Google caused all these not really communicative entities to install modules from the deepest pits of hell. Now they're finally secure.

No, it's not a secret previous owner of your brand new Moto, they indeed perfume their boxes (or phones?) at least on the Edge 50 series.

What they didn't perfume tho is OTA installation experience. It's only incremental to this day. By refusing to use a desktop update tool, you're in for a whole day of updating, and their updates are often far from irrelevant. The things that change make the stock feel somewhat like a custom ROM, with the good and bad aspects of that. Even if you follow just the open source part of their codebase, you'll notice that device specific driver changes occur even long after device release.

Btw: if you take out a Moto from a sealed box, not give it a sim nor wifi, you get a good chance at being able to toggle the OEM unlock instantly.

Wanna hear a conspiracy theory on why the QPR1 source isn't public to this day?

Since QPRs are only ever used by "best partners" and undoubtedly Google thinks primarily of Pixels when developing them, it's very plausible that they feel free to implement the patches they deem secret and optional, in essence, the "patches from the future" GOS was talking about.

If this happens to be the case, the QPR source releases from now on could take up to 3 months, until all of the patches get released on the QPR0 branch. This can mean that A16 QPR1 will get released in December and the "in coming weeks" promise was a big understatement.

A common misconception is that uninstalling a preloaded app is significantly better than disabling it. This aside, Nothing now gets closer to Moto, surprisingly risking their Apple-ish brand image for something that would be more expected on the CMF lineups.

There are two wolves in you:
– "This user should never unlock in first place, he's clueless! He's about to install proprietary susware!"
– "How tragic of a situation it is that solely enabling an ability without even taking advantage of it gets you penalized."

I prefer not to be a rumour guy, but I've heard that bribery services (paid unlock of Chinese Xiaomis at 100$+) are now available again. Does that make Mi 17 more unlockable than S26? Is it morally acceptable to buy it over OP13T and the upcoming OP15T? Uh...

Turns out it's just a dude selling 100$+ global unlock, keep staying away from Xiaomi

Ever wanted to check battery capacity on a device that doesn't report it?
Install https://f-droid.org/packages/com.dijia1124.plusplusbattery, set your correct current multiplier/divider (so that wattage looks right), charge to 100%, disconnect and instantly open the app.

Edit: after hitting 100% and opening the app, turn the screen off for 5 seconds, then unlock again.

Keep rooting, use Aurora, use apkmirror, set your limits.

Thank you Google Play for serving users with apps that have their best interest in mind 🥰

I strongly believe that lots of OEMs can do it to you with a single click. This is a rare case where a third party is allowed to do so to a free market device.

So QPR1 source just got released alongside Pixel feature drop. It seems it was kept a secret not because of unreleased security patches, but unreleased Pixel features.

Honor must've been completely uninterested in hearing "who asked?" and proceeded to heavily round all of the four sides of the Magic8 Pro's screen. Insane or just confident that it's the future?

https://fixupx.com/UniverseIce/status/1988519920863244708

*Complete* AI slop delusion.

Proton reserves the right to stop delivering registration mails to you. At the very least.

This either means a kind of blocking that can make you unable to login into your accounts (if login and registration sender is the same) or that at least on flagged accounts (which can supposedly happen simply because of vietnamese IP), they scan the mails/noscripts before encrypting them.

All this looks very far from their marketing. No, I didn't read their privacy policy, I'm already steelmanning them.

Even 7 months ago, it was a thing.

A slight correction, DGO doesn't seem to be equivalent to DCG.

https://web.archive.org/web/20211027145610/https://downloads.canon.com/cinemaeos/DGO-Sensor-White-Paper.pdf

Unless one of the two photosites always has a different gain than the other, DGO is prone to motion artifacts in form of gaps in motion or clipping below the white point. I couldn't observe this on DCG, while it's easy on QHDR despite the simultaneous exposures.

And example of what can happen to QHDR despite the simultaneous exposures. The sole fact that the shorter exposures don't cover the same length of time as the long results in missing information for highlights. This obviously also affects staggered HDR, but even more, as exposures become fully sequential.