Confirmed on my phone too. I left a 1-star review on the play store saying it crashes on every launch, uninstalled and will use the website from now on. (Luckily, I dont use contactless payments, ai just send and receive money from friends from time to time)
You can solve it with the per-app toggle for disabling secure spawning. PayPal only accidentally broke compatibility with secure spawning. You should still complain to them about it.
What a pain reading this blog post. It's about them complying with recent regulations, but they never mention it once: they word it so it sounds like they are doing this out of the good of their hearts.
The words "law," "regulation," or "compliance" do not appear once, despite being the entire reason the post exists.
Also on the "privacy-preserving tool", technically apps get a bracket ("16–17") instead of a birthdate. But who holds the actual data? Google. The privacy improvement is against the developer only.
Pirates get the best service, gabe newell was right.all along. Paying for youtube premium makes no sense, I'd rather donate that 15 bucks a month to my favorite creators, while using uBlock/sponsorblock/unhook and grayjay on mobile. No shorts in my homepage, no ads ever
This is a common mischaracterization of stop killing games. It does not propose publishers keep games online indefinitely, but to provide the bare minimum to the community to host them if they decide to shut the servers down for good. If the 16-year-old Unturned dev could do it, so can AAA studios
They're pretty up front about the fact that the final result is going to have be some sort of compromise.
Based on the words of the most involved proponents of the movement have said, the absolute least they could be forced into accepting would be "Developers can't sue people hosting reverse engineered servers after the main game has gone offline". Which is trivial to comply with (just don't sue someone), but probably insufficient for living up to the main messaging of the movement (since there's a lot more games that people care about preserving than games people care enough about preserving to completely re-implement servers for).
Slightly more reasonably, there's the pitch of "release your server binaries". As the market stands at the moment, that'd be difficult, because in large studios it's common to have all sorts of licensed software involved in hosting your backend, but it's the kind of thing that's pretty trivially responded to on new projects: companies selling software for game service backends would have to adjust their licenses in response to their customers' legal requirements, but that's far from impossible given all the licensed code that's running on client machines already.
In the best possible world, consumers would get access to the source code of the entire project after the company is done making money on it, but everyone involved seems to think that's a pipe dream.
There are two datapoints in the text. One is the 2 weeks notice, the other is that they knew of this since 8 months ago. If this were me, I would give random made up information of this kind to throw off anyone trying to investigate this. Also, this is not that far from what we already know from whistleblowers of similar gig economy companies so my believability is not stretched at all.
Other comments pointed out the semi-obvious use of AI due to em dashes.
I'm honestly at a point where every suspicious aspect of that post could as well be counted as a countermeasure to getting caught. Said engineer could still be working at the company or could've left years ago. In my opinion the mentioned financial adjustments could've been a discussion topic for higher ups far far earlier than 2025.
Considering how ruthless Uber has acted thorough the years[0] I am almost 100% sure other startups with similar opportunities have at the very least committed crimes on a similar scale to the linked Reddit confession.
Bonus option: The Reddit account starts astroturfing in a few weeks and this was just a run-of-the-mill bot automation to gain karma which happened to overlap with HN interests.
Counterpoint: I've been using em dashes and bulleted lists in my writing (especially in work emails) since around 2015. There are dozens of us! Or maybe I'm just an LLM in a meat suit — who knows at this point.
If you put any restrictions on usage or what can be done with it (like selling), then it's absolutely not open source.
open source doesn't mean source code is there. open source has a specific definition. There is a list of acceptable open source licenses, as defined by OSI. similarly there is a list of acceptable free software licenses, as defined by FSF. Broadly, the two lists are the same. Commons Clause is definitely not open source.
There exists a niche of commercial software developers who are actively attempting to water down the commonly accepted meaning of "open source" for their own gain, and I suspect they are voting you down. :(
