kodebach

6 ms·

1.
by kodebach 2mo ago
Do you have an example of where "the ideas don't combine well"? Or where an imperative approach is truly better? In my experience the solution is often to use the appropriate architecture underneath your UI layer. Basically y
2.
by kodebach 2mo ago
The goal of the reactive/declarative approach was never to be more performant than imperative code. The goal is to more easily build UI that is performant enough and functions correctly . With imperative UI code it is incredibly easy
3.
by kodebach 2mo ago
Well if the cookie comes from a third party it implicitly allows tracking. Also AFAIK the Google Fonts question (is the IP alone already PII, if Google has no way of tying the IP to a person) has not been decided by the ECJ yet. There'
4.
by kodebach 2mo ago
Based on my understanding of the GPDR, this scheme wouldn't be anonymous, if the salt is stored anywhere. Using the salt(s) and the full list of all your users emails, you could find out which one matches the hash, thereby linking the
5.
by kodebach 3mo ago
Google already announced the "Advanced Flow" that lets users override the verification. Yes, it's quite complicated, but it shows Google isn't trying to completely close down Android (yet). All this outcry is just lead t
6.
by kodebach 3mo ago
Since Apples App Store is DMA compliant, the EU won't do anything against this far less restrictive change from Google.
7.
by kodebach 3mo ago
If you're building the APK, you're probably installing via ADB, in which case none of the changes apply
8.
by kodebach 3mo ago
There actually is in some regions. For example in Germany any publication must include an Impressum with details about the author and publisher. This requirement also applies to websites
9.
by kodebach 5mo ago
It's actually worse. I just signed up with a dummy email and the page says they need your email to create an account so, they can store the icon kits you've created. That kinda makes sense. But at no point do they ask you whether
10.
by kodebach 6mo ago
As strange as it is, but Austria is quite far ahead in terms of eIDAS since we've had Handysignatur for more than a decade. I wouldn't be surprised, if the Germans are planning to support hardware tokens, but haven't had the
11.
by kodebach 6mo ago
I agree, you should be able to run anything you want, root your device, etc., but you also have to accept the consequences of that. If an app can no longer verify its own integrity, certain features are simply impossible to implement secure
12.
by kodebach 6mo ago
Simply because the law was written that way. But also the whole idea of identity verification becomes pretty useless, if there is no chain of trust. You could run a modified client that lets you assume any identity you choose, exactly the o
13.
by kodebach 7mo ago
Starting from their first announcement of this, Google has explicitly asked for comments and feedback from affected developers. They have a Google Form for exactly that linked on all the announcement pages. The exceptions for students/
14.
by kodebach 7mo ago
It is a non-sensical ruling. But IIRC the reason was basically that while Apple and Google did basically the same shit, only Google kept a written record of their monopolistic behaviour, so only Google was found guilty. However, there is a
15.
by kodebach 7mo ago
My guess is that Android 17 will show the registered name of the developer of the app you're trying to install. With stolen IDs you can only get accounts for individual developers not for organisations. When a scammer pretending to be
16.
by kodebach 7mo ago
Like you said, for years now they have added more and more restrictions to address various scams. So far none of them had any effect, other than annoying users of legitimate apps, because all the new restrictions were on the user side . T