F2 retweeted
Reported in May, patched in November.
Google: “Told you we could move quickly!”
‼️ Google won't fix an Android bug that lets one invisible text crash a phone's calling service, researcher Mark Blaszczyk says.
So he just released the Proof-of-Concept!
The malformed message never reaches the inbox and needs no user interaction. It drops active calls, emergency calls included.
He says about 30 sent in a row corrupt the phone's SMS database, so a Pixel 9 or Samsung Galaxy crashes on every boot. A factory reset only helps until the carrier delivers the texts again.
He reported it to Google on 5 May. Google closed it as "Won't Fix" and a "Non-Security Issue".
Readers added context they thought people might want to know
Google will fix it as part of the November security update. A fix has already been pushed to AOSP in October, with the first commit in June.
x.com/GrapheneOS/sta…
F2 retweeted
Sesame Workshop mourns the loss of Sir Patrick Stewart. Thank you for being our friend and for sharing your brilliance, joy, and kindness with the world. 💛💚
F2 retweeted
As someone who has personally spent $500k / mo+ on Google Ads for years, I can tell you with certainty:
This revenue growth in Search is artificial & extremely unhealthy for Google’s business long term
Search volumes are declining as legacy search is being increasingly cannibalized by non-monetized LLM queries
Google’s response?
Manufacture revenue growth via short-sighted, highly extractive, customer-hostile tactics. I.e. charge advertisers more for lower quality clicks, including clicks they do not want and explicitly did not approve Google to charge them for
A few examples to illustrate:
For all of its history until recently, Google operated on a 2nd price auction model
I.e. if you bid $5 CPC and the next highest bidder bids $1 CPC, Google charged you $1.01 for the click (one penny more than the 2nd highest bidder) rather than the $5 you bid
This was a genius move by Google early on as it incentivizes advertisers to input their true maximum willingness to pay rather than trying to play the game of bidding low and constantly adjusting to try to stay just ahead of the next highest bidder while still not paying too much
However recently, Google silently deprecated the 2nd price auction and began charging advertisers as much as their bid and budget caps allow, regardless of what anyone else is bidding
It’s a short-sighted cash grab at the expense of the long term health of the advertiser ecosystem
Making thing worse, Google also recently nerfed keyword targeting precision
Google previously had precise keyword targeting settings that allowed advertisers pick individual search phrases to bid on, defined down to the character w/ exact match or phrase match targeting
This was one of the core features that made search advertising magic, enabling advertisers to run extremely precise campaigns based on exactly what their target customer typed
But now, even if you bid on a specific term or phrase using the strictest exact
-match targeting settings, Google will show your ad across 1000’s of unrelated keywords, labeling them as as “exact match (close variant)”
The definition of “close variant” means whatever they want it to and changes constantly. The result is advertisers get billed for clicks that are totally irrelevant to their business and that their targeting settings explicitly forbid Google from targeting. Google does it anyway and there’s no ability to turn this off
So now exact match is broad match, and broad match is just meaningless spam
This is all very bad for advertisers, but for Google, it allows them to show your ad and bill you for clicks across 1000x more searches that were previously going unmonetized (mainly because they’re garbage queries no one wants)
This is how you grow revenue atop declining search volumes
Lastly, and perhaps most egregiously, Google quietly stopped respecting budget caps by a factor of 2x. For example campaigns we’ve been running for years with $1000 daily budget caps suddenly began spending $2000+ per day
And the extra spend is entirely on the garbage keywords Google arbitrarily throws in as “exact match (close variants)” which have no value to our business, but can’t be turned off
Google offers no refunds nor any recourse for overspend or spend on keywords you explicitly did not target
These are not the actions of a healthy business. These are the actions of company whose core business is in decline but desperately needs to pump quarterly earnings so Wall Street will continue to fund insane capex while hopefully looking through their rapidly deteriorating negative free cash flow
Google operated a benevolent monopoly for the better part of 25 yrs
Meaning the value Google captured from Search was but a small fraction of the value it created, and that spread produced a potential energy that justified expectations of high earnings growth far, far into the future
This is now no longer the case
At the alter of AI capex, Google is sacrificing the golden goose
Q2 was an amazing quarter, with our AI investments redefining what’s possible across every part of our business.
