You could surely still have this for non-genuine / used batteries, but here we have a genuine battery coming straight from Apple throwing that warning. Just let 3rd party repair shops buy them at a reasonable price and don't throw the warning if it's unused.
Edit: and preferably let them buy the batteries in bulk, without having to have the phone on hand which just causes unnecessary delays.
It’s because a lot of them are genuine batteries which have either been stolen from factories, second hand from other phones, or have had the id ripped from a genuine battery.
The thing is there is very little drm here. There is no complex crypto chip on the battery. The battery just says “my id is 36382” and the phone goes “that’s not the id I expect”. Which makes it impossible for fraudulent parts to replicate since even making the chips respond identically won’t work.
Yes it has some downsides. But I think the trade off is reasonable. If you want to do an unofficial replacement, you still can. Just ignore the notification that shows on boot.
Surely this is easy for an unofficial battery to replicate... You just have a step during installation where you put the new and old batteries face to face briefly so the data lines touch, and the new battery can read the old batteries ID and memorize it?
There were some devices that would let you copy the ID over but they fell out of popularity / couldn't keep up. Just not worth it for a low margin item I guess.
(I work for a company that makes a password manager that have this feature too)
I used to think that but I changed my mind.
First, you can set TOTP (or other second factors) authentication on your password manager account, which I think is good philosophically at least, because you gotta have access to your second factor to get access to you website TOTP.
Secondly, using a password manager with strong unique passwords that you don't know brings already a lot of benefits that pushes websites and administrator to push using a second factor (it's very often a way to avoid attacks using reused or bad passwords).
You do lose a bit of security (there is now a risk that your TOTP seed get stollen), but the extra convenience (especially when you lose your TOTP device) means you can enable it on more websites without too much annoyances.
It still proves you’re giving the password right this moment, and that it hasn’t been popped from a DB.
On the other hand it doesn’t prove that someone has stolen your phone/laptop, defeated all of its own security, and then defeated the security of the password manager.
For my personal risk propensity, the former is worth having, the latter is too unlikely to worry about
Isn't that way too extreme? Firefox and Chrome don't share a lot of similarities, except arguably both implementing manifest v3 after Google's push, but even those are fairly different.
(in reply to krehl) And in that specific case you should probably have a DPA ready. Big issue with anything Google-related (and probably CloudFlare) is that they may transfer the data outside of the EU[0].
Jack Dorsey personally helped Instagram with this exact feature integration while courting them to be acquired by Twitter. Once that failed he was one of the people who worked to shut this feature off for everyone else, to avoid another situation like that.
His actions say a lot more than all of these re-tweet friendly words he’s been spouting. I’m glad we won’t have to trust people like him or the Twitter Developer team, or need their permission, to succeed in the future.
of course they don't but at least in europe we have a data portability law that forces companies to let users take their data with them when they leave. the problem is, there is not a proper entity that can bundle the users interests and lawsuits to kick these corporations ass to give us what we own.
A user's friends/followers graph is not their data. It is about a relationship between two users. Should I be allowed to export my Twitter followers into the "Twatter" system? Should I have to get the permission from each follower that they want to be exported?
Who "owns" that relationship? The knowledge of that relationship is necessary for Twitter to run its business, because it has to submit a user's posts to their followers' feeds.
But if I leave Twitter, under GDPR I can ask/make them delete that relationship ("right to be forgotten") but I doubt I can demand that I'm allowed to take a follower's PII, like their Twitter handle, with me to another service.
I disagree. The social graph is the digital property of the user. If I export my twitter data and save it to my hard drive, Twitter cannot enforce the right to be forgotten. They are only expected to delete the user's data on servers they control.
Wouldn't a better alternative be a summary of the 300 page document? Both that and a FAQ wouldn't be the canonical sources in a legal capacity, but a summary has the benefit of deduplication and is probably nicer to read (depending on how much you want to cross-reference in the FAQ)
A change in the handling of URL schemes was deployed a couple of days ago that caused the regression being discussed here. Due to the amount of traffic that the archive endpoints see, and the high baseline of 404s on them, this regression did not cause an unusual increase of errors that would've caused our alerting to kick in. The change has just been rolled back, so the issue is fixed. We will investigate this issue further after the weekend and take the appropriate steps to make sure similar regressions don't happen in the future.
I didn't read it as if they switched away from rice cakes but that they used brownies in another event. Rice cakes in general are pretty great as on-bike nutrition and used by world tour teams.
Edit: and preferably let them buy the batteries in bulk, without having to have the phone on hand which just causes unnecessary delays.