> It doesn't even pass a sniff test, if you know even the first thing about running.
And yet, it seems you do not know that the gap between men and women shrinks the longer the distances get? Also, as you are saying yourself: this is about distributions, not necessarily about the top 0.1% of the world. The article makes the claim that on average, women would perform better in ultra-endurance events, supporting their thesis that women actually did the hunting back then. You might disagree with this, but the article is more nuanced, and reducing it to the rage-bait comment above does not do it justice at all.
> And yet, it seems you do not know that the gap between men and women shrinks the longer the distances get?
So what? The gap exists. Saying that it diminishes with distance is interesting, certainly, but it's a far cry from evidence that the gender gap is due to something other than biology.
> The article makes the claim that on average, women would perform better in ultra-endurance events, supporting their thesis that women actually did the hunting back then.
This is sophistry. In reality, even on average, men are faster than women.
This is the paragraph. "As an example" here implies that they are talking about sports in general, not just endurance events.
Inequity between male and female athletes is a result not of inherent biological differences between the sexes but of biases in how they are treated in sports. As an example, some endurance-running events allow the use of professional runners called pacesetters to help competitors perform their best...
> Mounting evidence from exercise science indicates that women are physiologically better suited than men to endurance efforts such as running marathons. This advantage bears on questions about hunting because a prominent hypothesis contends that early humans are thought to have pursued prey on foot over long distances until the animals were exhausted. Furthermore, the fossil and archaeological records, as well as ethnographic studies of modern-day hunter-gatherers, indicate that women have a long history of hunting game.
Emphasis mine.
> Overall, females are metabolically better suited for endurance activities, whereas males excel at short, powerful burst-type activities. You can think of it as marathoners (females) versus powerlifters (males). Much of this difference seems to be driven by the powers of the hormone estrogen.
There are some pretty wild claims but overall, a fairly interesting article. I think they've just exaggerated an otherwise interesting point - that gender differences in hunting are not explained by differences in long-distance running aptitude (which are very small).
The examples of extant hunting techniques they themselves cited are not related to (ultra) long distance running anyway, so the connection between hunting and running is tenuous.
Jasmin Paris has won a fair number of extremely difficult ultras in mixed company, for example. Really long ultras are not an exclusively male domain. The marathon is if anything too short.
(Have a read about persistence hunting).
The article’s point is that the assumption that “men evolved to hunt” is unsupported by the evidence and therefore implicitly sexist. This is a defensible position.
Persistence hunting is speculative as a guiding force in evolution. It is a very rare practice amongst modern hunter/gatherer and there's no archaeological evidence that it was common enough historically to be important.
Compare this to game drives/trapping which are both mentioned in this article and have significant archaeological and anthropological evidence.
> You totally are. This is about ultra-endurance events.
No, it isn't. It's about sports, using ultra-endurance as an example. This is one of the cases where the example is the exception.
IOW, the quote uses an outlier to make claims about the distribution. This is, of course, from the same institution that claims using the word "normal" to describe a distribution is some sort of "-ist" (racist, sexist, whatever).
I went and read it and it doesn't seem to matter to me that it's about ultra-endurance events? Of course differences in stride length and endurance physiology will matter for run performance.
The full paragraph:
>Inequity between male and female athletes is a result not of inherent biological differences between the sexes but of biases in how they are treated in sports. As an example, some endurance-running events allow the use of professional runners called pacesetters to help competitors perform their best. Men are not permitted to act as pacesetters in many women's events because of the belief that they will make the women "artificially faster," as though women were not actually doing the running themselves.
To me both cultural and physiological differences are likely in play. I am not even sure how you could effectively seperate culture from physiology here (hard to do a randomised controlled trial on stride length - I guess Mendelian Randomisation regression might work?). Anyone confidently asserting only one or neither of these is at play is probably not stating that from a position of logic.
The claim that is being made in the article is that only cultural differences are relevant. Saying the relative effects of cultural and biological differences are hard to know would not be a very controversial statement.
Yes, which is why I am happy to state it having not read that deeply into the evidence either way. I would argue that stating "Inequity between male and female athletes is a result not of inherent biological differences" is a very strong statement that the scientific consensus has many counter-factuals available to disprove.
Would be interesting for x86-based tablets/convertibles, like for instance an old Lenovo X1. I tried using these with Linux with various different distributions, including PostmarketOS, and it was not a good experience.
> I don't understand why it took LineageOS so long to update to AOSP 17, while GrapheneOS managed to update to 17 in just 3 days.
