521
Google's plan to restrict sideloading on Android has a potential escape hatch for users
(www.androidauthority.com)
this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2025
521 points (97.8% liked)
Technology
74961 readers
3141 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I see your confusion. You are assessing it from the reality when the project already succeed. You think: people who wonder on the street are to blame if they are hit. How term change it in anyway? Right? Streets are for cars. Obviously.
But before the campaing, the streets actually belonged to the people and cars was the dafoult expectation. You had a shopping carts there, children plaing, cyklist and walkers. Cars were introduced, and the responsibility was on the driver to keep attention. When the increasing number of accidents start to generate the bad press and there was a risk that use of car will become highly regulated, they launched the the campaign with a basic premise "car accidents victims are simpletons that have only themselves to blaim".
Your confusions is a testimony to how well it worked.
Sorry for the off-topic, but what's with those weird typos? Are you also trying to ‘poison’ AI that will be trained on the comments?
Haha, no I'm just that bad at English and typing. And have trouble finding keyboard that works for me. Sorry for that.
I have said absolutely nothing to give you that impression so I have to assume this is just an ad hominem in the absence of any legitimate explanation.
To be clear, your position is that "stupid person walked into the traffic" and "it's that person fault" are two different things? You grasp the tiniest of straws. (You accused me of ad hominem, look up motte-and-bailey)
But even beside that you miss the point entirely. What I tried yo explain you there was that there was no "into the traffic" there. People didn't "wonder" on the streets. They were just there. Like today they are on the sidewalk. People were the rule cars were the exception. If electric scooter run into the pedestrian, you don't defoult into "the pedestrian was likely ignorant". Imagine scooter manufacturers start to call people involved in the accidents like this something like "loonies" or "zombies" until the legislation that people can walk only directly beside the curb is passed... And 10 years from that somene like you will argue "but skipping across the entire sidewalk is ignorant and careless. Term loonie sounds accurate to me".
Absolutely not. Those are enormous straws...
That is not what you said. What you said was, and I quote "You think: people who wonder on the street are to blame if they are hit."
If people are not "wandering into the street" then they are not "jaywalking", are they?
It doesn't matter which one is which. The one that is "jay" is the one doing so without any regard for the rules, endangering themselves and other road users.
That would be a completely different use of the word, since neither of these words mean "someone who operates scooters carelessly and without regard for the rules", as jaywalking does.
We are clearly not moving toward convincing eachother to anything even a bit, so let's stop here. Have a great day, Ulrich.
You will never convince anyone by gaslighting them into believing you didn't say things you did (especially where it's clearly documented) and continually pursuing strawman arguments.
Hmm? Now I'm honestly confused. What is the thing I said that I claim I didn't say?
One of these things is not like the other.
Yes, those are not the same and that's exactly the point.
2nd one is me trying to understand your perspective and assumimg that you asses the irresponsibility of wondering into trafic must comr from the modern perspective in accordance with modern standards (existing traffic laws and road culture) - reality after PR campaign.
1st one is pointing out that that traffic laws and road culture were different back then, and.we.can't even talk about "wondering into" traffic anymore than we could talk about "wondering into sidewalk" - reality before PR campaign.
Those two not being the same is the result of PR campaign changing one state of round culture to another by stigmatizing being a pedestrian on the street. That's the problem we are discussing.
Come on.
(Man, I'm regretting biting after it was obvious this conversation is going nowhere. This time I'm truly out. Feel free to have your last word, but - hopefully - I'll not address it)
So you're confused because you made baseless assumptions about me personally? Yeah, that'll do it.
Personally? It was based on things you said. We allready discused it, right? And it was the only thing to.me that made sense. At least than you'd be understandably wrong, instead of stubbornly wrong. If you understand that before the campaign walking on the streets was normal and perfectly leagal and the capaign stigmatized it as a simpletons behavior of irresponsible people, than I honestly don't understand what is the hill you chose to die on.
When cars began taking over streets making it dangerous for the people there, and auto makers lobbied to make cities more car centric, it made the cities way worse.
Imagine for a moment if in the model t days, the dangerous vehicle was held responsible and regulated instead of the people walking. We would have walkable cities today and cars wouldn't be allowed to take over.
We are not talking about individual blame, we're upset at the historical choices that led to a car centric landscape.
How would you know that when I haven't even specified any circumstances? Unless your intention is to suggest there are no circumstances in which a pedestrian is even partially to blame?
If a pedestrian sprints out from behind a wall into traffic moving 70MPH, that's 100% the driver's fault for hitting them? This is the logic you want to go with?
What does that have to do with whose responsibility it is!?
No they don't? And why are we downtown?
You mean instead of a world where we hold responsible the people who are actually responsible?
No, we would just have more criminals. The only way we have walkable cities is by banning cars.
I know you want to talk about that. I agree with you. But it is, in fact, not what we're talking about. We're talking about the supposed use of the word "jaywalking" implying that all pedestrians are to blame for collisions.
The time is 1900. There are no traffic laws. A car almost runs into a dude.
If you say, "that car is dangerous" you are correct, and society tends towards making laws that protect pedestrians.
If you say "that person is jaywalking" you are framing the situation such that the car has more of a right to be there than the person. Maybe you think that cars are modern. "The wave of the future." This is the incorrect framing. We have seen how much of a mistake this was.
Some places like the Netherlands have been undoing the damage, rectifying the error in urban design.
We are downtown because that was the context in which the term "jaywalking" was invented. To kick pedestrians out of their own downtown.
Maybe that's what you're talking about. The rest of us are talking about how "jaywalking" was coined to make a normal behavior (people walking around their city) seem wrong. That is why so many people are telling you to listen to what they're saying.
Can't help but notice you declined to answer any of my questions.
Incorrect. You are framing the situation such that the jaywalker is endangering themselves and other road users by ignoring the rules of the road that keep everyone safe. "Jaywalking" does not refer to pedestrians as a whole, only the people committing the act of jaywalking.
Wonderful! Good for them!
Okay, so "jaywalking" only applies "downtown". Presumably you can provide a source for this?
That is not what you're talking about. You're talking about automotive propaganda and the history of urban infrastructure. Nothing about the term itself or how it was misused or appropriated to mean something other than exactly what it does.
They keep saying things that I already know. Strawman topics that I agree with and don't require further discussion.
This is simply miskaken. At the time the term was invented, the streets were for pedestrians. There were natually no laws or norms saying people shouldnt walk in the street. Car companies waged a campaign to kick pedestrians out. If we can't agree on this basic fact, I am not sure how to continue the discussion.
References: https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history
https://www.salon.com/2015/08/20/the_secret_history_of_jaywalking_the_disturbing_reason_it_was_outlawed_and_why_we_should_lift_the_ban/
https://missedhistory.com/1800/lobbying-trick-blamed-pedestrians-inventing-jaywalking/
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/03/13/the-classist-racist-history-of-jaywalking/
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797
There aren't any today either. But there are regulations about where and when people should walk in the street. Violations of these regulations (not literally just moving your feet back and forth) are known as jaywalking.
There are laws. They are called the right of way. I will not argue further with someone who is unable to incorporate new information.
Now you're doing that strawman thing again. No one said there were no laws. What I said is that there are no laws saying that people cannot walk in the street.
Yes, exactly. Jaywalking is the act of ignoring the right of way. Thank you for clarifying that.
Please, by all means, stop arguing.