Considering you can turn off telemetry and never need to connect it to the internet after activation, I’m assuming that - like how Adobe uses cheap education licenses to on-ramp people onto their platform - this is largely intended to drive professionals towards Canva and their various other products. They take a loss on this product to become the de-facto standard image/vector/publishing application.

Still no Linux support. As someone who purchased the Affinity Suite, I’m not sure I like this shift in model. If they keep to just fencing off AI in premium and keep investing in the whole app, fine, but I don’t have my hopes up.

Should be able to do it at <your instance>/create_community

Yeah, someone has looked at the spreadsheet and realised that basically no one uses the desktop app I’ll bet

Usually when they start ranking IQ, especially across broad groups

Fair enough. I might be a little hesitant to date someone really early in their transition, just because I would need to seriously consider whether I was able to take on the somewhat implied responsibility that comes with that to guide them through such a scary and vulnerable period.

Beyond that I’m functionally t4t, it’s just really nice to date someone who gets you, and all the baggage that entails, and with whom you already have such a strong shared connection.

I’d be a bit of a hypocrite if I had a problem with that

This is awful. One of my favorite differences between Android and iOS, as both a user AND developer is sideloading.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons for Google to provide extra support and exceptions to parts of their guidelines to certain parties, including themselves. No one is claiming this is a consequence-neutral decision, and it’s right to not inherently trust these exceptions, but it is not a black and white issue.

In this case, placing extra barriers around sensitive permissions like MANAGE_EXTERNAL_STORAGE for untrusted parties is perfectly reasonable, but the process they implemented should be competent and appealable to a real support person. What Google should be criticized for (and “heavily fined” by the EU if that were to happen) is their inconsistent and often incorrect baseline review process, as well as their lack of any real support. They are essentially part of a duopoly and should thus be forced to act responsibly.

Oh yeah for sure. Google, extremely large companies, and government apps essentially have different streams and access to support than the rest of us mere mortals. They all receive scrutiny, and may have slightly altered guidelines depending on the app, but the most consequential difference is that they have much more ability to access real support. I just don’t think it was an intentional and specific attempt to be anti-competitive, this is better explained by incompetence and the consequences of well-intentioned but poorly implemented policy.

I’ve experienced this exact issue with the Google Play Store with some clients and it’s just the worst. This kinda thing happens because Google is essentially half-arsing an Apple-style comprehensive review of apps. For context, Apple offers thorough reviews pointing to exactly how the app violates policy/was rejected, with mostly free one-on-one support with a genuine Apple engineer to discuss or review the validity of the report/how to fix it. They’re restrictive as hell and occasionally make mistakes, but at the end of the road there is a real, extremely competent human able to dedicate time to assist you.

Google uses a mix of human and automated reviewers that are even more incompetent than Apple’s frontline reviewers. They will reject your app for what often feels like arbitrary reasons, and you’re lucky if their reason amounts to more than a single sentence. Unlike Apple, from that point you have few options. I have yet to find an official way to reach an actually useful human unless you happen to know someone in Google’s Android/Developer Relations team.

I’m actually certain that the issues facing Nextcloud are not some malicious anti-competitive effort, but yet more sheer and utter incompetence from every enterprise/business facing aspect of Google.

Fair use commentary generally requires as little of the actual original work to be used as possible. Summary may be ok, clips/recordings are ok, but they must be minimal. That commentary must also be substantive.

Reproducing a work in full (thus obviously limiting the commercial viability of the original work - another factor considered) with light commentary over the top probably wouldn’t hold up in court. The commentary just avoids automatic systems in the increasingly poorly moderated internet.

I think it would be great if more men read (or just read summaries of) basic feminist texts, especially Judith Butler and people of her ilk. Before I realised I wasn’t a man they helped me. I think the deconstruction of gender that feminism offers serve men just as much as women - it made masculinity feel like less of a prison (nevermind that I ultimately largely moved more feminine).

I remember reading authors like John Stoltenberg, the aforementioned Judith Butler, and some perspectives of feminism/masculinity in a working class context.

The Affinity suite is not an Adobe product.

• !trans@lemmy.blahaj.zone (I moderate there ;))
• !mtf@lemmy.blahaj.zone
• !ftm@lemmy.blahaj.zone
• !transgender@lemmy.blahaj.zone

C’mon, that’s what PR’s, RCs, and betas are for

It’s important to note that this is them moving in-development branches/features “behind closed doors”, not making Android closed source. Whenever a feature is ready they then merge it publicly. I know this community tends to be filled with purists, many of whom are well informed and reasoned, but I’m actually totally fine with this change. This kind of structure isn’t crazy uncommon, and I imagine it’s mainly an effort to stop tech journalists analysing random in-progress features for an article. Personally, I wouldn’t want to develop code with that kind of pressure.

Nearly everywhere in my country mandates lessons, so yeah

DKIM makes it much more difficult to spoof email addresses, assuming your email client actually supports them.

Checking various emails I’ve received from @google.com addresses, they have DKIM set up and gmail is validating using it.

Whether they acted out of malice or ignorance, they bear the same moral culpability for the consequences of their vote. They have a social responsibility to ensure they are informed and vote accordingly; everyone should be able to spot fascism and authoritarianism when they see it.