Here's a hint: GrapheneOS has paid developers working on it full-time, while LineageOS is done by people in their spare time. Also, GrapheneOS has a collaboration with Motorola and through that gets for instance early access to security patches, and probably other things as well. And lastly, LineageOS supports roughly 10x the number of devices. It's significantly easier if you restrict yourself to Pixels.
Also, GrapheneOS has a collaboration with Motorola and through that gets for instance early access to security patches, and probably other things as well.
Just for clarification (your points are very valid): the GrapheneOS developers have stated on several occasions that they getting embargoed patches from another OEM than Motorola.
GrapheneOS doesn't receive early access to security patches via Motorola. We receive those through a different partner. We were already doing security preview releases prior to Motorola giving us access to their repositories which don't contain those.
LineageOS code can update pretty fast, but the problem is they want to do refactors, and also that bringing up a hundred outdated devices is difficult.
I was secretly hoping they'd stop supporting the Pixel 4a so I would have a reason to get a new phone, but no, still there in the list of supported devices. So I guess I'll just keep using that thing another year... Anyway: big thanks to the Lineage maintainers, keeping so many phones from landfill!
If you need a reason, the modem and the baseband firmware have several unpatched vulnerabilities on that model, which is not something that an Android update can resolve.
Based on the amount of modem CVEs posted in the monthly Android security bulletins, I think it's safe to assume that if you are no longer getting updates then there are unpatched vulnerabilities in them.
Based on the artificial delays Google introduces into the Android patching process, on the general crappiness of mobile firmware and the sleaziness of major mobile chipset vendors, I think it's safe to assume that even if you are supposedly getting updates, there are unpatched zero-day vulnerabilities in them. Usually under ongoing attack, at least by professional phone cracking software vendors and secret services.
>Based on the artificial delays Google introduces into the Android patching process, on the general crappiness of mobile firmware and the sleaziness of major mobile chipset vendors, I think it's safe to assume that even if you are supposedly getting updates, there are unpatched zero-day vulnerabilities in them.
Maybe if you include third party android OEMs like samsung, but google pixels are as up to date as you can get.
Pixels running GrapheneOS sure, but stock Pixels lag months behind patches that exist but not yet shipped. Check any bulletin and it links to git commits to months ago.
>Check any bulletin and it links to git commits to months ago.
Is there any evidence that the git commits weren't in the ROMs from months ago? The monthly ASB corresponds to when the bugs are publicly disclosed, not when they made it into ROMs.
Pixels only ship a tiny subset of the security preview patches early. Samsung ships a subset for their flagship devices too and it's likely larger than Pixels. Samsung lists these patches in their bulletins and you can retroactively figure out which were future Android Security Bulletin patches. Go through the vulnerabilities for September 2026 or October 2026 and search for them in Samsung's bulletin.
The only way to get the full set of security preview patches is through GrapheneOS. It's strange Google doesn't ship more for the Pixel OS but that's the way it is right now. It takes them around 4 weeks to make a release and even longer when including the time for adding changes to it so there's a long delay built into the process. They should fix it but are clearly not prioritizing it without media pressure that's not happening. They do a lot better than other OEMs but that's much different from doing a good job.
Android Security Bulletins don't list the vast majority of firmware, driver, HAL and especially Linux kernel vulnerabilities. Those list a large subset of the High and Critical severity Android Open Source Project (AOSP) vulnerabilities backported to older releases along with a tiny portion of non-AOSP vulnerabilities. AOSP vulnerabilities below High and Critical severity aren't backported so those aren't listed. Non-AOSP vulnerabilities for Pixels are covered in the Pixel Update Bulletins with many of those being vulnerabilities in components used by other devices. Each OEM is supposed to make their own equivalent to the Pixel Update Bulletins, but they aren't required to provide those updates to claim the latest patch level.
It has remotely exploitable vulnerabilities in the firmware, Linux kernel, kernel drivers, userspace drivers and HALs. Those don't require installing anything on your device to exploit. There are publicly available proof of concept exploits for a bunch of these vulnerabilities.
I too have a 4a that is still ticking thanks to Lineage!
The only problem I've discovered is that group texts sometimes don't work (I can't see others' replies or worst case I don't receive the group text at all). Not sure if anyone else has run into this, seems like it could be related to RCS and unlocked bootloader not playing nice.
I have stock Android on a Pixel 10 and RCS group texts don't work here either. Some people just can't be added to the group and some people just don't receive the texts.
I flashed my 10 with Graphene as soon as it was supported and RCS was a bit of a challange as well. Both because of the recipient's device/settings as well as my own privacy settings.
