I think you're going to need to elaborate a fair amount on that take... That runs contrary to the general concensus that having freely and easily accessible information is good for people.
I find it hard to believe that Oneplus is spending engineering and business recourses, upsetting a portion of their own userbase, and creating more e-waste because they want to reduce the global demand for stolen phones. They only have like 3% of the total market, they can't realistically move that needle.
I don't understand what business incentives they would have to make "reduce global demand for stolen phones" a goal they want to invest in.
Phone thieves aren't checking which phone brand I have before they knick my phone. Your scenerio is not improved by making Oneplus phones impossible to use once they're stolen.
It ain't normal to me. If I bought a phone, I should be able to decide that I want to run different software on it.
Let's say OP takes a very different turn with their software that I am comfortable with - say reporting my usage data to a different country. I should be able to say "fuck that upgrade, I'm going to run the software that was on my phone when I originally bought it"
This change blocks that action, and from my understanding if I try to do it, it bricks my phone.
I'm back in school part time for a bachelor's, and have recently had a class where I had a professor who really understood how to implement LLM's into the class.
Our written assignments were a lot of "have an LLM generate a business proposal, then annotate it yourself"
The final exam was a 30 minute meeting where we just talked as peers, kinda like a cultural job interview. Sure there's lots of potential for bias there, but I think it's better than just blindly passing students using LLM's for the final exam.
There's no way to make these safe - it's almost comical and this could be an April 1st joke.
Case 1) how are you handling potential rapid TCAS climbs/decent? You're making the targets a lot larger and less responsive. If TCAS commands a decent and slow down, you will be overtaken by the tow.
Case 2) landings thay require rapid braking, such as short runways for emergencies or engine fires (rapid brakes used so emergency vehicles don't have to chase 2km to get to you)
Case 3) aborted take offs. Brakes will need to be more performant and reactive than the ones we have on the main aircraft
Case 4) taxiing across active runways now has reduced margins.
Case 5) go-around performance is diminished. Already sometimes tight margins on that, what happens if you need to do a go around but the landing gear on the glider collapsed and is now a ground anchor?
If you are making this comparison to build quality, I think there are some large problems in your logic.
The Chinese combat ships were at a much higher level of combat readiness, and hence a lot more crew who knew what they were actively doing and had their stations prepared accordingly.
The Norwegian vessel had most of her crew asleep and we're navigating in friendly waters.
Yeah. It would be interesting to see who adopted to the compromised versions and how quickly, compared to how quickly they normally adopt new versions (not bots pulling upgrades, but how quickly maintainers approve and merge them)
If there were a bunch of people who adopted it abnormally fast compared to usual, might point to there being more "bad actors" in this operation (said at the risk of sounding paranoid if this turns out to be a state run thing)
It really does matter to the customer if the junior understands it when the code fails though.
Easy to understand code can be more quickly patched and repaired by anyone on the team. If you don't need to call in the senior who built it two years ago to repair it, and you can have someone do it right away, it is better for the customer.