Chat, I'm not video game developer, but this file looks strange. Why does this video game contain a .bat file that looks for your browser credentials and crypto wallets?

Keep in mind that Google wants all apps to have the internet permission without asking you for it.

By "wants", I mean it's already a thing on all global stock ROMs that I've seen, there's no internet toggle and especially you're not asked for it when running the app or warned that a given app update features the internet permission. It pokes a massive hole in the whole concept of sandboxing.

It shouldn't be allowed to look this good with their bootloader unlock policy.

Sign-in with passkey being a smaller button than sign-in-with-our-competitor? What are they doing?

It doesn't look like Samsung changed their mind or figured things out on the actual stable (S25U) build of OneUI 8 as per a user. Flashing it force-locked it in practice, but a rollback is thankfully possible. To do something like this, without an explanation at least to commercial partners, is rather unexpected.

This is an official app from Tor project. Seems like a good example on how Google seems to do a "poor" job at explaining the developer console toggle behind the sideloading restriction. This also means that Google owns the signing key of this app and can technically distribute a backdoored version of it. The person managing the developer account most likely knows how it works and it's immensely sad that they can't inform users to avoid the Google Play distribution.

ProRes RAW video is for the absolute enthusiasts who'll sacrifice their storage and convenience for the sake of highest possible material quality with invisible and efficient compression, right? RIGHT?!

(It's pretty bad)

https://youtu.be/BlBN7vOwEnw

If you're in EU, this may be a good time to ask for refund of your device (with proper documentation and argumentation), if Samsung won't change their mind. The toggle is gone also on S24U.

A Polish electronics shop opened in a browser tells you that for "the full functionality" of the site you have to update your Android to at least 12. Sneaky marketing xD

I've done the maths on the render, generously assuming that the phone has a 160mm height.
The thicknesses are:
With lens covers - 10.8mm
With island - 9.4mm
Middle body - 6.1mm

Thank you AP for your insightful information for tech-aware readers, very professional to omit something that shouldn't have happened

These people won't even mention it when it'll get an update that can't be rolled back, cursing a given unit to permanent locked state. See how many new midrange devices are physically worse than S23 Ultra and then try justifying its death on stock once it hits EOL. In few years, if Samsung won't change their mind, units without tripped antirollback will fetch higher value on second hand market, Samsung will basically steal money from unaware users (who don't even intend to unlock) if that happens.

So:
1. Google trolls the app publisher into toggling an exclusionary option
2. You sideload an original app coming from Google Play
3. The app (yes, the app itself, not Google Play Protect which actually checks that app and lets it pass) checks in result if it was installed from your current Google account from Google Play as if it was paid
4. The app redirects you to a screen on Google Play that tells you to get the same exact app from there because it's "not recognized and could harm your device" despite them knowing that they currently distribute this exact version themselves
5. The new sideload restrictions come in, only "verified developers" can give you an app, and yet somehow you installed an app that can't be trusted in eyes of Google

Make it make sense.

Added Edge 60 Neo, which is a near exact copy of Edge 50 Neo with higher battery capacity + changed the ranking of Find X8s to include paid (although likely purely exploit-based) unlock.

Is it alright? Honestly, yeah.
I think there's some value in regularity between pixels, as in elimination of the need for half-shielded designs that require correction even in binned mode. Knowing that this is done for pixels behind a shared microlens only makes it easier to accept the sacrifice of the obtainable detail level, especially if it were to be followed by use of a more granular (in the pixels-after-binning sense) CFA. On the other hand, human vision shows clearly that phase data can be replaced with ML, eliminating the need for designs that sacrifice anything for it in first place. I'm a little bit worried about the access to good ML AF models, but it's going to be the future regardless. So in a way, most likely some day we'll be back to bigger pixels, while the currently cool GN-like and HP-like designs will be a thing of the past.

Everything Plus except exactly what Plus used to stand for (periscopic tele)

(yes, I know I'm 3 months late with this, but it's odd to see that Realme refused to compete with Xiaomi in their camera spec sheet, regress and then say it didn't happen, maybe mortals still have no clue about value of peri teles..?)