I have yet to find a banking app that refuses to work on LineageOS. The only problem is if you root your phone, in which case you'll have to use Magisk to hide root from those apps, which also works fine so far.
Revolut is notrious in this regard. If memory serves, they explicitly check the build string for LineageOS and block the app if it matches. The workaround at the time was to build the ROM yourself with a new build name string.
> Revolut is notrious in this regard. If memory serves, they explicitly check the build string for LineageOS and block the app if it matches. The workaround at the time was to build the ROM yourself with a new build name string.
What possesses companies to do things like this? A customer running a current version of LineageOS is going to have better security than running the out of date Android version that came with the phone. An attacker who wants root on something that will run the bank app doesn't have to use a different OS, they can just use any of this month's CVEs to root the "approved" version. Even requiring the latest patches -- which would exclude entirely too many actual customers' phones -- wouldn't stop attackers from controlling their own devices, because they could root the device before installing the patch and then install the patch for the vulnerability they used to get root on the device where they already have it.
And attackers who are going to modify the system to carry out an attack inherently have some kind of software development capacity, so measures like this have no effect on them and all they actually do is interfere with the ability of honest normies to replace their out of date OS with a version that is less likely to be compromised by attackers.
Are they just taking kickbacks from Google or something?
I suspect that especially banks have paranoid lawyers that probably don't understand the situation entirely, and perhaps because of that, mandate that all means have to be used to prevent non-official builds from being used, so that they cannot be sued (for some reason) if "something" goes wrong. Though I don't know if they are consistent and also apply the same reasoning to phones that don't have active security updates any more.
I feel like "the lawyers told us to do something stupid for no legitimate reason" is just one part of a bureaucracy trying to blame another part for the fact that the bureaucracy itself is doing something stupid for no legitimate reason.
This is objectively not true because there are companies, even banks, where this level of stupidity has not prevailed. In turn this implies that the others are doing something which is different but possible, and the scoundrel companies could be doing that too.
Even if the something is no more than engaging less fatuous attorneys.
You seem to be assuming that there is actually a law requiring them to do this. If you believe this to be the case, please identify it so it can be targeted for repeal.
Whereas if there isn't, the obvious alternative is that the other banks have lawyers who don't erroneously advise their client that they're required to do something they're not.
> there are companies, even banks, where this level of stupidity has not prevailed
Yes, because that particular set of lawyers haven’t said it has to be blocked. Doesn’t mean my statement that lawyers have final say is “objectively not true”.
Good to know. I'm using N26 and they work just fine in Graphene OS. What I do is I create a private space for the apps needing play services, which I keep locked most of the time. This acts as a separate profile and when locked, the apps including play services are completely off. My main profile uses only open source apps and no play services.
I actually called N26 (I'm a Metal customer with my own phone support) and asked will they support Graphene OS or no, and they said to me they will and gave me instructions what to keep in mind when installing the app.
I applied to open an N26 account, and after completing all the necessary documentation they then told me I had to install their app to activate the account. Forget it.
Instead I opened an account with Wise, and have never once been forced to use their app. One occasion where some ID verification process pushed me towards the app online, I spoke with support and everything was sorted without it. Wise.com, just need a web browser and a phone number, zero phone app dependency.
Insurance against collapse of the bank. FDIC doesn't insure against fraud because you expanded your trust relationship across multiple third parties with credentials to access your account.
This is the problem: it was a cat and mouse game always. I managed even strong integrity with keybox stuff and so on. Yes it is possible. But if you really need to do send money or e. g. want to pay with NFC, it gets rather stressful. Yes, I got everything working (Note 10 pro on LOS 23), but never longer than a few month.
I just decided to completely stop paying with NFC. I always carry a few cards with me and Wero is already working in a few spots, which requires just your banking app and a working camera.
I don't even have Google Wallet installed anymore.
Not everywhere, unfortunately. There are places in the world where only accepting digital payments is the norm and they won’t serve you if you pay in physical cash.
And the problem is people stopped paying cash, thus the facility was largely withdrawn. I don’t know what the answer is, but my gut says if cash remains legal tender, businesses should be obliged to accept it as a form of payment.
Otherwise, vote with your wallet wherever possible and prefer those businesses that do accept cash.
And even if they theoretically can serve you, one generally doesn't want to be 'that guy'.
I'm glad the option is still there in most places, but it's clear most people don't actually care for cash (neither do I for that matter, other than as a backup solution).
And I’m in Austria. Plenty of businesses still ONLY accept cash. And not just small rural concerns. Had lunch in the city yesterday and the restaurant only accepted cash payment.