Alphabet revenue grew 24% YoY and Google Cloud accelerated to 82% growth. We saw exciting momentum across the board from Search to YouTube to the Gemini app (which reached 950M monthly active users). Our model APIs are processing 22B tokens/min (up from 16B+ last quarter) driven by our workhorse Flash models. We’re also seeing great adoption of Gemini Enterprise, used by 90% of the Fortune 100, as well as strong demand for our security solutions.
Outstanding results and momentum, and such an exciting moment—thanks to all of our partners and employees around the world! 🙌 About to hop on the call!
This is the key thought experiment about Frontier Models, as they match and exceed human abilities.
Where is the line where the algorithm has rights? Maybe we are not there now, but where is it, can anyone define it?
Cleaning up the innards of a @BambulabGlobal AMS1.
Messy, but got out the other side!
F2 retweeted
AWWWWOOOOOOOGAAAAAAA
9.8 severity use-after-free vulnerability in the kernel’s IPv4 TCP stack just landed
Time to patch!
ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2026…
Palmer Luckey says analysts claiming it's too expensive to manufacture in the US are lying to protect megacorps
"I think I have a more realistic view than almost anybody. One of the problems with all these analysts that are telling you that it's going to cost $37,000 to build an American iPhone or $100,000 to buy an American computer."
"They're trying to prop up a status quo that the megacorporations want to keep going. They want to outsource everything. They want to hire cheaper non-American labor."
"They are willing to say and do anything to convince you that it can't be fixed, that it can't come back, that America is this helpless, neutered, post-relevant empire, and it is just not the case."
"How do I know that? Because I have to make stuff in America every day because I work in the defense industry. The stuff that Anduril makes every day is not actually that different from a computer. My drones are basically computers. They have memory, a GPU, a CPU, sensors, batteries, a rugged integration."
"The only difference between an Anduril attack drone and a laptop is a keyboard and a screen. That is not that hard to figure out, especially for a guy like me who started Oculus and comes from the consumer electronics space."
"We're not going to let people lie about what America can and can't do anymore. We're just going to do it."
F2 retweeted
I got an early look at new MacBook Pro—and found out why Apple changed its mind about touch on the Mac. wired.com/story/the-inside-s…
F2 retweeted
I have a 10gig Intel NIC, and the new Oct 16 driver has LSO support (large send object) support so the NIC does the splitting of TCP data. 2%-5% less CPU is used when pushing large files. Now I get 9.47Gbps with virtually no CPU usage + 35% more throughput than with LSO disabled
F2 retweeted
Since 2007, we'd talked about adding touch to a desktop OS. There's lots to be said. We introduced touch in Windows 7 on the desktop. It had many fine uses. But the desktop + touch struggles too many ways. Here's the demo at Windows 7 PDC (@ 32:45). 1/2 learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sh…
Xerox showed Steve Jobs the future of the computer for the right to buy $1 million of Apple stock. Ten years later it sued Apple for $150 million over what he saw.
In 1979, when Jobs was 24, Xerox's lab in Palo Alto showed him three things. He was so blinded by the first that he missed the other two, he said later.
The first was a screen of windows and icons run by a mouse. The others were networked computers and a new way of writing software.
In return for the visit, Apple let Xerox buy in before its 1980 IPO. Xerox put its own version, the Star, on sale in 1981. Apple's Macintosh followed in 1984.
In December 1989 Xerox sued, saying Apple had collected more than $100 million from the interface. In March 1990 a federal judge threw out most of the case. Copyright claims have a 3-year deadline, and the Mac had been out for almost 6.
In 1996, 17 years after the tour, Jobs said on camera for PBS that Xerox "could have owned the entire computer industry today."
Xerox Star, 1981: $16,595.
Apple Macintosh, 1984: $2,495.
Be honest. Did Jobs take the idea, or did Xerox give it away?

































