecting search engine autocorrect what is in essence a fairly common search just because a more common one exists.

The "doppelganger problem" is really why this is not an easy issue to answer

I wouldn't agree. Sure, Taylor Swift would own her likeness. But so would her doppleganger.

This could be done on a nonsensical basis such as first-dibs or whose ever is the most well-known, but the only logical option is that both are protected.

So if our Taylor doppleganger goes around just looking and existing with an appearance closely matching Taylor's, she's protected under her own likeness.

If she goes on to claim of being Taylor Swift and swindles people, that's a seperate issue dealt with impersonation statutes.

Even cosplaying as they did with Dolly Parton would be protected under free speech/expression.

Since these protections already exist, a right to likeness only really stops the deepfakes, which is exactly the point.

It also used to be that if one part of such a contract was found to be illegal, the entire thing would be thrown out, not any more.

Not necessarily.

A contract is supposed to be a mutually-beneficial arrangement. I sell you a car for its market value. I work for you for a market price on my time for the position and my expertise.

If there's a small mistake both sides are willing to amend - there probably won't even be a suit.

Even if there is a suit, most places' laws prefer nudging toe contract to the side "less off" in such cases.

Only when there are unreasonable demands by one side, or the contract is so one-sided it can't be amended is when it gets thrown out completely.

Which is supposed to be almost never.

Therefore, I don't think the rules themselves changed as much as the goalposts and the reasonableness window have. Quality of life and purchase power is decreasing steadily basically since Reagan.

Contemporary EULAs are taken as acceptable and a fact of life when even 10 years ago T&Cs were laughed at which were much less unreasonable in comparison.

Other types of contracts follow the same general direction, with employment ones being among the absolute worst.

Wait, you guys reboot after an update?

Soo... our-anus?

Well, people still do. Yet it hasn't been rebranded. And GIMP should follow.

For now. It seems like obvious water-testing.

And even if it isn't, giving "users" (read: corporate middle managers never actually using the app) the "option" of the "name" "not being" "naughty".

These all "these" are "concepts" GIMP can do without.

The name is what it is. You didn't make the app, you don't set the name. Simple as.

And to the makers/maintainers:

Is throwing old and loyal users under the bus worth it?

The conspiracy theorist in me can see this being the start of the end of GIMP. It wouldn't be the first or the last FOSS project to "fall from grace".

I'm not saying it will - I don't want to do a detailed study of GIMP lore and current politics, but the simple act of potentially enabling a rename in the future is a GIANT FUCKING RED FLAG in my book.

Even with good intentions, it "enables" a "later" "usurpation".

It's like deliberately cutting yourself in the middle of pirrhana-infested pool.

The wound's not deep. It isn't dangerous. Nor do the pirrhanas notice right away.

But when they do... You'll be lucky to just lose the leg you cut.

To be honest, this seems like a stupid fix to a non-issue.

There's already Latex, and the purists calling it Lateh only make it seem like they know and are ashamed.

Or Uranus being pronounced not as your-anus but urine-us. The "alternate/kid-friendly" option is just plain worse. It also teaches kids certain words are bad, which is a bad idea for a multitude of resons I won't get into.

I say keep GIMP GIMP, loud and clear. No need to be ashamed, because it isn't shameful.

Attempting to avoid this absolute non-issue by ingenious pronounciation or rebranding just exacerbates the issue.

It's called "GIMP" and not "Fuck Me then Go Out The Door". Wether or not GIMP was a moment of "funny humor" or not is beside the point. The "official" explanation is perfectly belieavable, and therefore suitable enough. Just run with it.

If an idiot asks "Why's it called like [insert-here]", just say it's a fucking coincidence and you don't care. Call them dirty-minded for bonus points.

If you just give binary blobs and no sources

The main point is that you give the source to the blobs, so it's not a black box anymore - new maintainers knowing what the blob does (and how) saves a HUGE amount of time prodding the black box (blob) to infer its behaviour.

And it doesn't pose a security risk - if anything, more eyes on the code is better. Security through obscurity has been proven a myth since open code has more eyes on it. Security researches have smarter things to do than prod some binary blob when there's so much code that's either open source in the first place or at least only they got access to closed code.

What obscurity does is limit the eyes on the code, but the share of bad actors hoping to strike gold to researches looking at it outdoes any benefit.

Will your technically-challenged great-Aunt switch to post-support build when her phone hits EoL

She won't. But you as her niece/nephew might. And the local repair tech might when she comes to ask. Abd she's not an idiot, just the technology isn't mature enough in the societal sense: people don't think of bringing their phone to a repair shop like they do their cars, which is a fixable issue - even without much advocacy groups time will fix this issue.

hackers [will] be able to remote control her banking app and take away your inheritance before the community can even patch it

You might be mixing apples and orabnes here: why and how is the community expected to "fix" a banking app?

A banking app is a closed blob just like phobes nowadays. It's a parasitic relationship: blobbed phones are used to justify blobbed apps and vice versa. It's like saying "well, the foubdation of the building is bad, but to fix it we'd need to also deal with the crumbling walls" - so instead of fixing, it often is better to do a fresh start. But you're suggesting we should continue making buildings with bad walls and foubdations because we have the wall materials lying around, so why not use them?

Then there could also be licensed code

This is a recipe for disaster. I hope you're trolling.

The Internet wouldn't work if DNS were centralized, and the only thing DNS is used for is translating key pairs (basically). Now a single point of failure would have to do code vetting?

It's the totalitarian dream! Oh, and absolutely out of touch with reality.

Actually, both "persona non grata" (latin has cases) and "gratis coffee/beer/bootloader" both make sense.

Just convert the "x is gratis" into "you're welcome to [relevant-action-verb] x".

As in, "The kernel is gratis" = "You're free to [use] the Kernel" (which is basically "it's free" in everyday english).

For "Persona non grata" it would be "(You're a) person not welcome (to [come] here)".

This is what it originally meant. It has nothing to do with price and everything to do with gratuity. I (a provider) am grateful to you and welcome you to use/come/see/do/whatever.

"Gratis" would be the ketchup packet at McDonalds - they're happy you paid for a burger so they'll give you a ketcup packet as they're grateful you did.