In Berlin they started following the EU law and you can quite often pay with a card. Even in places like biergartens. Still having cash when going to a Kneipe, although last time they also accepted cards which was a bit weird...
There are alternatives to Google Pay in Europe which work on GrapheneOS and it's likely most of those work on a production (user) build of LineageOS with a locked bootloader too. Only a few are specifically permitting GrapheneOS, and those would also be willing to explicitly permit a subset of LineageOS devices too. They'd need to start keeping a bit more of the standard security model and features intact which wouldn't be a large change. They'd mostly just need to make full production builds and start officially supporting locking. Having the privacy and security improvements done by GrapheneOS is in no way a requirement for compatibility with those financial apps.
This really is really a great development. I really just hope that will be true for the new European Digital Identity Wallet as well and we see adoption across multiple industries.
The state for me personally is that my joint bank account with my wife uses a play integrity protected banking app (changing your own a accounts to a better bank is one thing). Also beyond banks things now require proprietary 'secure' TAN apps like my insurance broker. The issue is that for me every a new problem like this popped up and to find solutions take time over and over. Even thing that work now may stop working the next minute because there is no real effort of fintech and its management to keep compatible with niche devices. It is mostly either coincidence or the effort of tech savvy individuals at those companies.
We only can hope that a large group of people including regulators get sanctioned or mandated not to use any US tech even privately so they see little offer is left even inside Europe that is truly sovereign.
I gave up for now (after about 10 years exclusive on LineageOS ). I actually bought a pixel to have Graphene as a way out of vendor ROMs again, but I still don't have the energy to switch (alone reregistration all those TAN apps takes ages often involving waiting weeks for stupi snail mail activation letters)
In Germany that would be market places like eBay or Amazon (i.e. non-originally replacement parts). Original ones go for around 45 EUR (iFixit). But I guess you wouldn't care too much about original parts at that age.
I bet sprinkle beside the bath is ok, but toilet plop is not ( I have seen the second one, I suggest grabbing it without any delay, better grab it working because you have to grab it anyways)
I replaced battery in mine for like 90 EUR and several months in dropped it and broke the screen. Would still use it instead of 9a, love how light and compact the phone was. At least now I have a spare phone to root and do stuff with that I couldn't on my main one.
What happened there, ... After official support by Google for the 4a stopped, I remember checking LOS out, and found that it wasn't supported there either. Did I hallucinate that, or did LOS resume support afterwards? Or maybe I'm mixing up LOS and graphene
I was secretly hoping I didn't misread and Linaro wiki would be up again, I really wish we could just install mainline linux on those Android phones...
I second this. I've been using Lineage on older, second-hand OnePlus phones for about a decade now, currently a OnePlus 8T. You can pick them up pretty cheaply from eBay, and they're solid devices, often in near-new condition. Pair them with Lineage, and you're golden.
That might be coming to an end, though, if OnePlus no longer allows bootloader unlocking.
I flashed my 4XL today (from the no longer supported Graphene). It's nice to be able to keep a 7 year old device runnin, when most people bin theirs after 3-4 years.
They patched CVE-2026-43499 even for out of support kernels[1] so that's something. The bigger problem is CVEs in proprietary components (drivers, blobs, firmware).
That's very misleading since the vast majority of serious Linux kernel vulnerabilities aren't patched for these end-of-life devices. That vulnerability patched due to media coverage based on their policy to do so. It's no more severe than many of the unpatched ones.
It's very misleading since the vast majority of serious Linux kernel vulnerabilities aren't patched for these end-of-life devices. That vulnerability patched due to media coverage based on their policy to do so. It's no more severe than many of the unpatched ones.
The vast majority of kernel vulnerabilities aren't backported to end-of-life devices. Special cases are made for certain vulnerabilities with a lot of media coverage. Firmware, kernel drivers, userspace drivers and HALs on end-of-life devices go without patches in general.
Notably, this is still cutting out the middleman and bypassing the extra review that that entails. It's fine as long as you trust everybody involved in publishing the repo, which is probably fine here, but a thing to keep in mind.
I am sure he is quite happy to have people disagree with him on HN. He usually wears it as a badge of pride. We might even have a follow-up in a couple of days about how these techy weirdos lost the plot.
And yet, it seems you do not know that the gap between men and women shrinks the longer the distances get? Also, as you are saying yourself: this is about distributions, not necessarily about the top 0.1% of the world. The article makes the claim that on average, women would perform better in ultra-endurance events, supporting their thesis that women actually did the hunting back then. You might disagree with this, but the article is more nuanced, and reducing it to the rage-bait comment above does not do it justice at all.
reply