Install it with the English (World) region

It’s also incredibly inconsistent, at least now that they’re pushing more and more towards powershell.

I’ve had issues with the installer from 24H2 for my unattended. I had to use the previous versions installer and installed the 24H2 ISO.

I appreciate the info, I think that’s good information that I hadn’t fully thought through (but probably could have figured out had I thought about it). I’m not too interested in a Pixel, and the unlocked bootloader is really only useful if someone has my physical phone. My hard drive is encrypted, of course, so my thought as to a way they could gain information if they modify the bootloader and let me decrypt the phone for them. I wonder if the only next best thing is to basically have an alert, or refuse to boot, if there is a change in the bootloader detected, so I can do a clean install.

Most manufacturers don’t allow re-locking of the bootloader unless it’s official Android, so it sucks the only other option would be buy from Google.

I’m interested in what you say about the forensics kit. What could I look for to find more info?

lol, honestly, just Firefox. I know there’s a lot of hubbub about Mozilla and Firefox with them changing their ToS, but you can disable all sponsored items, and anonymous. And even though they changed their ToS, I don’t think they’ve changed anything. They’ve sold anonymized data for a while. People here don’t seem to like data selling of any kind, but Firefox only collects anonymized data, and it’s a free service.

The only two real options will be Chrome and Chromium based, and Firefox and Firefox based. For Firefox based that isn’t firefox, you’ve got:

• Librewolf
• Mullvad
• Zen
• Floorp

If you google for other browsers, and find one you haven’t heard of, there’s a 99% chance it’s Chromium based.

It removes it from Chromium, but there’s nothing stopping them from manually adding it back before releasing it. Though it would be a lot of work.

Not to mention the identical user names. But idk, could be a different colinhacks.

I have a motorola running LineageOS and it’s available on mine. Seems like a relatively standard option, though it may need to be enabled under Settings -> System -> Buttons (or whatever it looks like on your flavor of android).

Chrome in a trench coat, if you will

I think it’s also reasonable to say a human dying because of their own actions is different than a human dying because a big corp cut costs on safety features in an entirely autonomous car where the human has no ability to stop what’s happening. (You can control them in current teslas, but they’re working on cars without human controls as well)

This comment reads differently to me than the one of yours I replied to. When you said:

for example if you use it for: literally any shopping or even just browsing store pages That read to me like you were talking about the store itself, and not firefox.

Regardless, I agree with what you’ve just said more. My argument is moreso that Firefox has been selling data (so nothing really has changed with them), but now they’re being required to state that they’re selling data. I get that Mozilla doesn’t want to be lumped in with “selling data” groups, because it can be done in very extremely different manners with varying levels of invasion on privacy. But I also think they should have been more up front about where they get some of their revenue, and not tried to be like “We never sell your data” while literally having sponsored suggestions (both on the new tab page, and website suggestions in the address bar).

As for what the current drama impacts on this? Nothing, really. Other than they are being required to disclose that they sell data, and their getting backlash because they’ve been trying to pretend they don’t. Now that they’re lumped in with the “data selling” corporations in peoples minds (even though they’re very different than google), who knows if that will give them the extra room to be a bit more invasive with their data collection. They’ve already crossed the largest PR hurdle, so the future incremental changes would be much easier. There’s no guarantee, but with traditional enshitification, it wouldn’t surprise me.

The whole “legal definitions are why we changed” is definitely what they’re rolling with, but I don’t think a lot of what you said is correct. Websites selling data is not the same as firefox selling data. If a site sells your data while you’re using firefox, that is in no way shape or form involved with firefox. That’s also not what they are claiming. They are strictly talking about the data that firefox directly collects and distributes. It would include search results if you searched via the address bar, I suppose. They have sold data for a while, but it’s anonymized (https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/sponsor-privacy).

Firefox is free to use, but it costs a lot of money to develop. They need money, nobody here is denying that. Many users on this platform have tried to avoid any form of data collection as much as possible (myself included) so they would rather pay to fund it (though many don’t). However, most people would rather pay for the service with ads and data collection. Because to them, it’s basically free. Most users would never even consider moving to Firefox if it was paid. They could offer two options, one paid and one “free”, but they haven’t done that yet and it’s not clear if they plan to.

Most importantly, it’s really about being transparent. If they need money, they shouldn’t try to hide the fact they are selling anonymized data by saying “We never sell you data” or to be like “oh no, we are doing it because of legal definitions” when in reality they are selling data. I get it’s a PR movement, but most of the people intentionally using Firefox are tech savvy people wanting to get away from Google’s big brother approach. I get people defending Firefox, and I also get people hating on Mozilla, but we should also be clear about the reality. Firefox is, and has been selling your data (in some form), but now the laws are changing to make it more clear that what they’re doing is in fact selling data.

That’s chromium based. Having more firefox based browsers helps take away the dominate control Google has on browsers.

Which is chrome in a trench coat.

It was removed because Google did away with manifest v2 for browser extensions, and uBlock Origin worked almost entirely from a feature provided in manifest v2. So it was removed because it can no longer work on chromium devices, unless the browser manually adds back in support for it. Firefox has chosen to continue to support manifest v2, so the original uBlock origin is still available. uBlock lite is still available in the chrome store, and uses the new manifest v3. It is more limited in it’s capability, but should be able to get the most obtrusive stuff. The lite version is definitely not nearly as powerful as the original.

On a side note, it seems to me like the link still works for now. Idk how much longer that will last.

Hopefully you aren’t driving any buses while you’re this high.

It’s not never ending red flags. In fact, I see lots of green flags from signal. Telegram, though, that’s a different story.

Why use two different apps? I only use Signal, and have gotten so many friends, coworkers, and family to use Signal.

The encryption method they use was made up by them, and the chats aren’t even end to end encrypted by default. Which I would argue is a larger red flag.

I wouldn’t say USA has all the encryption keys, but the fact that it is actually possible to have a backdoor is reason enough for me to not use it. Signal complies with all search warrants, giving all the data they have to law enforcement. They have never given any data to law enforcement, because they do not have access to it. Telegrams approach is to simply to spread the data to several servers in different countries, so if law enforcement wanted access they’d have to submit requests to each country (some of which wouldn’t comply).